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

Igotadose

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'office' of PM is now completely disrespected. As well as having a heckler at Sheffield, the lady summing up after his speech and in earshot of Boris, let him have it too.

M.C. - 'I'd like to say I am a 'girly swot' (referencing his speech) and proud of it too. (Applause)
We'll see who lasts longer in our jobs...' (Uproarious laughter).

Why should we respect the office when he and his team don't (looking at you laying on the bench in the HoC, "Dickensian cosplayer" Moggie). POTUS45 doesn't get this either, if you act the clown, you'll get treated as one.

Bannasidhe

Aegir wrote: »

it isn't easy to untangle, you are right, although it is often said that the British don't actually appreciate the impact they have had on the world (both good and bad).

Obviously I can't speak for a whole nation, but I wold say what makes Britain special is that it gave some major things to the world, be that Shakespeare, Darwin, Babbage, the Meridian line or Cricket, Rugby and Football.

In fairness, I guess you could argue that the likes of Darwin and Cricket would not have been possible without empire, which is valid.

I think, in fairness, you would also have to accept that you are also looking at this from an Irish perspective and therefore a differing aspect of the British empire

Well, as a historian I am obliged to look at it from all perspectives and if required could make a staunch argument for empire from a British perspective - equally I could make a strong argument against from an Irish or Indian perspective. My job is to try and understand why people did what they did. Not judge them. And I do understand why the British empire existed. I also understand why client people's wanted to break away from it.

Note I have not said whether or not I believed the empire was either a good or bad thing - you are assuming because I am Irish I automatically think it is bad. The fact is it don't matter what I, personally, think of imperialism (British or otherwise). It existed. There was a British Empire. It was the largest empire the world has seen to date. And, like so many empires before it, it is over. Finished. Gone.
There are lingering tendrils yes - but those exist from the Roman empire too. And the Ottoman - sure without them we wouldn't have coffee which beats cricket in my book anyday, and I like cricket. Every empire has left it's mark in some way on the descendents of the people who, willingly or not, were part of it.

The tendrils of the British empire are still strong as it's demise was fairly recent. Within the lifetimes of people still alive (Joanna Lumley for example, was born in India to an officer in the British Indian Army, his father was also born in India and served in the Army there - but these men were not Indian. They were of Scottish/English descent. Freddy Mercury was born in Zanzibar to parents from India - they moved to Zanzibar as his father worked for the British Colonial Office).

It's influence on UKGB is likewise still strong both at an institutional level and a psychological/emotional level. In the same way as the Irish War of Independence still tugs at Irish people and the Irish State.

We might be (mostly) a "Nation Once Again" but it doesn't stop us singing the songs. Britannia may no longer rule the waves but that doesn't stop that being belted out on occasion.

To dismiss such recent history as of no consequence is like saying a person's experiences as a teenager have no bearing on their attitudes as an adult.

I am not saying Empire nostalgia is the reason for Brexit - I am saying it feeds into the reasons some people want Brexit.

Bannasidhe

Dytalus wrote: »

Indeed. There was an Irish nation, if not an Irish state.

I'm afraid you are incorrect.
There was never an Irish 'Nation'.
There was individual 'tuath' controlled by individual clans. Each tuath considered itself a country and each clan considered itself a race. That is how they referred to themselves in the Gaelic Annals and in documents. People from a different clan might be 'Gaelic' but they were still considered a different 'race' who lived in a different 'country'.

Yes -they shared a common language and legal system. Customs varied from region to region. But they were not, and never considered themselves to be a 'Nation'.
The situation was akin to the German states prior to 1870/71. There were independent/quasi independent German states but no such thing as a German 'Nation'.

Ireland was officially 'united' under a single ruler for the first time in 1542 - and even then it took until the early 1600's for that rule to cover the whole island in real terms.
Prior to that there never one person or centralised authority whose writ covered the whole island. Not even Boru.

Bannasidhe

J Mysterio wrote: »

Brian Boru was the recognized High King of Ireland.

