Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

Padre_Pio

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes. They could *have* kept them. You are simply incorrect. The same as they kept Gibraltar. It likely would have cost them a lot of money to keep them supplied, but at no stage was there any threat of military annexation of the non-leased territories from the Chinese.



The British agreed to hand it back in the 1980's. Long long before there was any idea of the Chinese state growing to have the influence they might have today.

Much like Brexit, there was all sorts of political and social machinations in the background that pushed the Brits into taking the decision to hand back Hong Kong.
It's hard to get a grasp of it through wiki articles, but HK was very different from the Falklands.
The British had no way of keeping the country supplied once the New Territories were handed back, the uncertainty led to plenty of social and economic turmoil, China were offering a pretty good deal to the Hong Kongers, Britain retained a lot of the business freedoms they had, it was just a better deal overall to give up control, than try to retain it for no real benefit.

I wouldn't say there was no threat of annexation, the party line from the Chinese was "We'll be very friendly if you give us back HK, we'll be unfriendly if you don't".

woohoo!!!

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes. They could *have* kept them. You are simply incorrect. The same as they kept Gibraltar. It likely would have cost them a lot of money to keep them supplied, but at no stage was there any threat of military annexation of the non-leased territories from the Chinese.



The British agreed to hand it back in the 1980's. Long long before there was any idea of the Chinese state growing to have the influence they might have today.

Much like Brexit, there was all sorts of political and social machinations in the background that pushed the Brits into taking the decision to hand back Hong Kong.
It's hard to get a grasp of it through wiki articles, but HK was very different from the Falklands.
The British had no way of keeping the country supplied once the New Territories were handed back, the uncertainty led to plenty of social and economic turmoil, China were offering a pretty good deal to the Hong Kongers, Britain retained a lot of the business freedoms they had, it was just a better deal overall to give up control, than try to retain it for no real benefit.

When the time comes, watch them walk away from NI, leaving a mess behind.

Donald Trump

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Much like Brexit, there was all sorts of political and social machinations in the background that pushed the Brits into taking the decision to hand back Hong Kong.
It's hard to get a grasp of it through wiki articles, but HK was very different from the Falklands.
The British had no way of keeping the country supplied once the New Territories were handed back, the uncertainty led to plenty of social and economic turmoil, China were offering a pretty good deal to the Hong Kongers, Britain retained a lot of the business freedoms they had, it was just a better deal overall to give up control, than try to retain it for no real benefit.

Yeah, but I'm not really trying to get into a discussion over HK. I just remarked that, contrary to the posters assertions that no country could ever sign such a deal, or that it would mean war, that in fact the UK did hand over even more control of a territory they had previously controlled, and within living memory. They didn't *have* to do it but for practical reasons they did..................same as how for practical reasons they could allow a NI only backstop.



Some posters appear to think that it would never happen. I'm only pointing out that it has happened before and gave one example.



Edit: For people who like figures. In 1980, around the time the talks were starting, the GDP of China was $191bn. The GDP of the UK was $565bn. As of 2017 the corresponding figures are $12.3tn and $2.6tn respectively. I'm just putting them here for the people who are aware that China currently has a lot of global power and think that they were always in that position.

cryptocurrency

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Treaty of Nanking gave the UK the rights to Hong Kong in perpetuity.

The 1898 treaty gave them the New Territories, for 99 years.

the century of shame in china. The Qings downfall.

Padre_Pio

cryptocurrency wrote: »

the century of shame in china. The Qings downfall.

They could be having a century of shame in the UK depending on how Brexit goes..

davedanon

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you guys please grow up and shut the fuk up about definitions of boats. It's embarrassing.

Quite agree, but would have to pull you up re: 'boats'. As my dad (who was in the Royal Navy) would always say:

"These aren't boats. These are ships. A boat is what hangs off the side of a ship."

Peregrinus

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes. They could *have* kept them. You are simply incorrect. The same as they kept Gibraltar. It likely would have cost them a lot of money to keep them supplied, but at no stage was there any threat of military annexation of the non-leased territories from the Chinese.

