Yes they did but also the flatter lands north of the Ardennes.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Yes they did but also the flatter lands north of the Ardennes.
They get a pretty unfair rap over this. People talk about Chamberlain being an ‘appeaser’ for instance, but they neglect to mention that it was only 20 years after another world war which had cost tens of millions of lives, and as a result there was basically zero appetite in Britain or France for another huge war. Democratically elected leaders can’t just mobilize their country if the country doesn’t want to be mobilized.
Also nationalism and blaming foreigners was more of a default position back then rather than some crazy exception. The world was largely incredibly racist and nationalistic, including the eventual Allies, with anti-semitism in particular being rife. There was also much less of a globalistic attitude. When Chamberlain talked of ‘a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing‘ he was describing a feeling shared by most British people. The vast majority didn’t have any real lines of communication with other countries, didn’t travel overseas and only knew what little bits of information they read in newspapers or heard on the wireless. Would you send your kids to die in a place you’ve barely even heard of, to help people you feel no connection to and know nothing about? The public attitude was much like the American one later, let the foreigners sort out their own problems. It’s only in hindsight that you can see what a terrible mistake that really was.
The real danger signs with Hitler were his refusals to conduct international diplomacy in the normal way, breaking agreements he’d previously made, and using strongman tactics to try and force countries to comply to his demands (any of this sound familiar in the current political climate incidentally?). The problem with the timeline however is that although he was acting quite irrationally, most of those warning signs came after Munich, not before. When he broke the Munich Agreement it was the first concrete sign that he was not just a hardline populist, but actually someone who could not be negotiated with.
Incidentally, an interesting small historical fact that tends to be forgotten is that both Poland and Hungary annexed parts of Czechoslovakia as a result of Munich. It gives a little more relative insight into the attitudes of the period, beyond the simple ‘good guys/bad guys’ picture.
I think Chamberlain's appeasement was purely practical in that Britain was not equipped for war in 1938. He was right to appear an appeaser whilst authorising massive re-armament that meant by 1940 we had the spitfires and hurricanes that prevented German air superiority over the channel. Also if Britain had appeared a belligerent at that time then the US would have taken a different view of the European situation than it did. The US took Britain's side in many ways before Pearl harbour and the rest.
Agree with most of that. France wanted heavy reprisals on Germany as they had so much loss in WWI whereas Britain wanted Germany to continue as a trading power. Britain were also afraid France would become the dominant power in Western Europe so wanted to maintain a balance.
Germany violated the Treaty well before 1938 when introducing conscription and rebuilding the armed forces in 1935 and re-occupying the demilitarized zones in 1936.
Hitler knew both Britain and France had no appetite for another war and used this to his advantage and thus Britain and France didn't enforce the Treaty as they should have.
After WWII someone came up with the brilliant idea of a united Europe, seemed to have worked pretty well despite its faults, then many years later some RW nationalists decided they would brainwash the public....
Sadly i think you are right.
Don't know if Corbyn is deliberately misleading Labour members or he is genuinely clueless.
What does negotiating a new customs union even mean? We are either in or out of it. We either commit to staying and retain freedom of movement or we leave and implement a hard border in Ireland. That's...it.
It's staggering, the number of people unaware.
You are right and wrong. The UK and the EU could negotiate for a custom agreement that only concerns borders between the EU and the UK, the point would be to reduce, harmonise or make custom checks redundant between both areas. Now, where you are correct is that a custom agreement by itself doesn't eliminate borders what eliminates borders is a common legislation and a common jurisdiction basically the EU and the ECJ, if we use the EUCU-SM as an example.
Corbyn is clueless.
Have you guys never considered that Corbyn isn't definite in his solutions for brexit so that any voter (leaver, remainer, anything in between) can plausibly tell himself Corbyn is taking his side?
For remainers he says "A jobs first brexit" which to us sounds like staying in the CU (or the same with another name), and everything that entails. For brexiteers he says brexit is brexit bla bla bla (essentially the same as May with the bonus of actually having been skeptical of the EU for a long time).
He's not in government, he has no decision to make. So he's trying to tell everyone that if they were to put him into government they would get the decision they want.
Given the fact that T.May has the decision to make and can't decide which fantasy world she wants to choose I don't think it's such a bad strategy on Corbyns side.