Firstly: Boru was King 'with opposition' - same as every single other Irish High King. And his opposition was the O'Neills who had traditionally held the title so it was fairly staunch opposition.
Secondly: The Norse/Ostman settlements like Cork, Dublin, Limerick were completely independent.
Thirdly: 'King' in Gaelic Ireland did not mean the same thing as we think of as a 'king' - An Rí was an elected leader who could be deselected. The most powerful of the provincial Rí was more like a vice chairman with oversight of a specific geographical region. The Ard Rí was the CEO. He did not Rule - he oversaw. The only area under his direct control was Midhe - for the rest of the country he had to make allies, negotiate, bully, plea, marry off his children, kick the ****e out of opposition etc etc to get his way. He could not just issue a proclamation and it would be done. And if he tried he would be told where to shove his proclamation.

Dytalus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm afraid you are incorrect.
There was never an Irish 'Nation'.
There was individual 'tuath' controlled by individual clans. Each tuath considered itself a country and each clan considered itself a race. That is how they referred to themselves in the Gaelic Annals and in documents. People from a different clan might be 'Gaelic' but they were still considered a different 'race' who lived in a different 'country'.

Yes -they shared a common language and legal system. Customs varied from region to region. But they were not, and never considered themselves to be a 'Nation'.
The situation was akin to the German states prior to 1870/71. There were independent/quasi independent German states but no such thing as a German 'Nation'.

Ireland was officially 'united' under a single ruler for the first time in 1542 - and even then it took until the early 1600's for that rule to cover the whole island in real terms.
Prior to that there never one person or centralised authority whose writ covered the whole island. Not even Boru.

Fair point, I'll admit my understanding of (pre-)medieval Irish history is spotty at best. Can I ask for a clarification, though? And probably best to leave it there lest we go on a massive off-topic tangent.

It sounds to me like your point comes down to the definition of 'nation'. My understanding of old gaelic Ireland was that while there was numerous clans and kingdoms (each considering themselves what we would now consider a 'state' or something akin to one) they were still all gaelic Irish - in the same way the old german states were still...well, german. Are you using 'nation' in the 'nation state' term, or as the "people of a common language, history, language, culture, etc" which is my understanding of the term (although I'm aware it's synonymous with 'country' most of the time, I think it's a useful enough distinction when discussing historical cultures because so many countries merged, died, and so on the lines can get fuzzy between who is what).

Would I have been (more) correct in saying there were an Irish people (to avoid the confusion inherent in the term 'nation', and to specify the distinction between the Gaelic people in Ireland vs those across Great Britain), but not an Irish state/country?

Thirdly: 'King' in Gaelic Ireland did not mean the same thing as we think of as a 'king' - An Rí was an elected leader who could be deselected. The most powerful of the provincial Rí was more like a vice chairman with oversight of a specific geographical region. The Ard Rí was the CEO. He did not Rule - he oversaw. The only area under his direct control was Midhe - for the rest of the country he had to make allies, negotiate, bully, plea, marry off his children, kick the ****e out of opposition etc etc to get his way. He could not just issue a proclamation and it would be done. And if he tried he would be told where to shove his proclamation.

This, thankfully, I did know - which is why I avoid using the argument of "oh but Ireland did have a king". Although admittedly I only learned it through nerding out after playing Crusader Kings 2. For the better part of my life I did think it was more akin to a standard monarch as in our neighbours to the east and in Europe.

Bannasidhe

Dytalus wrote: »

Fair point, I'll admit my understanding of (pre-)medieval Irish history is spotty at best. Can I ask for a clarification, though? And probably best to leave it there lest we go on a massive off-topic tangent.

It sounds to me like your point comes down to the definition of 'nation'. My understanding of old gaelic Ireland was that while there was numerous clans and kingdoms (each considering themselves a 'state') they were still all gaelic Irish - in the same way the old german states were still...well, german. Are you using 'nation' in the 'nation state' term, or as the "people of a common language, history, language, culture, etc" which is my understanding of the term (although I'm aware it's synonymous with 'country' most of the time, I think it's a useful enough distinction when discussing historical cultures because so many countries merged, died, and so on the lines can get fuzzy between who is what).