The British agreed to hand it back in the 1980's. Long long before there was any idea of the Chinese state growing to have the influence they might have today.

They wouldn't have needed "the influence they have today" to force the UK to cede Hong Kong. Nor would they have needed to mount a military invasion (though they certainly had the capacity to do that). They could simply have turned off the taps. Hong Kong is not remotely self-sufficient in drinking water and, if China wouldn't supply it, it would have been simply impossible to tank in the quantities needed from further off.

Gibraltar could be treated as a fortress, and could if necessary have withstood a siege, because it's basically a naval base with a small civilian population depending off it - about 30,000. Hong Kong has a population of 7.4 million. Even if the UK had ceded the New Territories when the lease expired and simply tried to retain Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, that's 3.5 million people with no drinking water no land capable of food production, and not self-sufficient in electricity generation. An economic blockade by China would have brought the place to its knees in days.

davedanon

tigger123 wrote: »

Source for this?

kidchameleon, voices in head thereof.

Kidchameleon

davedanon wrote: »

kidchameleon, voices in head thereof.

You would have seen that I provided a link when requested if you had bothered to look before posting that

Peregrinus

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You would have seen that I provided a link when requested if you had bothered to look before posting that

No, you didn't.

You provided a link to a Daily Express report about "Robert", who "used to run the Customs terminal at the Port of Dover", phoning in to a radio show to explain that " any border chaos following a no deal Brexit wouldn’t affect UK ports" because "any hold up on commodities will be in Calais".

Even leaving aside the rather dubious provenance of the claim, it's not a claim that there will be no delays. A hold-up's a hold-up, Kid. I don't think the supermarket manager with the empty shelves cares whether the lettuce is rotting at Dover or at Calais.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

They wouldn't have needed "the influence they have today" to force the UK to cede Hong Kong. Nor would they have needed to mount a military invasion (though they certainly had the capacity to do that). They could simply have turned off the taps. Hong Kong is not remotely self-sufficient in drinking water and, if China wouldn't supply it, it would have been simply impossible to tank in the quantities needed from further off.

Gibraltar could be treated as a fortress, and could if necessary have withstood a siege, because it's basically a naval base with a small civilian population depending off it - about 30,000. Hong Kong has a population of 7.4 million. Even if the UK had ceded the New Territories when the lease expired and simply tried to retain Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, that's 3.5 million people with no drinking water no land capable of food production, and not self-sufficient in electricity generation. An economic blockade by China would have brought the place to its knees in days.

The British have been hilariously funny about the end of Empire.

They cling in a gung ho, 'corner of a foreign field that will be forever England' way to the places they can defend or where their adversaries can be bullied, politically or militarily...Gib, The Falklands, The Chagos Islands (where they refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the UN ) and then declaim about the 'will of the people', ' what democrats we British are', 'the rule of law' etc etc when they are forced by geography, military might, insurrection they cannot contain, or political manoeuvres, to give back what they took.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British have been hilariously funny about the end of Empire.

They cling in a gung ho, 'corner of a foreign field that will be forever England' way to the places they can defend or where their adversaries can be bullied, politically or militarily...Gib, The Falklands, The Chagos Islands (where they refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the UN ) and then declaim about the 'will of the people', ' what democrats we British are', 'the rule of law' etc etc when they are forced by geography, military might, insurrection they cannot contain, or political manoeuvres, to give back what they took.

Cool story Francis.

Wrong unfortunately, but a nice yarn anyway.

Danzy

Aegir wrote: »

Cool story Francis.

Wrong unfortunately, but a nice yarn anyway.

I have to agree with you on this.

Pretending it is about their Empire is lazy.

Polls have shown that even Tory Brexiteer members will happily say good bye to Scotland and the 6 Counties.

FrancieBrady

Danzy wrote: »

I have to agree with you on this.

Pretending it is about their Empire is lazy.

Polls have shown that even Tory Brexiteer members will happily say good bye to Scotland and the 6 Counties.