For remainers he says "A jobs first brexit" which to us sounds like staying in the CU (or the same with another name), and everything that entails. For brexiteers he says brexit is brexit bla bla bla (essentially the same as May with the bonus of actually having been skeptical of the EU for a long time).
He's not in government, he has no decision to make. So he's trying to tell everyone that if they were to put him into government they would get the decision they want.
Given the fact that T.May has the decision to make and can't decide which fantasy world she wants to choose I don't think it's such a bad strategy on Corbyns side.
I had considered this two years ago that he was biding his time to pounce on the errors of the Tories. He has had so many opportunities since then to totally discredit the Tory party but his performance has been frankly pathetic. He has in front of him the worst government since WWII but somehow manages to make himself look even more clueless than they are and not just on Brexit. Theresa May gets a mark of 1 out of 10 as leader. Corbyn would get 0 out of 10.
Typical opposition party politics. Criticise like there’s no tomorrow but heavens forbid you’ll offer any strong solutions.
Labour are just avoiding the whole subject because ultimately Brexit is a no win situation politically. They are hiding from it the best they can. If he starts to go after the Tories on Brexit policy he has to come up with solutions himself and he can't.
By not coming up with anything she hasn't really given him the opportunity to be against anything yet . He does say she's making a shambles of it about every 30 mins... which is true. I don't know if any labour leader could get her into a position where she'd need to resign/call another election, but if she did now and labour won they'd have the same mess on their hands that any potential future conservative leader is trying to avoid by letting May take the blame... If he waits 10 more months while keeping his current position he can even have both remainers and leavers think he was on their side all along, which could come in handy.
Agreed that they are avoiding the situation but do you want someone leading the country who is hiding from the situation. At some point in time the reality of the situation has to be dealt with. If Brexit is an impossible situation to deal with and there are no solutions other than to cancel it then he must do so. He is a coward.
Don't act as if May would allow a magic money tree to be planted in Westminster if the seed had been found by labour
You should make Nigel Farage your prime minister for a year. He might have some vague plan for Brexit, the rest are just avoiding it and basically refuse to have a position on it which makes negotiations impossible.
If Brexit goes ahead it will be a shambles for the country so really he hasn't a lot to lose, either he waits until Brexit happens which will quickly show what a disaster it will be, that means he will probably be elected soon after and he'd have an impossible situation trying to restore the country's fortunes or he takes the bull by the horns and goes in hard on May and calls out all the bs that the cabinet comes out with, problem he is a brexiter himself and seems to have no clue of what the consequences will be either. He has plenty of ammunition if he knew how to or wanted to use it.
How difficult will it be for the UK to re-enter the EU?
He just wants to crash out on a hard Brexit. If he had the bottle to do that if he had the power to do so is a different matter altogether, however.
In theory, if they leave they will have to follow the normal route without exemptions. So from the UK point of view, extremely hard.
The worst thing that happened to Farage was Leave winning the referendum, he never had a plan and was stealing a living playing the rebel - he never thought that the British public would actually be dumb enough to believe him.
No rebate and we'd have to adopt the euro I think.
Yeah but so did everyone arguing for remain and the voters still voted the way they did. What would taking the bull by the horns look like like? He can't reverse brexit... all he could do is backtrack on red lines to keep the UK in the customs union. If he does that before the voters understand what being outside of the customs union means it'll be political suicide (the exact position that May maneuvered herself into). He can only wait until she commits the other suicide she maneuvered herself into, leaving the CU, and work with what's possible once the voters actually feel what being outside of it means.
Edit: If he waits until then he'll have a much higher chance of influencing what the UK will become after the fact, which may even be his priority at this point.
Maybe crashing out and rejoining wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Negotiations haven't and at this rate never will go anywhere. Brexiters get exactly what they asked for with no deal. Even at this point i dont think you should be able to rejoin the EU as before. I think you should have to opt back in so we can get past you blocking and dragging your feet on every single policy.
No one knows. It would depend on how advantageous the EU member states considered it to be at the time of application. They could could change their rules to make it easier or harder depending on what they wanted.
For the british public it will be like swallowing a pineapple. You spend 50 years doing everything to have a special treatment, you threaten to leave, finally leave and comeback with the same status than Croatia.
