Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

From my recollection Germany declared war on the US in WW2.
I’m not sure anyone denies the pivotal actions and sacrifice of other nations in the 20th century conflicts. The contention however that the UK would have lost both world wars without help, doesn’t negate the sacrifice the UK and its people made.

I'm all for recognising the sacrifice that ordinary people in all countries made in wartime, the enormous majority of whom had no influence on the leadership that caused it.


I'm not so keen on rewriting the past or trying to pretend that history only began in 1939.


Or throwing away decades of peace and relative prosperity within an EU state that is going to happen anyway but with vetoes and opt outs from any real loss in sovereignty, because the Daily Mail, a political party run by a right wing millionaire, and a media empire owned by a pernicious Australian media tycoon tells me to.

BobQ

So what is the border solution for UK/Eire?

There was some suggestion that it might be based on the EU/Turkey system which involves a customs union.

Would those who see Brexit as being outside of a free trade area and a customs union care to suggest how the border issue is resolved.

Being unenthusiastic about Brexit, but trying to accept the decision to leave, it concerns me that the Irish border solution is still unresolved and the same dismissive attitudes to it that pervaded the referendum debate are still no better defined than they were 18 months ago. Can one of evangelists explain how it will work?

Surely if there is no clarity we should be erecting border posts and walls along the border NOW? Or are we relying on it being "all right on the night" come 2359 on 28 March 19? when frictionless trade will take place across a border with immigration checks manned by volunteers in a hastily installed garden shed?

Honey_Badger

Arklight wrote: »

In one of Hitler's speeches he said, "Why should 40 million Englishmen have an empire and 60 millions Germans shouldn't?"

I see so in your view, Hitler had a fair point regarding a German Empire (Third Reich)?

Are there any other of his views that you agree with?

Arklight wrote: »

Britain's commitment to spreading freedom was pretty absent from most people who were born with a brown faces' lives (or savages, to use the parlance of the day) until England found someone else's imperialism knocking at its door.

What point are you trying to make? Should Britain not have gone to war to ensure Belgian independence? Equally France and Britain should have let Hitler carry on after the invasion of Poland?

Arklight wrote: »

It was the French that bore the brunt of WW1 and the Russians who won the ground war in WW2. In no possible scenario can France capitulate in WW1 and Russia capitulate in WW2 and leave anything other than defeat for the UK.

Considering that the Russians lost far more casualties than the French perhaps they bore the brunt? Britain lost about 750,000 military personnel I would hardly suggest is a minor contribution. Most of those being buried in France, including my Grandmother's two brothers, and my Grandfather's older brother killed in action with no known grave.

Russia had no option to capitulate in WW2 as the Germans looked on them as sub-human and wished to crush communism. Also the only reason that the Soviet Union was brought into the war was due to the German invasion (Operation Barbarossa).

Arklight wrote: »

The US, which waited a good long time in both wars to check it was joining the winning side, would never have joined either war and would have remained a regional power.

The US came into WW1 due to a combination of the U boat sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram, not that it was joining the "winning side" in fact the German's were having a great deal of success at that time due to new storm trooper tactics and the availability of eastern front veterans becoming available due to the Russian collapse.

BobQ

Honey_Badger wrote: »

What point are you trying to make? Should Britain not have gone to war to ensure Belgian independence? Equally France and Britain should have let Hitler carry on after the invasion of Poland?

Britain went to war for our own self interest in preventing the growth of fascism.

Considering that the Russians lost far more casualties than the French perhaps they bore the brunt? Britain lost about 750,000 military personnel I would hardly suggest is a minor contribution. Most of those being buried in France, including my Grandmother's two brothers, and my Grandfather's older brother killed in action with no known grave

Nobody is questioning the courage of those who fought in France or anywhere else to defeat Hitler's aggression.

The US came into WW1 due to a combination of the U boat sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram, not that it was joining the "winning side".

The US joined when the balance of public opinion swung from its isolationist (not our problem) to accepting that it was their problem. I would not go as far as to say they were wishing to be on the winning side but they were sitting it out. Hitler made the mistake of provoking them and making them realise that it was in their interests.

But what value is served in this historical analysis in a Brexit thread?

Tromking

Arklight wrote: »

I'm all for recognising the sacrifice that ordinary people in all countries made in wartime, the enormous majority of whom had no influence on the leadership that caused it.


I'm not so keen on rewriting the past or trying to pretend that history only began in 1939.


Or throwing away decades of peace and relative prosperity within an EU state that is going to happen anyway but with vetoes and opt outs from any real loss in sovereignty, because the Daily Mail, a political party run by a right wing millionaire, and a media empire owned by a pernicious Australian media tycoon tells me to.

I think we all get that you’re desperate to use the ‘imperial slur’ against those of us who had the temerity to vote Brexit, but you need to acknowledge that on some quite important occasions the British state has stood for some quite important principles, sometimes against its short to medium term strategic interests. Britain is not solely defined by its colonial excesses despite what you say.
Our short term or even medium term interests may well be best served by staying under the EU umbrella, although your case is not helped by Juncker who before the referendum decision stated that owing to the UK’s opposition to his federalist dreams, the UK needs to be ignored. Too many leave voters like me, listened to Juncker’s anti-British narrative and voted accordingly. Hence Brexit.

