Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

The main practical difference the withdrawal agreement preventing an extension makes is that when it came to leaving, Theresa May was not allowed to leave the EU unless the UK Parliament voted for a withdrawal agreement or voted for no deal, whereas Boris must leave on no deal by default unless the UK Parliament votes for him to seek an extension etc.

So the default is no deal and the Conservative Party is composed of people who either want a complete no deal or who are at least open to it as a possibility, with the threat of losing the whip (and, ultimately, their seats).

I cant see any Tory backbenchers stepping out of line, and I cant see Boris being able to spin an extension as a positive thing.

I also think that the sides are just too far apart in terms of their bona fides to enter a deal (the EU produces a proposal and the UK rejects it, but does little else).

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So the default is no deal and the Conservative Party is composed of people who either want a complete no deal or who are at least open to it as a possibility, with the threat of losing the whip (and, ultimately, their seats).

I'm not so sure. A lot of the newer MP's from places like Blythe Valley were never supposed to win. I think that while the party may be pro-Brexit, it's also pro-deal. They ERG-type were always a vocal minority. They were only influential because May had no majority at all.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I cant see any Tory backbenchers stepping out of line, and I cant see Boris being able to spin an extension as a positive thing.

I also think that the sides are just too far apart in terms of their bona fides to enter a deal (the EU produces a proposal and the UK rejects it, but does little else).

The thing is that Brexit has now happened. I think the party as a whole does want a deal. It just needs to have a vision on what sort of compromises it can stomach for the sake of a deal.

Covid-19 has given us a nice preview of what no deal could mean. Empty supermarket shelves are not something people will appreciate and disrupting supply lines such as to replicate this will destroy the Conservative party. They know this. There is nobody else to blame.

In times gone by, the EU offered a convenient scapegoat but that was when nobody had to worry about the availability of food and toiletries. Johnson might be enjoying being Churchill but Churchill lost to Attlee in 1945.

Gerry T

BanditLuke wrote: »

BBC News - Delay Brexit deadline amid coronavirus, say MEPs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52101096

And so it begins

Funny how the article puts a slant that MEP's are urging Johnson to delay. Click Bait ? I would think so. There are two MEP's mentioned, neither would be names associated with the EU brexit team. So it does begin, the spin from the UK that the EU is requesting an extension, the EU have caved in will be next and then we'll have the UK has to save the EU, just like it saved Europe 75 yrs ago.

In fairness further in the article it does point out that the EU is looking for a clear timeline and will continue to look for rights for the EU citizens living in the UK, and implementation of the NI agreement as set out in the WA. But how many people get past the headline !!

serfboard

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, but ideological hardliners have fixed ideas and long memories.

Sam Russell wrote: »

They do indeed have long memories. They remember the flight from Dunkirk like they were there - maybe some of them were.

The interesting thing about WWII veterans and Brexit is that those who actually were there were against it, whereas the next generation, who definitely were not there, were most in favour of it.

johnnyskeleton

The other important point re WW2 is that the British and French armies' biggest mistake was believing that they were fighting the last war and so their plans were meant for 25 years previously.

The Britsh are now preparing for the economic world of the 1970s

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Now, they're a minority though and they're not going to risk torpedoing a Conservative government with Johnson at the helm.

No they probably won't. But politics is about making deals. They will use an extension to twist Johnson's arm in other Brexit ways. We'll shut up if you pursue our kind of Brexit. Otherwise we're going to be very loud about an extension.

ancapailldorcha

serfboard wrote: »

The interesting thing about WWII veterans and Brexit is that those who actually were there were against it, whereas the next generation, who definitely were not there, were most in favour of it.

Indeed. They were fed what historian Robert Saunders (author of an excellent book about the 1975 referendum, Yes to History) terms the "Tinkerbell Theory of History".

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1074634063322013696

Essentially, you have an inherent contradiction in the way the British perceive their history. They at once point in time commanded the greatest Empire the world has ever known. However, they've been inculcated with the naive idea of Britain as a champion of freedom against overwhelming odds.

The British love to celebrate events and people who fought heroically against the odds such as General Gordon at Khartoum and the battle of Rorke's Drift. What gets left out tend to be inconvenient details such as the resources of the British empire in 1940.