I get what you're saying and he should have used the ammunition long ago but if the UK has already left the EU or even the CU/SM it will be too late, reversing the damage will not be something that could be fixed within a few years. If no deal is the outcome both May and Corbyn are finished, she'll get the blame for doing it and he'll get the blame for not stopping her.
Not really, this particular aspect of things is based on treaties, not directives, it's not negotiable. So the EU would have to create a new constitution which is a long and complicated process and won't be done for a foreign country.
Sad but true.Don't act as if May would allow a magic money tree to be planted in Westminster if the seed had been found by labour
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...seek-brexit-talks-barnier-eu-chief-negotiator
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-may-to-revive-her-no-deal-threat-to-brussels
Couple of stories from the weekend.
Can't someone tell the moggie that the £39bn is nothing to do with getting a trade deal. If the no deal is a threat to the EU why does he want a trade deal.
If the UK don't pay does he realise the UK's membership to the WTO will be blocked and the UK won't be signing trade deals with anybody and if there is a no deal the UK are obliged to erect a hard border in Ireland. This is so basic and yet no journalist or Corbyn points this out.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-may-to-revive-her-no-deal-threat-to-brussels
Couple of stories from the weekend.
Can't someone tell the moggie that the £39bn is nothing to do with getting a trade deal. If the no deal is a threat to the EU why does he want a trade deal.
If the UK don't pay does he realise the UK's membership to the WTO will be blocked and the UK won't be signing trade deals with anybody and if there is a no deal the UK are obliged to erect a hard border in Ireland. This is so basic and yet no journalist or Corbyn points this out.
So you're saying criticise the government's bullshit position by offereio bullshit arguments. Effectively saying the people you're trying to persuade are idiots.
The thing is, he's already under pressure to make his positions clear and that's partly why he made that statement. At some point in the next few months he's going to stick or twist.
Last edited:
The absence of a position isn't the same as a position where one promises something impossible to achieve. Why shouldn't one criticise the governments bullshit regardless of the own position? Corbyn's position is currently irrelevant to the outcome of brexit, it can only influence brexit if he wins an election, and to do that he'll need both leavers & remainers.
For the sake of it let's just assume he did have some brilliant idea that made the whole tory mess alright again in a fortnight. The tories and their press would tear it apart regardless of how perfect it might be just because it was Corbyn who came up with it.
What he said is inaccurate, you can't just say that you are working towards a free trade agreement, you need to have an official interim agreement which means that you have a plan and schedule for the formation of a custom union/free trade area within a reasonable length of time.
Then there is the problem that according to WTO and art.24 a free trade area is the substitution of two or more custom territories for one, now people probably imagine what Ireland's custom territory is, so Rees-Mogg is playing with people ignorance.
He just offered a solution that isn't a solution at all. He wants to negotiate a CU agreement to resolve the NI border issue. Problem is a CU agreement doesn't do that.
What you're asking is that the public and labour members blindly trust Corbyn on an issue he has offered very little on.
Wow JR-M 'said that he supported May, whom he described as “the most impressive and dutiful leader that this country has had”.'
There's nothing the EU can do to force the UK to pay up what it owes. That doesn't mean that there won't be repercussions though
a- the UK will come across as a country you simply can't trust. That's bad news for global Britain
b- the EU will react directly by turning its borders with the UK into a nightmare. Goods will be bogged up at customs for ages which of course will destroy any company relying on selling perishable goods or/and those whose supply line is tied with Europe. Visas will take ages too which of course will hit the UK workers badly. Expats on both sides of the channel will be hurt as they will find their statuses and rights vanish overnight.
c- the EU will also act indirectly. It will put all kind of stops to WTOs membership and it will be difficult towards countries who give the UK a generous trade deal.
Once the UK gets hooked to the US through a trade deal then I think it will be close to impossible. The US multinationals and powerful US farming lobbies will take the UK to the cleaners. Once hooked they won't let go easily, not without the US government stepping in to defend their corner.
Quite so. It's the story of Brexit, people's ignorance.
You know that whatever he says, the opposite will be true.
That's what I meant, any remaining credibility the UK government may have after all this will disappear and WTO will not be open.