Yep the UK didn't trade pre EU, well done.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Yep the UK didn't trade pre EU, well done.
This is Stanley levels of not properly reading the post you're replying to.
yep, well done on the introspect
Historic British trade isn't exactly something to be proud of. The country certain did well out of it, at least until all those empires destroyed each other fighting over who gets to plunder less developed nations.
Every country has the right to trade with the EU
However, not every country can compete for EU contracts. This is why, UK based airlines are setting up EU subsidiaries (so they don't lose the right to work in the EU), and why Lloyds of London is setting up a subsidiary in Berlin.
This doesn't mean that the UK is shedding ten's of thousands of jobs to the EU... yet. What it means is, companies are preparing to move their operations to the EU, if it looks like the UK companies will lose their right to work in the EU.
But if you aren't convinced yet, please watch this video.
For my own work, its pretty clear that as things stand, we will lose the right to work in the EU under a T May Brexit. Management are considering opening two subsidiaries, one in Ireland and one in the Netherlands. If we do lose the right to work in the EU, then the majority of the jobs will be transferred to the EU, but not all of them.
There is a huge difference between trading with the EU, and working in the EU. Saying the two things are the same, is fundamentally wrong.
Right now, we are mostly hearing about UK financial companies that are working in the EU, and their passporting rights. But they are by no means the only ones that work there, and may not even be the largest employers of UK citizens that work in the EU.
The only part of the Empire worth a damn to Britain economically was India, and that relationship was based on trade, not plunder.
What does 'plunder' even mean? Ships like the old Spanish galleons leaving the New World laden with gold and silver? It didn't do the Spanish much good - all that gold caused inflation and destroyed their native industry, with their economy not recovering until the second half of the 20th century. Most countries in the European Empires were at subsistence level - there was nothing to plunder.
The only way colonies could theoretically benefit the mother country substantially was through a monopoly on trade a la the mercantile system, but even that was challenged by nineteenth century laissez faire liberalism.
Cameron risked chaos by promising a referendum and started the slide.
Now if May loses this election, whoever the next PM is inherits a half baked mess and that'll set back the Trade negotiations even further.
Now if May loses this election, whoever the next PM is inherits a half baked mess and that'll set back the Trade negotiations even further.
I think you need to do a little bit of reading on the subject kid.
This is not only incorrect, but almost offensive. Do yourself a favor, pick a history book (not written by somebody from the UK) and read it. Alternatively google incidents (Just to name a few) like the famine in Bengal, where a quarter of the population died, and the British watched.
Ignorant.
I've done plenty of reading of economic texts, but not much left-wing propaganda with no interest in economic analysis.
Not even right-wing historians bother denying that the British plundered India these days.
You have to remember Will hasn't caught up to the 20th century yet.
What has that got to do with 'plunder', or any economic benefit to Britain from its Empire? Britain benefited from World trade, a minority of that trade with its own colonies, but its real strength was its head start in the Industrial Revolution.
Last edited:
What the Empire was trading exactly? If I'm not mistaken the Empire benefited greatly from the colonies since the goods were coming from the colonies.
When they conquered India, it was one of the richest collection of kingdoms in the world. They left it an extremely poor country, but sure, they didn't "plunder" it.
Read a book.
The world's trade and economy changed completely over those 200 years.
In 1757 both the economies of East and West were still overwhelmingly agricultural, but by 1948 the West had shifted to a largely industrial economy, whereas the East, and India, had not altered their ancient mode of existence. It wasn't 'plunder' but the lack of industrial development that caused India's eclipse.
You might argue that it was the self-interested hand of Britain on the tiller that kept India mired in the old ways. But, without the British presence, would those benighted little kingdoms you spoke of really have thrown off centuries of medievalist autocracy and embraced the opportunities of the modern world like 19th century Singapores and Hong Kongs? I doubt it. What development that occurred was largely down to the British.
The East in general was slow to abandon the old ways. Thailand never suffered colonization, but didn't rush to embrace the new world. The only Eastern state to enthusiastically do so was Japan, and that only after a humiliating encounter with Admiral Perry in Tokyo Bay.
benighted little kingdoms? Stopped reading. Won't bother replying. Continue living ignorantly.
We are eternally grateful that you taught us your advanced language. That legacy of your benevolent rule allows me to tell y̶o̶u̶ your post to feck off.
I had nearly the same view of Britain's relationship with India till about 2 years back. I was also an Idiot for having that view.
I'm genuinely curious, what changed your view?
I never argued with the economic exploitation in the first place for a start.
What I did think back then was that the political outcomes for the region as a result of the empire were positive at least for India (the country now) . I also believed in the gift of English language and railways.