I wasn't specifically referring to Brexit...just the history of their 'letting go'. There is no getting away from the different attitudes to different places. Faced with overwhelming odds against succeeding in holding on they have crept away muttering about the 'democrats we are' etc, but if there's a hint they can cling on, they use their superior fire power to repel and suppress (they did both on this island for instance, viciously tried to suppress then crept away when that became the only option)

Brexit is about wanting something so bad they show how they ultimately don't care what or who they jettison to get it.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't specifically referring to Brexit...just the history of their 'letting go'. There is no getting away from the different attitudes to different places. Faced with overwhelming odds against succeeding in holding on they have crept away muttering about the 'democrats we are' etc, but if there's a hint they can cling on, they use their superior fire power to repel and suppress (they did both on this island for instance, viciously tried to suppress then crept away when that became the only option)

Brexit is about wanting something so bad they show how they ultimately don't care what or who they jettison to get it.

Hong Kong was leased (well, part of it) for a fixed period, so had to be handed back. After this, the rest was unsustainable so the logical thing to do was to hand it all over to China, with guarantees in place.

No such fixed term applies to Chagos or Gibralter.

Who should the UK h"Hand Back" the Falklands to, the Penguins?

it is just more of your anti British bluster Francis.

Peregrinus

Most of what are now euphemistically terms the "British Overseas Territories" (which are basically British possessions with colonial status) have that status because the people want it - it may not be a great status, but it's better than the alternatives that are practically available to them. The obvious exceptions are:

- British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia/South Sandwich Islands, where there are no people.

- British Indian Ocean Territory, where the people very much didn't want it, but they have all been forcibly removed to Mauritius, so who cares?

- Akrotiri and Dhekelia (in Cyprus), where the people have never been asked, and in any event they are outnumbered by the British Army units stationed there.

All of the other overseas territories - there are about 10 of them - have varying degrees of self-government, but ultimate power is retained in London and ultimate power locally is exercised by the Governor, who is appointed by, accountable to and takes his or her orders from, London. They are mostly too small, in terms of population and resources, to be viable independent states, though in some of the larger self-governing territories - notably Bermuda - there are political parties which advocate progress towards independence, and the UK would probably be willing to negotiate this if a majority wanted it.

With some notable exceptions, therefore, the remants of the British empire do depend on local consent, or at least assent, to British rule.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Most of what are now euphemistically terms the "British Overseas Territories" (which are basically British possessions with colonial status) have that status because the people want it - it may not be a great status, but it's better than the alternatives that are practically available to them. The obvious exceptions are:

- British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia/South Sandwich Islands, where there are no people.

- British Indian Ocean Territory, where the people very much didn't want it, but they have all been forcibly removed to Mauritius, so who cares?

- Akrotiri and Dhekelia (in Cyprus), where the people have never been asked, and in any event they are outnumbered by the British Army units stationed there.

All of the other overseas territories - there are about 10 of them - have varying degrees of self-government, but ultimate power is retained in London and ultimate power locally is exercised by the Governor, who is appointed by, accountable to and takes his or her orders from, London. They are mostly too small, in terms of population and resources, to be viable independent states, though in some of the larger self-governing territories - notably Bermuda - there are political parties which advocate progress towards independence, and the UK would probably be willing to negotiate this if a majority wanted it.

With some notable exceptions, therefore, the remants of the British empire do depend on local consent, or at least assent, to British rule.

The tragedy of Empire is that 'assent' 'democracy' 'the will of the people' only comes into the conversation after vicious attempts to quell expressions of them.
Ireland being a case in point. Northern Ireland most recently so. There was absolutely nothing stopping them instituting the principles of the GFA in 1968/69 except their belligerent will to hang on and control a remnant.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The tragedy of Empire is that 'assent' 'democracy' 'the will of the people' only comes into the conversation after vicious attempts to quell expressions of them.
Ireland being a case in point.

