Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
devilish said:
It was a bailing out. Before Dunkirk Hitler could have wiped the entire British army away. Then things got more complicated but Nazi Germany could have invaded the UK or at least isolate it and pick up the pieces (Malta, North Africa etc) if it wanted. Luckily for us, the madman was also a huge idiot. Rather then consolidate his power, he decided to invade Russia which was basically suicide. Then his Japanese mate did the same with the US and it was basically over. Even good old Bismarck knew that Germany can never win a war where its forced to fight on two fronts and he wasn't thinking of two superpowers (Russia and US) + the British empire.

Returning to the subject, the EU is the result of the war, an attempt to keep nationalism at bay through prosperity and common rules. That's why the likes of Orban, Farage, Salvini, Le Pen and the Tory Party hates it.
Click to expand...
What you say is correct in isolation, but VeevaVee's 'coming together of nations' still describes events better than your 'bailed out'. If Britain had capitulated in 1940 Hitler would have had a freer run at Russia, having been able to withdraw forces from the west and the med to join in. Russia may still have won of course, we'll never know, but they were certainly backs to the wall in 1941/2. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Russian war effort for a minute, just saying that Britain played it's part.
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
It was a bailing out. Before Dunkirk Hitler could have wiped the entire British army away. Then things got more complicated but Nazi Germany could have invaded the UK or at least isolate it and pick up the pieces (Malta, North Africa etc) if it wanted. Luckily for us, the madman was also a huge idiot. Rather then consolidate his power, he decided to invade Russia which was basically suicide. Then his Japanese mate did the same with the US and it was basically over. Even good old Bismarck knew that Germany can never win a war where its forced to fight on two fronts and he wasn't thinking of two superpowers (Russia and US) + the British empire.

Returning to the subject, the EU is the result of the war, an attempt to keep nationalism at bay through prosperity and common rules. That's why the likes of Orban, Farage, Salvini, Le Pen and the Tory Party hates it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know the story. I don't see it as bailing out as such, but I think we agree on enough not to need to get into the ins and outs of that here!
 
711 said:
What you say is correct in isolation, but VeevaVee's 'coming together of nations' still describes events better than your 'bailed out'. If Britain had capitulated in 1940 Hitler would have had a freer run at Russia, having been able to withdraw forces from the west and the med to join in. Russia may still have won of course, we'll never know, but they were certainly backs to the wall in 1941/2. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Russian war effort for a minute, just saying that Britain played it's part.
Click to expand...

Look its not easy for anyone coming from the former empire to accept this especially someone whose both grandparents fought the war in what was the most bombarded country in the world. However, while everyone should admire the Brits commitment to stand alone against Hitler when the easier option was to just accept peace, we also need to be realistic. Similarly to the French, the British army was caught with its pants down and it was thanks to Hitler's stupidity that the British army was able to flee in a relatively one piece. For most of the early part of the war, the Brits were on the defensive as we were all being hammered by the Nazis. That changed the moment Hitler committed suicide by savaging Russia, turning that enormous country with its endless resources, its unforgiving weather and its people to throw everything against the Nazis. By the time the US joined the war, the Nazis were already on the retreat.

Don't take me wrong the radar, the British channel and its people would have kept the UK safe. Crete's invasion costed the Nazis dear and the invasion of the UK would have crippled Germany for good. However there are other ways to win a war. One of which is to hole the Brits on their little island, consolidate power in Europe and North Africa and then set sight to the rest of the empire through a carrot and stick approach. Those who wish to free themselves from the empire would be helped. Those who refuse to get rid of the empire would be crushed. How long do you think the empire would have endured without any support from home base especially if the alternative would have been fighting against the Nazis basically alone? For example Malta was days away from surrendering up until SS Ohio managed to enter port and feed the islands. Everyone prefers to focus on the heroism of the people and those who defended the islands but the reality is that while everyone was against the Nazis we were running out of food, fuel and ammunition.You can't live without that.