Over the last couple of years, I have visited there more often and read more about the politics of South Asia. The poverty that is a result of systemic changes made by the empire. The fledgling industries were dismantled and the goal of agriculture shifted from feeding the population there to feeding the industry here.
The British era railways are really not a positive for India, they are more of a burden. Not fit for purpose, focus excessively on the old colonial outposts rather than the masses of the country. They really were never designed to be accessible for rural population. That said, 70 odd years should have been enough to sort it out but the country never managed to resulting in bulging overpopulated cities and poor rural population.
Its funny how the press and media in India dont do enough to highlight all these things and large chunk still think that there were benefits from the colonial rule. We did a seriously good PR job while leaving.
Last edited:
I find it interesting in the last week Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. have all changed their policy on worker Visa's to prioritise their citizens. Its the kind of policy that when has been suggested in the UK during the Brexit debates has been labeled racist.
I know this forum and this thread especially is very much pro-free movement but the world as a whole seems to be going drip by drip they other way, with country's worrying more and more about how they are going to provide work for their citizens.
I know this forum and this thread especially is very much pro-free movement but the world as a whole seems to be going drip by drip they other way, with country's worrying more and more about how they are going to provide work for their citizens.
I never argues with the economic exploitation in the first place for a start.
What I did think back then was that the political outcomes for the region as a result of the empire were positive for India (the country now) . I also believed in the gift of English language and railways.
Over the last couple of years, I have visited there more often and read more about the politics of South Asia. The poverty that is a result of systemic changes made by the empire. The fledgling industries were dismantled and the goal of agriculture shifted from feeding the population there to feeding the industry here.
The British era railways are really not a positive for India, they are more of a burden. Not fit for purpose, focus excessively on the old colonial outposts rather than the masses of the country. They really were never designed to be accessible for rural population. That said, 70 odd years should have been enough to sort it out but the country never managed to resulting in bulging overpopulated cities and poor rural population.
Its funny how the press and media in India dont do enough to highlight all these things and large chunk still think that there were benefits from the colonial rule. We did a seriously good PR job while leaving.
Same thing happened to Malta. The islands rebelled against Napoleon’s garrison and naively asked the Brits to blockade the port to cut French supplies to the city. When the French were kicked out, the empire became Malta’s protector but they swiftly changed the deal into full blown colonisation.
Aware of Malta’s strategic importance + its historical link to Italy, the British empire made sure that the Maltese would be solely dependent to them. They killed off any industry that wasn’t linked to UK military turning this once prosperous island into a military fortress which was totally dependent to the empire. That caused such a high level of poverty that at one point there was a need to create a coin for the Maltese (the third farthing).
Despite everything the Maltese remained loyal to the crown even when Mussolini offered all Maltese full Italian citizenship in exchange of the allegiance. That cost the Maltese dear as the islands was heavily bombed (the most bombed country during WW2) and nearly starved to death.
Following the war the Maltese were rewarded with some tin medal, some spare change to rebuild the country and loads of job cuts which crippled the economy. That caused an outrage which was followed by a referendum on independence.
Since then, our economy grew stronger in every passing year and I dare to say we have a better standard of living then the Brits.
Its amazing how the same scarmongering tactics used in Malta is currently being used with Scotland. Scotland won't survive without Westminster etc etc etc.
Last edited:
Scotland is a very different story to ex-colonies. it was basically a failed state prior to the Act of Union. It then blossomed as a major player in the UK and the British Empire (in which Scots were disproportionately prominent) before suffering from post-war desindustrialisation (like the North of England and South Wales). It is legitimate to ask how it would fare as an independent state in an era of low oil prices, particularly as Ireland has had a 30 year head start in promoting itself as the business-friendly, low-tax, English speaking gateway to Europe.
Martin Sorell was arguing this today. I can see the logic really, it makes some sense. The main problem is the difficulty in understanding what Theresa May actually values, or believes in. More than any of the other party leaders I struggle to understand or empathise with her, she's such a black box.Or if she has a larger majority, with lots of lovely soft brexit tories, she doesnt need the hard brexit tories to get it through
I could maybe believe it, if she hadn't immediately gone all in for hard Brexit before anyone had even had the time to put serious pressure on her. One minute even the Leave campaigners were talking about how of course we'd stay in the single market, and almost overnight May and her tribe of goblins were on TV announcing that obviously Brexit meant we'd sever every possible link with Europe, lay mines in the channel and invade those horrible dagos if they even looked at Gibraltar funny.
