British Politics

[Padme]

From the Empire to Anarchy in UK... And the Johnson family

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/09/jo-johnson-quits-as-minister-over-theresa-mays-brexit-plan-boris

[DieselDaisy]

The Johnson Family, The Adams Family gone wrong.

PS

I thought a ''backstop'' was a fielding position in rounders or baseball? 

Edited November 10, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[wasted]

On 08/11/2018 at 4:36 PM, DieselDaisy said:

Also much of the empire building was enacted by individuals (generals, governors, explorers, settlers) acting independently, the government receiving a fait accompli. 

A fait accompli means something already done? So the gov either knew in advance or were paid inadvance for whatever individuals were doing. 

My impression is that the gov didn’t say go out and develop trade routes and colonize all these places. They allowed it but everyone could have said I can’t be bothered. It’s not like they forced people to go to India or sent the military out first to get regions to submit. 

Are you saying the gov wanted a cut of explorers, colonization or just that they assumed that empire would result? 

Maybe the US thought they could conize the mid east but they weren’t welcomed so warmly. 

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, wasted said:

A fait accompli means something already done? So the gov either knew in advance or were paid inadvance for whatever individuals were doing. 

My impression is that the gov didn’t say go out and develop trade routes and colonize all these places. They allowed it but everyone could have said I can’t be bothered. It’s not like they forced people to go to India or sent the military out first to get regions to submit. 

Are you saying the gov wanted a cut of explorers, colonization or just that they assumed that empire would result? 

Maybe the US thought they could conize the mid east but they weren’t welcomed so warmly. 

Clive or Wellesley conquer a bit of India then report back to London, ''look, I've conquered a bit of India''. Understand that they were fighting for the private East India Company, not the British government, and that it could take three months for news to travel from Calcutta or Bombay to London. The British government could either risk colonial/public opprobrium and oppose a colonial conquest, or rubber stamp it.

White settlement colonies had even greater independence again, many of whom don't forget were conceived by peoples opposed to historic British governments and had developed independent - one might say ''republican''? - colonial societies. Desire for land, ''Manifest Destiny'' to be slighty anachronistic, meant the Thirteen Colonies pushed towards and beyond the Appalachians during the 18th century triggering wars between the British and the French (the latter, pushing up the Mississippi), e.g., King George's War (1744-8), the French and Indian War (1754-63). 

[wasted]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Clive or Wellesley conquer a bit of India then report back to London, ''look, I've conquered a bit of India''. Understand that they were fighting for the private East India Company, not the British government, and that it could take three months for news to travel from Calcutta or Bombay to London. The British government could either risk colonial/public opprobrium and oppose a colonial conquest, or rubber stamp it.

White settlement colonies had even greater independence again, many of whom don't forget were conceived by peoples opposed to historic British governments and had developed independent - one might say ''republican''? - colonial societies. Desire for land, ''Manifest Destiny'' to be slighty anachronistic, meant the Thirteen Colonies pushed towards and beyond the Appalachians during the 18th century triggering wars between the British and the French (the latter, pushing up the Mississippi), e.g., King George's War (1744-8), the French and Indian War (1754-63). 

I’m calling I Ching. Passenger 57. I read wikipedia on Monday morning and get back to you with some perspectives on world peace and an assessment on on how gin, blended whiskey, PBRs, pinot grigio and ginger ale mix with Cardiff at home. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by wasted

[wasted]

On 10/11/2018 at 3:46 PM, DieselDaisy said:

Clive or Wellesley conquer a bit of India then report back to London, ''look, I've conquered a bit of India''. Understand that they were fighting for the private East India Company, not the British government, and that it could take three months for news to travel from Calcutta or Bombay to London. The British government could either risk colonial/public opprobrium and oppose a colonial conquest, or rubber stamp it.

White settlement colonies had even greater independence again, many of whom don't forget were conceived by peoples opposed to historic British governments and had developed independent - one might say ''republican''? - colonial societies. Desire for land, ''Manifest Destiny'' to be slighty anachronistic, meant the Thirteen Colonies pushed towards and beyond the Appalachians during the 18th century triggering wars between the British and the French (the latter, pushing up the Mississippi), e.g., King George's War (1744-8), the French and Indian War (1754-63). 

Ok, that makes sense when I’m less drunk. Back then it was much harder to tell what was actually going on and as long as it seemed ok nobody really stopped anything. Ultimately the gov would step in if it was detrimental but within reason what was good for the goose was good for the gander so to speak. 