Luckily for us, Hitler believed in a world were both the British empire and the greater Germanic reich could coexist and that the enemies weren't the 'Aryan brothers' off the channel but the communists and the Jews. Which is a clear testament of good old Winston's statesmanship who insisted on war against pure evil even though it hurt the UK's immediate interests. The alternative would have been a relationship similar to the one Hitler had with Mussolini which started off as that of an admirer towards his tutor only to end up that between the master and his puppet. The same statesman fully supported a united states of Europe.
 
devilish said:
Nazi Germany could have invaded the UK or at least isolate it and pick up the pieces (Malta, North Africa etc) if it wanted. Luckily for us, the madman was also a huge idiot. Rather then consolidate his power, he decided to invade Russia which was basically suicide.
Click to expand...

The British Isles were never under any real threat of invasion by Nazi Germany. They didn't have the air power to do it, and they definitley didn't have the sea power to do it. They didn't even have any way of ferrying troops across the channel, let alone support and supply them. It's plausible that they could be able to pick off Malta, but North Africa as a whole was very unlikely to ever fall to the Axis. Supply was always the biggest issue.

As for invading the Soviet Union, it was definitely a mistake in that it ensured eventual German defeat. But there wasn't really any possibility of consolidating power, since the German economy was directly fueld by conquest, and any period without large-scale conquests would lead to economic collapse and a demise of the Nazis as inevitable as the Battle of Berlin, just slower and less bloody. There's also the fact that WW2 was much more about an eventual war with the Soviets than war with Britain and France, or even Poland. It was about lebensraum and the complete destruction of international communism (which for the Nazis was synonymous with Jews). So the Nazis were never going to be happy with "just" their current conquests.

This is all horribly off topic, obviously, so maybe just delete my post if a mod feels like it.
 
niMic said:
The British Isles were never under any real threat of invasion by Nazi Germany. They didn't have the air power to do it, and they definitley didn't have the sea power to do it. They didn't even have any way of ferrying troops across the channel, let alone support and supply them.
Click to expand...

I agree and that's exactly what I said.

It's plausible that they could be able to pick off Malta, but North Africa as a whole was very unlikely to ever fall to the Axis. Supply was always the biggest issue
Click to expand...

I disagree. Once the Nazis had consolidated power in Europe then its plausible to think that they would have ample resources to successfully invade North Africa, especially if Hitler was wise enough to wait, consolidate power in mainland Europe, build upon the relationship he had with Stalin and plan accordingly with the Russians and the Arabs.

As for invading the Soviet Union, it was definitely a mistake in that it ensured eventual German defeat. But there wasn't really any possibility of consolidating power, since the German economy was directly fueld by conquest, and any period without large-scale conquests would lead to economic collapse and a demise of the Nazis as inevitable as the Battle of Berlin, just slower and less bloody. There's also the fact that WW2 was much more about an eventual war with the Soviets than war with Britain and France, or even Poland. It was about lebensraum and the complete destruction of international communism (which for the Nazis was synonymous with Jews). So the Nazis were never going to be happy with "just" their current conquests.
Click to expand...


You're kind of right in saying that for Hitler to win the war was for him to be less of himself. He had a small window of opportunity to get all he wanted (ie ending communism) by siding as Russia's defender against Stalin but he blew it off by being erm Hitler. Having said that, my argument still stand. The Nazis were beaten on Russia's soil by Russian people. The numbers on both ends don't lie.

This is all horribly off topic, obviously, so maybe just delete my post if a mod feels like it.
Click to expand...

Same thing[/quote]
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
Look its not easy for anyone coming from the former empire to accept this especially someone whose both grandparents fought the war in what was the most bombarded country in the world. However, while everyone should admire the Brits commitment to stand alone against Hitler when the easier option was to just accept peace, we also need to be realistic. Similarly to the French, the British army was caught with its pants down and it was thanks to Hitler's stupidity that the British army was able to flee in a relatively one piece. For most of the early part of the war, the Brits were on the defensive as we were all being hammered by the Nazis. That changed the moment Hitler committed suicide by savaging Russia, turning that enormous country with its endless resources, its unforgiving weather and its people to throw everything against the Nazis. By the time the US joined the war, the Nazis were already on the retreat.