Would I have been (more) correct in saying there were an Irish people (to avoid the confusion inherent in the term 'nation', and to specify the distinction between the Gaelic people in Ireland vs those across Great Britain), but not an Irish state/country?


This, thankfully, I did know - which is why I avoid using the argument of "oh but Ireland did have a king". Although admittedly I only learned it through nerding out after playing Crusader Kings 2. For the better part of my life I did think it was more akin to a standard monarch as in our neighbours to the east and in Europe.

The fly in the ointment was that there were countries/Tuath where the ruling clans were not Gaelic - according to how such things were decided.
To the Gaelic Irish they were all An Gall (foreigners). Most of these were of Norman descent. They referred to themselves as 'English' - although a lot of them of them couldn't speak a word of that language and were completely Gaelic in customs, language etc such as The Burkes of Mayo. Others, like the powerful Fitzgeralds of Kildare and Desmond and the Butlers of Ormond picked and chose which side of the ethic fence they were on depending on which was more advantageous at the time. The Gaelic Irish called them SeanGall- old foreigners. You also had the likes of the McSweeney's who were of Gaelic Scottish descent.
In the Norse towns they were Norse who intermarried with the Irish to become the Ostmen. They had their own way of doing things and, at times, were under the overall rule of a Norse king based elsewhere.

Even before the Vikings arrived there is evidence of 'not Gaelic' - parts of Mayo for example are referred to in the Annals as Mayo of the Saxons. Donegal translates as 'fort of the foreigners' yet for most of recorded history it was controlled by the very Gaelic O'Donnells.

So I question everything about the use of the word 'Nation' as it was not a 'Nation' in the sense of having a central authority of any kind, but also in that it was not populated exclusively by people's from one ethnic background who shared a legal system, customs etc.

And there we'll leave as I agree - we have gone off on a huge tangent but in an effort to make it less tangential I will say how it shows how myth and general lack of historical knowledge (not a dig at anyone!! I blame the education system) can impact on a people's concept of who they are.

Kidchameleon

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They aren't afraid of an election...they are justifiably afraid that Boris will take them out on a No Deal.

Why do you ignore this motivation, it is just juvenile to continue doing it. Everything has a context.

So accept the call for an election, win it, no deal problem sorted.

The problem is, they know they will lose. Why will they lose? Because the public want to leave so will vote for Johnson and Co.

Kidchameleon

FunLover18 wrote: »

Johnson has said numerous times that he doesn't want an election anyway so why is it is an issue that the opposition didn't vote for one?

What? He has asked for one twice!

He understands that the public would prefer not to have one

MadYaker

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So accept the call for an election, win it, no deal problem sorted.

The problem is, they know they will lose. Why will they lose? Because the public want to leave so will vote for Johnson and Co.

The majority want to leave with an agreement though to avoid the chaos crashing out will cause.

FrancieBrady

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What? He has asked for one twice!

He understands that the public would prefer not to have one

Ah...you allow Johnson to qualify his position but not the coalition which avoided an election at this moment because of the dangers in doing that.

We get it. :rolleyes:

FunLover18

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What? He has asked for one twice!

He understands that the public would prefer not to have one

So Boris has called for a general election twice, knowing that the public don't want one, but you're taking issue with the opposition who twice voted down a general election which the public don't want? Sounds to me like they're doing a better job of representing the public than Boris but keep calling them cowards, I'm sure they care.

FunLover18

Also not agreeing to an election when you think you might lose (which I'm not saying the opposition are doing on this instance) isn't cowardly, it's strategy and it's one of the reasons they changed the rules so that the PM needed parliamentary approval to call an election.

Kidchameleon

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'office' of PM is now completely disrespected.

Yeah Tony Blair n sh!t :rolleyes:

Kidchameleon

MadYaker wrote: »

The majority want to leave with an agreement though to avoid the chaos crashing out will cause.

Source

Strazdas

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yeah Tony Blair n sh!t :rolleyes:

Blair was PM for ten years and had quite a few successes - even though Iraq was a huge foreign policy failure.