Well, yes, but I think they've learned a certain amount in the past hundred years. Into the 1960s they were still resisting popular independence movements by force, but not really since then (except for the Chagos Islands)

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern Ireland most recently so. There was absolutely nothing stopping them instituting the principles of the GFA in 1968/69 except their belligerent will to hang on and control a remnant.

Be fair. What woud have stopped them was the principles of the GFA itself, which prioritise cross-community assent. That was not forthcoming in 1968/69.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes, but I think they've learned a certain amount in the past hundred years. Into the 1960s they were still resisting popular independence movements by force, but not really since then (except for the Chagos Islands)

The period isn't called 'The Endo Of Empire' for nothing. Perhaps 'the Peetering out of Empire' might be a better description.

Be fair. What woud have stopped them was the principles of the GFA itself, which prioritise cross-community assent. That was not forthcoming in 1968/69.

I'd have no problem being 'fair' if they had at least tried, but despite the factual evidence of the time showing that Wilson, Callaghan, Heath knowing what the issues were, they doubled down and shored up the status quo until they couldn't anymore.

mariaalice

Its, not the real age of empire that the little Englanders are looking back too. The England of their imagination never existed its a mish-mash of fantasy and nationalism.

If you watch the film of or read the book the hobbit by JR Tolkin the characters of the hobbit or are based on the sappers and ordinary soildres he met as an officer in the first world war, stout-hearted men of the shires or read Thomas Hardy or consider the poem Home Thoughts, from Abroad by Robert Browning, its that sort of fantasty England they hark back too its not real.

I was in the north of England and Scotland last week and a lot of the north of England is much poorer than the south and poorer than Ireland, inequality is much more pronounced than here as well.

All of those things are fulling Brexit.

Donald Trump

Peregrinus wrote: »

They wouldn't have needed "the influence they have today" to force the UK to cede Hong Kong. Nor would they have needed to mount a military invasion (though they certainly had the capacity to do that). They could simply have turned off the taps. Hong Kong is not remotely self-sufficient in drinking water and, if China wouldn't supply it, it would have been simply impossible to tank in the quantities needed from further off.

Gibraltar could be treated as a fortress, and could if necessary have withstood a siege, because it's basically a naval base with a small civilian population depending off it - about 30,000. Hong Kong has a population of 7.4 million. Even if the UK had ceded the New Territories when the lease expired and simply tried to retain Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, that's 3.5 million people with no drinking water no land capable of food production, and not self-sufficient in electricity generation. An economic blockade by China would have brought the place to its knees in days.

That is not relevant to my point in bringing it up and I did not say otherwise. (You will note that I qualify my post by saying it would have cost them a lot of money to do so).


Poster says something like "a country could never agree to something like the backstop" and that it would mean "war".

I simply pointed out that the same country (i.e. UK), agreed to something which was far more severe, without resorting to "war".

Their reasons for handing HK island back does not negate the fact that it did not "mean war".

The poster probably still remains skeptical about my "sauces" for that information.

Why the UK did it is not my point. That they did it, is. They did it out of practicality...........which would be the same reason they'd agree to a NI only backstop.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Its, not the real age of empire that the little Englanders are looking back too. The England of their imagination never existed its a mish-mash of fantasy and nationalism.

If you watch the film of or read the book the hobbit by JR Tolkin the characters of the hobbit or are based on the sappers and ordinary soildres he met as an officer in the first world war, stout-hearted men of the shires or read Thomas Hardy or consider the poem Home Thoughts, from Abroad by Robert Browning, its that sort of fantasty England they hark back too its not real.

that's the same as Irish republicans are motivated building a country whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contest of athletic youths and the laughter of happy maidens.

it's rubbish.

Bannasidhe

mariaalice wrote: »

Its, not the real age of empire that the little Englanders are looking back too. The England of their imagination never existed its a mish-mash of fantasy and nationalism.