This was a useful lie which helped with the raising and maintaining of morale during the second world war but after that, it became quite toxic. It's reduced what should have been a period of deep introspection of history for the UK to superficial faith healing, jingoism and meaningless sloganeering.

And, as with Tinkerbell we just have to believe in Brexit for it to succeed. If people don't it will fail and when it does, it will be the left, liberals and other former remain voters who will be to blame for killing the dream of freedom.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

They do indeed have long memories. They remember the flight from Dunkirk like they were there - maybe some of them were.

I find the multigenerational transmission of that Blighty/Bulldog spirit to be fascinating. A core factor in Brexit.

Warning from Eurogroup president to get it sorted or risk breaking the Euro!

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0331/1127463-coronavirus-tracker/
Eurogroup president Mario Centeno warned the euro single currency could break apart if feuding governments don't bury the hatchet and agree on a rescue plan to help Italy and Spain.
The carefully worded warning came as the 19 members of the single currency still cannot agree on a rescue plan to reverse the devastating impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the European economy.

RobMc59

dogbert27 wrote: »

Good show of support between EU members

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_174623.htm

This appears to be a NATO mission in response to Spain asking them for assistance.

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

This appears to be a NATO mission in response to Spain asking them for assistance.

No mention of EU anywhere in the article.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Indeed. They were fed what historian Robert Saunders (author of an excellent book about the 1975 referendum, Yes to History) terms the "Tinkerbell Theory of History".

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1074634063322013696

Essentially, you have an inherent contradiction in the way the British perceive their history. They at once point in time commanded the greatest Empire the world has ever known. However, they've been inculcated with the naive idea of Britain as a champion of freedom against overwhelming odds.

The British love to celebrate events and people who fought heroically against the odds such as General Gordon at Khartoum and the battle of Rorke's Drift. What gets left out tend to be inconvenient details such as the resources of the British empire in 1940.

This was a useful lie which helped with the raising and maintaining of morale during the second world war but after that, it became quite toxic. It's reduced what should have been a period of deep introspection of history for the UK to superficial faith healing, jingoism and meaningless sloganeering.

And, as with Tinkerbell we just have to believe in Brexit for it to succeed. If people don't it will fail and when it does, it will be the left, liberals and other former remain voters who will be to blame for killing the dream of freedom.

A good example of that is 'The Dambusters'.

Barnes Wallace designed a bomb that bounced that delivered a serious charge behind a dam that blew a hole in it, releasing a huge amount of water into the valley below. Brilliant.

Unfortunately, one of the bombers crashed on its way to the dam, leaving an intact bomb for the Germans to reverse engineer and improve on - which they did.

The losses the Germans suffered were immense when the dams burst, but the British had to divert significant forces for the rest of the war to protect their own dams from the German version of the bouncing bomb. A touch of unexpected consequences which the propaganda does not mention.

Dunkirk is also used as propaganda, which fails to mention that the soldiers returned without their weapons, abandoning their tanks and heavy artillery, etc. so they could get out alive. They could fight the German invaders on the beaches - armed with pitchforks and shovels, but not with useful things like tanks and heavy artillery.

But that is the nature of propaganda - a bit of truth wrapped in a gigantic lie. It is quite obvious to us here that Brexit relies heavily on propaganda.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

A good example of that is 'The Dambusters'.

Barnes Wallace designed a bomb that bounced that delivered a serious charge behind a dam that blew a hole in it, releasing a huge amount of water into the valley below. Brilliant.

Unfortunately, one of the bombers crashed on its way to the dam, leaving an intact bomb for the Germans to reverse engineer and improve on - which they did.

The losses the Germans suffered were immense when the dams burst, but the British had to divert significant forces for the rest of the war to protect their own dams from the German version of the bouncing bomb. A touch of unexpected consequences which the propaganda does not mention.

Dunkirk is also used as propaganda, which fails to mention that the soldiers returned without their weapons, abandoning their tanks and heavy artillery, etc. so they could get out alive. They could fight the German invaders on the beaches - armed with pitchforks and shovels, but not with useful things like tanks and heavy artillery.

But that is the nature of propaganda - a bit of truth wrapped in a gigantic lie. It is quite obvious to us here that Brexit relies heavily on propaganda.

English football fans making airplane gestures at German fans is a direct result of that.

RobMc59

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The other important point re WW2 is that the British and French armies' biggest mistake was believing that they were fighting the last war and so their plans were meant for 25 years previously.