I can understand New Zealands choice though. It's a jewel of a country and the last thing they want to do is open the borders and encourage a mass of new people. The infrastructure wouldn't cope. There's only one motorway in New Zealand (which is tiny) and a terrible, terrible railway (it's like one track on the North Island). The roads are in excellent condition on the whole but there's not that many. Several areas of the North Island are pretty damn remote.
New Zealand is a beautiful country and i would hate to see it built up, but the same argument can be made about any country no matter how built up or rural it is, you let alot of people in and you have to add infrastructure, it can't be ok for one country to close it borders and put it's own nationals first and racist for another.
Last edited:
The difference is that New Zealand would struggle to add more infrastructure because of the environment. When I was travelling around the country (especially the South Island) I was surprised they were able to build roads along sections as it was. To put in Motorways for example on the South Island would cost a crazy sum of money compared to other countries. Railways would be nigh on impossible. Doing either would have a devastating effect on the wildlife. That's not the same issue in countries like Australia or the States.
I do agree with your point though, I don't think it's racist personally. Immigration for me has never been about racism, it's more to do with the feeling that by closing our borders we're simply pushing away from human progression and going back in time to when it was every country for themselves. It's a Medieval way of thinking in my mind and i'm more of a forward thinker.
Not beyond the realms of possibility that the hard brexit posturing was just a means of assuaging her right and nullifying UKIP, and the intent was always to pivot back to a saner strategy after consolidating at an election. Believe it when I see it, though.
I think so far with May what we've seen is the worst possible imaginable scenario and then some so I think there's zero chance of this sort of scheming.
I think it's a bit above zero, they certainly aren't above lying about their plans for political purposes as evidenced by this election - no chance in seven hells that they decided to do this just recently.
You have a point it would be harder to add infrastructure to lots of places in New Zealand, but you could certainly add a lot more then they have an accommodate a lot more then 4 million. Plus its not like other countries arn't going to have to make difficult decisions regarding their environment, the UK is going to have to made difficult decisions about are green areas with our housing shortages and travel infrastructure congestion.... so i don't think its reasonable to say one country doesn't have to make those difficult choices while another does.
Im glad you don't think immigration is solely a racist issue, too many people( from both sides of the argument) do think like that especially when it comes to uk borders. I also agree with you that just closing your countries borders is backwards thinking, and is either delaying the problem or just pushing it onto other countries, this is a global issue that needs to be addressed globally, the problem is the world the world is very fractured, everyone has different priorities and getting the world to come together and make what will be incredibly difficult decisions on things like the environment and population is pretty much impossible.
I dunno i don't have the answer, and i'm not going to pretend to have one, it would be great if we all lived in world where we people could go live where they want and that all be fine.... but we don't and i don't think anyone really has an idea of how we get to that kind of world.
but my main point is i find it interesting that two Liberal governed country's (Australia and New Zealand) have decided this is the way forward, while i've seen people in this country been called everything from a Racist to a Nazi for suggesting we have a similar policy. Not sure what that means but its interesting.
I never argued with the economic exploitation in the first place for a start.
What I did think back then was that the political outcomes for the region as a result of the empire were positive at least for India (the country now) . I also believed in the gift of English language and railways.
Over the last couple of years, I have visited there more often and read more about the politics of South Asia. The poverty that is a result of systemic changes made by the empire. The fledgling industries were dismantled and the goal of agriculture shifted from feeding the population there to feeding the industry here.
The British era railways are really not a positive for India, they are more of a burden. Not fit for purpose, focus excessively on the old colonial outposts rather than the masses of the country. They really were never designed to be accessible for rural population. That said, 70 odd years should have been enough to sort it out but the country never managed to resulting in bulging overpopulated cities and poor rural population.
Its funny how the press and media in India dont do enough to highlight all these things and large chunk still think that there were benefits from the colonial rule. We did a seriously good PR job while leaving.
You didn't. It's just that your press never reports on it. Ours does. There's a great interview with Shashi Tharoor on a British? (I think) channel where they try to talk about the benefits and he shuts it down. Of course, that was never reported in the UK.
Yes, I don't know where the PR comment came from as I have never got the impression that Indians are under any illusions as to the Raj. Introducing cricket and setting up the Archaelogical Survey of India don't really balance out the rest. And the argument that the French/Belgians/Germans etc did worse things in their colonies is a fairly desperate line of argument.
I can assure you that Scotland is in a much better state then Malta was back then. At one point there wasn't even enough money to pay the civil servants. That's how crippled the economy was.
No doubt (I confess I don't know much about Malta) but Scotland has been a fully engaged partner in the UK rather than an exploited colony. As such, Scots cannot assume that things can only get better, particularly with fracking putting a de facto cap on oil prices.