Don't take me wrong the radar, the British channel and its people would have kept the UK safe. Crete's invasion costed the Nazis dear and the invasion of the UK would have crippled Germany for good. However there are other ways to win a war. One of which is to hole the Brits on their little island, consolidate power in Europe and North Africa and then set sight to the rest of the empire through a carrot and stick approach. Those who wish to free themselves from the empire would be helped. Those who refuse to get rid of the empire would be crushed. How long do you think the empire would have endured without any support from home base especially if the alternative would have been fighting against the Nazis basically alone? For example Malta was days away from surrendering up until SS Ohio managed to enter port and feed the islands. Everyone prefers to focus on the heroism of the people and those who defended the islands but the reality is that while everyone was against the Nazis we were running out of food, fuel and ammunition.You can't live without that.

Luckily for us, Hitler believed in a world were both the British empire and the greater Germanic reich could coexist and that the enemies weren't the 'Aryan brothers' off the channel but the communists and the Jews. Which is a clear testament of good old Winston's statesmanship who insisted on war against pure evil even though it hurt the UK's immediate interests. The alternative would have been a relationship similar to the one Hitler had with Mussolini which started off as that of an admirer towards his tutor only to end up that between the master and his puppet. The same statesman fully supported a united states of Europe.
Click to expand...
The only person going on about heroism is you and become over-emotional. You've completely missed the point that it was a joint effort. VeevaVee was right in that.
 
Grinner said:


I found this down a YT rabbit hole. We don't seem to talk about the CAP and butter/grain mountains and wine lakes anymore. Kenneth Williams as a pro-euro voice is funny, and an excellent little Man Utd gem from the conservative MP.
Click to expand...

Managed to watch until the reference to the non sticking frying pans that no one needs... The way brexiteers work I wouldn't be surprised if that woman still cooked with a iron frying pan today :lol:
 
VeevaVee said:
Seen this on Facebook. What a dumbass thing, considering multiple countries in Europe worked together for it.

37349379_10155714643006623_4962931321522356224_n.jpg
Click to expand...

:lol:

Forgot the picture of May in her Conservative Power Stance™ but otherwise brilliant.
 
Oscie said:
Click to expand...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....nder-pressure-from-labour-members-over-brexit

Corbyn in full backtrack mode then

. Minutes after trouncing Owen Smith and winning his second Labour leadership contest in September 2016, Jeremy Corbyn promised to reward the mass membership that had backed him by giving them more power inside the party. “The participation is even higher, and my majority is bigger, and the mandate is very strong. So let’s use it to reach out,” he said. “With this huge membership, that has to be reflected much more in decision-making in the party.”
Click to expand...

Probably too late anyway... Should have been debated properly last year and at least have had time to push the arguments...
 
A 2nd vote has always made sense; once the people know what's on the table give them the final say to accept or reject it. The problem is there's been zero political clout behind keeping the status quo on the table and that's the price we're paying for having absolute clowns in charge of both main political parties. Even a general election isn't going to solve things as one party says "We can drive us off a cliff and land safely" whilst the other are saying "No, it is us who can drive off a cliff and land safely".

Cast-iron fecking lunacy.
 
horsechoker said:
Maybe so, but maybe he knows it's too late for a 2nd referendum so he's just saying it for the sake of popularity.
Click to expand...
Yes... Presumably the vote on the final deal won't be till mid / late November...
If may looses she then has 14 days to form a new coalition... If she can't then there is a general election... I assume campaigning will be largely suspended over Xmas meaning a new election probably late jan / early Feb... So yeah not enough time to have a second referendum I don't think
 
Oscie said:
A 2nd vote has always made sense; once the people know what's on the table give them the final say to accept or reject it. The problem is there's been zero political clout behind keeping the status quo on the table and that's the price we're paying for having absolute clowns in charge of both main political parties. Even a general election isn't going to solve things as one party says "We can drive us off a cliff and land safely" whilst the other are saying "No, it is us who can drive off a cliff and land safely".

Cast-iron fecking lunacy.
Click to expand...
We know whats on the feckin table, chequers or feck all. What more do you need to know? Keeping the status quo was voted against, remember?
 
sun_tzu said:
Yes... Presumably the vote on the final deal won't be till mid / late November...
If may looses she then has 14 days to form a new coalition... If she can't then there is a general election... I assume campaigning will be largely suspended over Xmas meaning a new election probably late jan / early Feb... So yeah not enough time to have a second referendum I don't think
Click to expand...

Never say never, it seems the polling is starting to swing quite hard.
 
There doesn't need to be any campaigning if a second ref goes ahead does there? Everyone knows the issues and outcomes by now.
 