Arklight

Honey_Badger wrote: »

I see so in your view, Hitler had a fair point regarding a German Empire (Third Reich)?

Are there any other of his views that you agree with?



What point are you trying to make? Should Britain not have gone to war to ensure Belgian independence? Equally France and Britain should have let Hitler carry on after the invasion of Poland?




Considering that the Russians lost far more casualties than the French perhaps they bore the brunt? Britain lost about 750,000 military personnel I would hardly suggest is a minor contribution. Most of those being buried in France, including my Grandmother's two brothers, and my Grandfather's older brother killed in action with no known grave.

Russia had no option to capitulate in WW2 as the Germans looked on them as sub-human and wished to crush communism. Also the only reason that the Soviet Union was brought into the war was due to the German invasion (Operation Barbarossa).



The US came into WW1 due to a combination of the U boat sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram, not that it was joining the "winning side" in fact the German's were having a great deal of success at that time due to new storm trooper tactics and the availability of eastern front veterans becoming available due to the Russian collapse.

British foreign policy in Europe has always been to prevent any one power becoming great enough to take over the continent and pose a threat to Britain.


Chamberlain didn't declare war on Germany becuase the UK cared about Poland's right to independence. If Poland had had the misfortune to be contiguous to England it would have been invaded already, like Ireland.


Hitler posed no immediate to medium term threat to the UK, but Whitehall was aware of the facts that Stalin was not. That the Germans were going to invade Russia and only one power would be left standing which would have the resources of the whole continent at its disposal, and that would have been the end of the UK.


The fact that we had membership of a mostly benign entity that has prevented any wars since, that we had a whole slew of opt outs for, that didnt impinge in any real way on our sovereignty, and that we had veto to use when we wanted, and have now voted ourselves out giving the EU free reign to become a super state we will have no influence on, is quite ironic.

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

I think we all get that you’re desperate to use the ‘imperial slur’ against those of us who had the temerity to vote Brexit, but you need to acknowledge that on some quite important occasions the British state has stood for some quite important principles, sometimes against its short to medium term strategic interests. Britain is not solely defined by its colonial excesses despite what you say.
Our short term or even medium term interests may well be best served by staying under the EU umbrella, although your case is not helped by Juncker who before the referendum decision stated that owing to the UK’s opposition to his federalist dreams, the UK needs to be ignored. Too many leave voters like me, listened to Juncker’s anti-British narrative and voted accordingly. Hence Brexit.

I would be amazed if even 10% of Brexit voters could identify Jean Claude Juncker in a line up, say what position he holds, or what power that position has. Either now or on the day of the referendum.


By the way, the "British State" was standing for us to remain in the EU, until the day after it lost the referendum it thought it would win.

Tromking

Arklight wrote: »

British foreign policy in Europe has always been to prevent any one power becoming great enough to take over the continent and pose a threat to Britain.


Chamberlain didn't declare war on Germany becuase the UK cared about Poland's right to independence. If Poland had had the misfortune to be contiguous to England it would have been invaded already, like Ireland.


Hitler posed no immediate to medium term threat to the UK, but Whitehall was aware of the facts that Stalin was not. That the Germans were going to invade Russia and only one power would be left standing which would have the resources of the whole continent at its disposal, and that would have been the end of the UK.


The fact that we had membership of a mostly benign entity that has prevented any wars since, that we had a whole slew of opt outs for, that didnt impinge in any real way on our sovereignty, and that we had veto to use when we wanted, and have now voted ourselves out giving the EU free reign to become a super state we will have no influence on, is quite ironic.

You can’t argue with someone who thinks that 20th century Britain had a moral equivalence with Hitlers Germany and Stalin’s Russia.

Tromking

Arklight wrote: »

By the way, the "British State" was standing for us to remain in the EU, until the day after it lost the referendum it thought it would win.

.....and yet again it chose the principled position and is seeking (so far) to carry out the wishes of its people. Lesser democracies would and have chosen a different path. You live in a remarkable country.

Tromking

BobQ wrote: »

So what is the border solution for UK/Eire?

There was some suggestion that it might be based on the EU/Turkey system which involves a customs union.

Would those who see Brexit as being outside of a free trade area and a customs union care to suggest how the border issue is resolved.

Being unenthusiastic about Brexit, but trying to accept the decision to leave, it concerns me that the Irish border solution is still unresolved and the same dismissive attitudes to it that pervaded the referendum debate are still no better defined than they were 18 months ago. Can one of evangelists explain how it will work?

Surely if there is no clarity we should be erecting border posts and walls along the border NOW? Or are we relying on it being "all right on the night" come 2359 on 28 March 19? when frictionless trade will take place across a border with immigration checks manned by volunteers in a hastily installed garden shed?

In essence it’s probably going to be an Irish/EU problem. I think the stated position of the U.K. is a retention of the current arrangements with Ireland as part of comprehensive free trade agreement with the whole of the rest of the EU.