The Britsh are now preparing for the economic world of the 1970s

Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing but your comment about Britain and France making mistakes is offensive to the majority of British people and probably to French people too.
Have you any relatives who fought in any major war?

storker

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1074634063322013696

This was a useful lie which helped with the raising and maintaining of morale during the second world war but after that, it became quite toxic. It's reduced what should have been a period of deep introspection of history for the UK to superficial faith healing, jingoism and meaningless sloganeering.

A colleague of mine, with a bit of a gra for all things British said to me in a conversation not long ago "The Brits always win...when have they ever lost?"
Me: "Well, let's see...Arnhem 1944, Singapore 1942, Greece 1941, Crete 1941, France 1940, Norway 1940, Ireland 1921, the Somme 1916, First Passchendaele 1917, Gallipoli 1915, Spion Kop 1900, Isandhlwana 1879, Corunna 1809, Castlebar 1798, American War of Independence 1777, The Hundred Years War, Hastings 1066*....and that's an incomplete list."

His response "I didn't know about those". Of course not...they never mention the defeats.

*Alright including Hastings was a bit mischievous since the winners more or lessbecame the British we know today.

RobMc59

storker wrote: »

A colleague of mine, with a bit of a gra for all things British said to me in a conversation not long ago "The Brits always win...when have they ever lost?"
Me: "Well, let's see...Arnhem 1944, Singapore 1942, Greece 1941, Crete 1941, France 1940, Norway 1940, Ireland 1921, the Somme 1916, First Passchendaele 1917, Gallipoli 1915, Spion Kop 1900, Isandhlwana 1879, Corunna 1809, Castlebar 1798, American War of Independence 1777, The Hundred Years War, Hastings 1066*....and that's an incomplete list."

His response "I didn't know about those". Of course not...they never mention the defeats.

*Alright including Hastings was a bit mischievous since the winners more or lessbecame the British we know today.

You can't win them all but I disagree with your list,also the fact Britain always continued fighting on is preferable to standing by letting others do the fighting for you imo.

storker

RobMc59 wrote: »

You can't win them all but I disagree with your list,also the fact Britain always continued fighting on is preferable to standing by letting others do the fighting for you imo.

That's a different debate. A battle lost is still a battle lost. The only one in that list that might be debatable is Corunna.

Nody

RobMc59 wrote: »

Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing but your comment about Britain and France making mistakes is offensive to the majority of British people and probably to French people too.
Have you any relatives who fought in any major war?

Oh please drop the fake outrage; it is well known and accepted fact Germany pulled the pants down on the British and French generals relying on the static defense of the Maginot line which was based on WW1. The Maginot line was very well built and and functioned very well but it was based on static defense lines of the WW1 era with corresponding plans and tactics. Germany changed the playbook on how to execute the war based on their WW1 experiences (inc. the lessons learned from breaking through enemy lines but not being mobile enough to capitalize on it by pushing the advantage in the Spring offensive 1918). If you think British or French people find that offensive you're arguing that the history books should be rewritten with lies as well then to not offend them with the truth.

serfboard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The Britsh are now preparing for the economic world of the 1970s

Are you sure it's not the economic world of the 1950s they're preparing for?

Sam Russell

serfboard wrote: »

Are you sure it's not the economic world of the 1950s they're preparing for?

You could be more precise than that.

I'd say probably 1959 - the time of 'You've never had it so good!' - Harold Macmillan in the general election of that year. Of course it was followed by a decade of disaster, which was followed by another decade of disaster.

Peregrinus

The UK - a woolen country about to put itself through a hot wash.

Irish Praetorian

Nody wrote: »

Oh please drop the fake outrage; it is well known and accepted fact Germany pulled the pants down on the British and French generals relying on the static defense of the Maginot line which was based on WW1. The Maginot line was very well built and and functioned very well but it was based on static defense lines of the WW1 era with corresponding plans and tactics. Germany changed the playbook on how to execute the war based on their WW1 experiences (inc. the lessons learned from breaking through enemy lines but not being mobile enough to capitalize on it by pushing the advantage in the Spring offensive 1918). If you think British or French people find that offensive you're arguing that the history books should be rewritten with lies as well then to not offend them with the truth.