Stanley Road said:
Be careful what you wish for. A ref on anything right now could cause chaos. My opinion.
Click to expand...

I’m fine with some chaos. Chaos is exactly what the country has been thrown into for the last 2 years, and a little more isn’t going to suddenly scare me off.
 
C3Pique said:
There doesn't need to be any campaigning if a second ref goes ahead does there? Everyone knows the issues and outcomes by now.
Click to expand...
New question I presume so yes I think a minimum 6 weeks... Plus at least a couple of weeks to get the legislation done before that

So in truth there would need to be a new government in place in January

And as I say I find that timetable a push as let's assume may gets deal / no deal decision in mid nov... Presents it to parliament in late November... It gets rejected then it's 2 more weeks to try and get a vote of confidence thriugh... That fails and parliament is dissolved for an election... Again minimum 6 weeks plus there is Xmas .... Just don't see it happeneing
 
Don't see how there will be a GE or a referendum before the UK leave.

What happens if Parliament do not accept "No Deal" - the government cannot say to the EU "We have to have a deal, parliament said so".
It's taken two years to negotiate nothing. 50 years of negotiations won't help much. The EU are not going to budge on the 4 freedoms.
Cancel Brexit seems the only solution.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The three realistic options (I think) are

1. Cancel Brexit (even this might not be possible).
2. Canada style trade deal.
3. Hard Brexit.
Click to expand...

Yes agree but,
Cancelling Brexit may be possible but with certain stringent conditions.
Hard Brexit is no deal, but if parliament has refused, what then.
Canada deal is just basically a FTA which still means hard borders and ensuing chaos.
 
Steven Seagull said:
The only realistic option is Norway style. Solves many border problems and should be an easy political sell. You just have to keep shouting you’ve officially left the EU and nobody can argue
Click to expand...

Ultimately if we're still in the customs union people will be outraged on the leave side and if we aren't it fecks the NI issue.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Don't see how there will be a GE or a referendum before the UK leave.

What happens if Parliament do not accept "No Deal" - the government cannot say to the EU "We have to have a deal, parliament said so".
It's taken two years to negotiate nothing. 50 years of negotiations won't help much. The EU are not going to budge on the 4 freedoms.
Cancel Brexit seems the only solution.
Click to expand...
Well it will be amusing to see tories voted back in for a 3rd time by all the remainers
 
In theory, Brexit means completely leaving the EU, the SM & the CU. Thus No deal . Thus doing so means the GFA is broken.

Thus Brexit is impossible without breaking the GFA.

Now if Parliament reject No deal which is Brexit are they going against the "will of the people" and is parliament undemocratic?

What a mess.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
As said many times not being in the CU does not solve the border problems.
Click to expand...

It goes a lot further to solving issues than anything else on the table. We’re not “cancelling brexit” so if you have any better ideas I’d love to hear them.

Cheesy said:
Ultimately if we're still in the customs union people will be outraged on the leave side and if we aren't it fecks the NI issue.
Click to expand...

I think it’s an easy sell. If you’re officially out the EU nobody can really argue without having a proper debate, which we all know nobody in the media or government is capable of. Everybody ends up a little bit unhappy which unfortunately is the best case scenario
 
Paul the Wolf said:
In theory, Brexit means completely leaving the EU, the SM & the CU. Thus No deal . Thus doing so means the GFA is broken.

Thus Brexit is impossible without breaking the GFA.

Now if Parliament reject No deal which is Brexit are they going against the "will of the people" and is parliament undemocratic?

What a mess.
Click to expand...

You need to stop deciding what everybody voted for. That is YOUR theory.
 
Steven Seagull said:
It goes a lot further to solving issues than anything else on the table. We’re not “cancelling brexit” so if you have any better ideas I’d love to hear them.

I think it’s an easy sell. If you’re officially out the EU nobody can really argue without having a proper debate, which we all know nobody in the media or government is capable of. Everybody ends up a little bit unhappy which unfortunately is the best case scenario
Click to expand...

There is no solution, Brexit was impossible from day one as was said before the referendum. All the problems pointed out are now appearing and most were evident throughout.
Norway may be the one of the best of a bad bunch but the biggest problem still exists which is no solution to the Irish border and no solution to the chaos at the ports and airports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.