If you watch the film of or read the book the hobbit by JR Tolkin the characters of the hobbit or are based on the sappers and ordinary soildres he met as an officer in the first world war, stout-hearted men of the shires or read Thomas Hardy or consider the poem Home Thoughts, from Abroad by Robert Browning, its that sort of fantasty England they hark back too its not real.

I was in the north of England and Scotland last week and a lot of the north of England is much poorer than the south and poorer than Ireland, inequality is much more pronounced than here as well.

All of those things are fulling Brexit.

Heard a few snippets of Max Hastings talking to Sean O Rourke on Radio 1 yesterday morning and - in addition to how completely unqualified he feels BJ is to be PM - he was talking about this nostalgia thing.
His take on it is that UKGB cannot accept it is now nothing more than a smallish country with a medium economy and that they blame the EU for that when in reality it's just the way things go. But there is a belief that if they can somehow 'go back' to the way things were then everything will return to these so-called 'glory days'.


Of course these rose tinted glasses are seeing only Downtown Abbey style toffs who are jolly decent people and not Jarrow Marchers poverty.
Personally, I do think Brexit stems from the same place as this whole Make America Great Again malarky. It's a failure to accept the world is ever changing and a desire to 'return' to a mythical past when alone the UK/US (delete as appropriate) stood - a colossus on the world stage peopled by true blue British/American (delete as appropriate) heroes. It's utter nonsense of course.
Dangerously, I think this is where the fascist element comes into it - that trope was a favourite tactic of the various fascist regimes - a harking back to a mythical time when 'their' people were respected (and feared) until jealous Johnny Foreigner, Not like 'Us' immigrants, and internal traitors willfully destroyed it and if the country can get rid of those malignant influences everything will go back to the way it was (which it wasn't really) because 'our' people are obvs top dogs and will arise again to/earn our rightful global domination.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

Most of what are now euphemistically terms the "British Overseas Territories" (which are basically British possessions with colonial status) have that status because the people want it - it may not be a great status, but it's better than the alternatives that are practically available to them. The obvious exceptions are:

- British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia/South Sandwich Islands, where there are no people.

- British Indian Ocean Territory, where the people very much didn't want it, but they have all been forcibly removed to Mauritius, so who cares?

- Akrotiri and Dhekelia (in Cyprus), where the people have never been asked, and in any event they are outnumbered by the British Army units stationed there.

All of the other overseas territories - there are about 10 of them - have varying degrees of self-government, but ultimate power is retained in London and ultimate power locally is exercised by the Governor, who is appointed by, accountable to and takes his or her orders from, London. They are mostly too small, in terms of population and resources, to be viable independent states, though in some of the larger self-governing territories - notably Bermuda - there are political parties which advocate progress towards independence, and the UK would probably be willing to negotiate this if a majority wanted it.

With some notable exceptions, therefore, the remants of the British empire do depend on local consent, or at least assent, to British rule.

That is a balanced version of the end of empire which couldn't exist today as it would be an anachronism.
The empire is long gone but there are a few posters here(not you)who are still obsessed with it.

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

that's the same as Irish republicans are motivated building a country whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contest of athletic youths and the laughter of happy maidens.

it's rubbish.

Sorry but, even if your understanding were true (and it isn't - you are mixing up two different things completely with your reference to Republicanism, but I will ignore that for this post.).


One of your examples was a "dream" of individuals ideals of how things could be in the future.


The other is a nostalgia looking back through rose tinted glasses at how great things were and wouldn't it be great if it was like that again. They think it did exist they way they believe it did and that they feel entitled for that to exist again for them. And it's unfair tot hem that they have lost heir rightful place as the being the "betters" of others

Bannasidhe

Aegir wrote: »

that's the same as Irish republicans are motivated building a country whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contest of athletic youths and the laughter of happy maidens.

it's rubbish.

I agree. It does stem from the same place. A mythical past where an isolated and 'pure' population who were homogeneous in matters of ethnicity, race, and religion lived perfect lives.

It's complete rubbish.

mariaalice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree. It does stem from the same place. A mythical past where an isolated and 'pure' population who were homogeneous in matters of ethnicity, race, and religion lived perfect lives.