To be fair to the Maginot line (which isn't something I get to say very often) the idea was definitively NOT 'lets hide behind this line and I'm sure the Germans wont go through Belgium like they did the last time'. The idea was reasonable enough - a fortified line manned with second rate troops, able to either A. hold off any German attack long enough to allow proper French mobilization or B. divert any such German attack into Belgium and allow the Belgians and their defences to do the delaying. It did that job, and both the British and French were aware of and planned for the idea that the war would be fought in Belgium - it's just the particular part of Belgium they ended up fighting in, and utterly unprecedented German successes at Eben Emael, that upset matters.

storker

storker wrote: »

A colleague of mine, with a bit of a gra for all things British said to me in a conversation not long ago "The Brits always win...when have they ever lost?"
Me: "Well, let's see...Arnhem 1944, Singapore 1942, Greece 1941, Crete 1941, France 1940, Norway 1940, Ireland 1921, the Somme 1916, First Passchendaele 1917, Gallipoli 1915, Spion Kop 1900, Isandhlwana 1879, Corunna 1809, Castlebar 1798, American War of Independence 1777, The Hundred Years War, Hastings 1066*....and that's an incomplete list."

His response "I didn't know about those". Of course not...they never mention the defeats.

*Alright including Hastings was a bit mischievous since the winners more or lessbecame the British we know today.

Don’t forget General Gordon and Khartoum

RobMc59

Nody wrote: »

Oh please drop the fake outrage; it is well known and accepted fact Germany pulled the pants down on the British and French generals relying on the static defense of the Maginot line which was based on WW1. The Maginot line was very well built and and functioned very well but it was based on static defense lines of the WW1 era with corresponding plans and tactics. Germany changed the playbook on how to execute the war based on their WW1 experiences (inc. the lessons learned from breaking through enemy lines but not being mobile enough to capitalize on it by pushing the advantage in the Spring offensive 1918). If you think British or French people find that offensive you're arguing that the history books should be rewritten with lies as well then to not offend them with the truth.

Being British its considered normal to respect your country's efforts in both world wars and having a different opinion to someone who belittles that isn't fake outrage Nody old lad,Its a normal reaction I'd say!-if i criticised something about Ireland I'd expect a few replies disagreeing with me.

johnnyskeleton

RobMc59 wrote: »

Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing but your comment about Britain and France making mistakes is offensive to the majority of British people and probably to French people too.

It's an accurate assessment of the battle of France, which was a military disaster and resulted in the retreat of the BEF back to Britain and the capitulation of the French to the Germans.

The comment about how Britain and France lost the battle of France by fighting the last war comes, I believe, from Winston Churchill.

Regarding the offense, how is what I said any more offensive than what Brexiteers regularly say about the Germans? Or indeed, the Irish.

Have you any relatives who fought in any major war?

Does the war of independence count?

johnnyskeleton

RobMc59 wrote: »

Being British its considered normal to respect your country's efforts in both world wars and having a different opinion to someone who belittles that isn't fake outrage Nody old lad,Its a normal reaction I'd say!-if i criticised something about Ireland I'd expect a few replies disagreeing with me.

How respectful is it to have an inaccurate view of history and to use that for modern day political reasons, though?

Lemming

RobMc59 wrote: »

Being British its considered normal to respect your country's efforts in both world wars and having a different opinion to someone who belittles that isn't fake outrage Nody old lad,Its a normal reaction I'd say!-if i criticised something about Ireland I'd expect a few replies disagreeing with me.

Pointing out cold, hard historical fact is not to belittle anything. These events happened and are extensively well documented; including by British historians.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing but your comment about Britain and France making mistakes is offensive to the majority of British people and probably to French people too.
Have you any relatives who fought in any major war?

You have to be kidding?

How thin is someone skin to think that mistakes were not made during WW2 at all, and that to suggest that mistakes were made is offensive?

You've become a parody of yourself.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

You can't win them all but I disagree with your list,also the fact Britain always continued fighting on is preferable to standing by letting others do the fighting for you imo.

You disagree with reality and facts?

No way!

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

Pointing out cold, hard historical fact is not to belittle anything. These events happened and are extensively well documented; including by British historians.

It's a well known fact that in the vast majority of conflicts, the victors either made fewer mistakes or had overwhelming firepower, plus a liberal sprinkling of luck!