The type of trouble Johnson is already in is ten times worse.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

It is there in the very terminology used. Just look at the thread on the reunification......what reunification? Ireland was never unified before the British came along.

The very language used by republicanism is evocative of a mythological past.

Was Ireland unified after the British came along?
Yes?
What exactly is wrong with the word reunification in that case?

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

Britain ... gave some major things to the world ... Cricket, Rugby and Football.

'Gave to the world'



People have been playing versions of these sports for centuries. Britain codified them because Britain was the first place that had to due to mass transit.

Britain, with cricket, no more invented hitting a ball with a wooden bat than Ireland did with hurling.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Telling someone to Google something is not a source, please provide one. Ill save you the time, you cant.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49551893
44% oppose no deal
38% support

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-agree-or-disagree-that-conservative-mps-who-vote-to-force-boris-johnson-to-delay-brexit-should-be-permitted-to-stand-as-conservative-candidates-at-the-next-election-2-2-2-2-2/
More people agree that they are fearful of it than not (which of course doen't prove anything - some people would probably support a no-deal bBrexit even if it felt chaos and austerity for their family)

My opinoin is that there's a sizeable portion of the levers who still want to leave with a deal even if it takes longer.

Professor Moriarty

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49551893
44% oppose no deal
38% support

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-agree-or-disagree-that-conservative-mps-who-vote-to-force-boris-johnson-to-delay-brexit-should-be-permitted-to-stand-as-conservative-candidates-at-the-next-election-2-2-2-2-2/
More people agree that they are fearful of it than not (which of course doen't prove anything - some people would probably support a no-deal bBrexit even if it felt chaos and austerity for their family)

My opinoin is that there's a sizeable portion of the levers who still want to leave with a deal even if it takes longer.

Here's a poll from last week (Don't Knows removed):

Leaving the EU with No Deal 32%
Leaving the EU with Theresa May’s Deal 8%
Leaving the EU but stay in the SM and CU 18%
Remaining in the EU/revoking Article 50 42%

McMurphy

What odds are the bookies giving that the Brits will still be in the EU on Nov 1st does anyone know?

Might be worth lobbing fifty quid on.

Professor Moriarty

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What odds are the bookies giving that the Brits will still be in the EU on Nov 1st does anyone know?

Might be worth lobbing fifty quid on.

Probably not worth it. 1/4

Cork Boy 53

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What odds are the bookies giving that the Brits will still be in the EU on Nov 1st does anyone know?

Might be worth lobbing fifty quid on.

Paddy Power latest odds

UK to Leave the EU in 2019?


No 4/9


Yes 13/8

Cork Boy 53

PP odds on month of next UK General Election


December 2019 13/10

November 2019 13/8

2020 or later 5/2

October 2019 40/1

McMurphy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Probably not worth it. 1/4

Yeah actually just had a peek after I posted, I thought they'd have been a little bit higher than they are.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

'Gave to the world'



People have been playing versions of these sports for centuries. Britain codified them because Britain was the first place that had to due to mass transit.

Britain, with cricket, no more invented hitting a ball with a wooden bat than Ireland did with hurling.

Bitterness is a terrible thing Tom.

SeaBreezes

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What odds are the bookies giving that the Brits will still be in the EU on Nov 1st does anyone know?

Might be worth lobbing fifty quid on.

JRM beat you to it. And he's already winning..

SeaBreezes

Aegir wrote: »

Bitterness is a terrible thing Tom.

Reality is a terrible thing, Aegir...

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

Bitterness is a terrible thing Tom.

Sure is, don't let it consume you because you find it difficult to hear some truths. Let's not fool ourselves into believing that the British Empire was built on anything other than avarice and brutality.

Timberrrrrrrr

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Sure is, don't let it consume you because you find it difficult to hear some truths. Let's not fool ourselves into believing that EVERY Empire was built on anything other than avarice and brutality.

Fixed that for you.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Sure is, don't let it consume you because you find it difficult to hear some truths. Let's not fool ourselves into believing that the British Empire was built on anything other than avarice and brutality.

That’s just more pathetic bitterness.