It's complete rubbish.

But how we are pharsing it is part of the issue for the UK, a mostly urban educated eliter both laughing and looking down on those who revere the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final team or the speeches of Churchill and so on.

The thing is to understand why its is occurring and also you won't change people minds with evidence because the whole thing is a fantasy and not based on evidence in the first place.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Of course these rose tinted glasses are seeing only Downtown Abbey style toffs who are jolly decent people and not Jarrow Marchers poverty.
Personally, I do think Brexit stems from the same place as this whole Make America Great Again malarky. It's a failure to accept the world is ever changing and a desire to 'return' to a mythical past when alone the UK/US (delete as appropriate) stood - a colossus on the world stage peopled by true blue British/American (delete as appropriate) heroes. It's utter nonsense of course.
Dangerously, I think this is where the fascist element comes into it - that trope was a favourite tactic of the various fascist regimes - a harking back to a mythical time when 'their' people were respected (and feared) until jealous Johnny Foreigner, Not like 'Us' immigrants, and internal traitors willfully destroyed it and if the country can get rid of those malignant influences everything will go back to the way it was (which it wasn't really) because 'our' people are obvs top dogs and will arise again to/earn our rightful global domination.

there's been handbags at my parents bowls club between the brexiteers and the remainers, mainly thanks to my parents telling other septuagenerains that they are senile old gits who shouldn't have allowed to vote on an issue that will only affect them for a few years, but will affect their children and grandchildren for decades. (my mother is a firm remainer)

it is nothing about empire, or notions of ruling the world, it is about simply yearning back to a romantic simple, easier life of days gone by. A time when kids could play in the streets and you could go to the cinema and get a bag of chips on the way back and still have change from thruppence.

obviously they forgot about whooping cough and rickets, but I guess that is their memory deteriorating (as my mother not so politely told the club captain)

obviously, that then travels across the Irish sea and gets translated to "The Brits want their empire back", but it is nothing of the sort.

Of course, there are the knuckle draggers that want everyone who isn't a direct descendent of King Arthur to be thrown out of the country, but they are a small minority.

The problem with Brexit, is that there are a hundred and one reasons why people voted for it and ignoring that just ignores genuine issues that people have.

As a historian, would you look Kwasi Kwarteng in the eye and tell him he is a little Englander and that Brexit is all about a return of the British Empire?

J Mysterio

https://twitter.com/Ginger_Ollie/status/1171887371740176386

I probably wouldn't have posted this except for the fact that she is doubling down and replying in thread :pac:

Bannasidhe

mariaalice wrote: »

But how we are pharsing it is part of the issue for the UK, a mostly urban educated eliter both laughing and looking down on those who revere the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final team or the speeches of Churchill and so on.

The thing is to understand why its is occurring and also you won't change people minds with evidence because the whole thing is a fantasy and not based on evidence in the first place.

I don't think it as as simple as an urban elite vs everyone else tbh.

My best mate is a middle class remainer, retired civil servant, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Greater London Torydom - her father is a retired engineer, a magistrate living in the same leafy suburbs. He is a staunch leaver.
I listen to regulars rants from her about how wonderful her father's childhood was back in the 1950s -according to him - when he was growing up in a charming village in Yorkshire and how the country went to pot after they joined the EU and how they need to put the Great back in Britain. My mate cannot understand how well educated people can be so blind as to think the problems of the UK are the fault of the EU rather than their own or how they believe cutting themselves off will solve these problems as it just put them completely at the mercy of the same incompetent politicians who messed things up in the first place.
He is thrilled at the prospect of Brexit.
She is terrified. Everytime Boris makes another 'announcement' I get a PM saying "I'm scared"
Her son has gotten an Irish passport (he qualifies through his father) and is looking at moving over here because he feels Brexitted UK will be suffocating.

The people who are being completely ignored are the millions of remainers - and they are being called 'traitors' who don't respect the will of the people or democracy. That is a recipe for continued strife.