[AtariLegend]

So now the real game begins I guess. Will they vote for the deal, will there be a second referendum or a snap election called? We'll find out soon, presumably before Christmas.

Personally hoping that Brexit and the right end up in the 9th circle.

Not holding breath.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, AtariLegend said:

So now the real game begins I guess. Will they vote for the deal, will there be a second referendum or a snap election called? We'll find out soon, presumably before Christmas.

Personally hoping that Brexit and the right end up in the 9th circle.

Not holding breath.

What about the far left who also support Brexit?

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What about the far left who also support Brexit?

Also nobheads. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

Also nobheads. 

Are you looking forward to your EU army then? 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Are you looking forward to your EU army then? 

As long as the French tanks can get out of reverse gear.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

As long as the French tanks can get out of reverse gear.

See, even you're joking about the prospect of a EU Army and you support this horrid organisation! 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

See, even you're joking about the prospect of a EU Army and you support this horrid organisation! 

I don't support it so much as I just think there's no benefit to us leaving but the juvenile satisfaction of sticking it to Johnny Foreigner. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I don't support it so much as I just think there's no benefit to us leaving but the juvenile satisfaction of sticking it to Johnny Foreigner. 

Well Macron and Merkel are both espousing a EU Army, so if we were remaining we'd presumably be assigned a quota of soldiers for this tin pot force of surrender monkeys and guilt ridden leftists.

[Dazey]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Well Macron and Merkel are both espousing a EU Army, so if we were remaining we'd presumably be assigned a quota of soldiers for this tin pot force of surrender monkeys and guilt ridden leftists.

It's not a terrible idea in theory. Would you rather rely on Trump for protection against Russia over the next decade or so?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

It's not a terrible idea in theory. Would you rather rely on Trump for protection against Russia over the next decade or so?

It is also going to be aimed at the United States according to Macron! So you could rephrase that question to, would you rather go to war with the United States alone?

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is also going to be aimed at the United States according to Macron! So you could rephrase that question to, would you rather go to war with the United States alone?

It's not aimed at the United States, it's anticipating that the United States (under Trump) cannot be relied upon to play their historical role in global security. Reality check is that Putin is a serious threat and until 2020 at least he has the US president wrapped around his little finger.

[DieselDaisy]

6 hours ago, Dazey said:

It's not aimed at the United States, it's anticipating that the United States (under Trump) cannot be relied upon to play their historical role in global security. Reality check is that Putin is a serious threat and until 2020 at least he has the US president wrapped around his little finger.

The actual comment (''protect us against China, Russia and even the United States of America''') referred to cyber attacks, so Trump idiotically was conflating two separate remarks, and indeed Macron possesses a point here as I know the United States under the Obama administration was discovered phone-tapping Merkel.

And no, I cannot agree with a EU Army. I basically think there should be a France, a Germany, a Britain, etc., and they all should have their separate sovereignties, currencies and armies. 

Edited November 14, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[Sosso]

8 hours ago, Dazey said:

It's not a terrible idea in theory. Would you rather rely on Trump for protection against Russia over the next decade or so?

It's delusional to think that the Russian Federation would like to begin a war against the EU.

I would rather vote for Putin than for Trump, Merkel or Makron.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Sosso

[Padme]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The actual comment (''protect us against China, Russia and even the United States of America''') referred to cyber attacks, so Trump idiotically was conflating two separate remarks, and indeed Macron possesses a point here as I know the United States under the Obama administration was discovered phone-tapping Merkel.

And no, I cannot agree with a EU Army. I basically think there should be a France, a Germany, a Britain, etc., and they all should have their separate sovereignties, currencies and armies. 

Nobody will be asking Britain to get rid of its Army. The idea is to created an EU Army to deal with common problems, for example immigration. Let this EU Army protect the southern borders in Italy, Spain or Greece. Let them fight human and drug traffic networks, as well as all kind of smugglers, cyber crimes and terrorist organizations inside Europe. NATO can keep fighting in Afghanistan, Syria or Irak. And Scotland Yard will be dealing with the usual UK bastards

[wasted]

An EU army. Okay.

[Padme]

The revenge of Macron. He is not done. He just started 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/14/migrants-take-12-metre-fishing-boat-in-unprecedented-trip-across-the-channel

[SoulMonster]

11 hours ago, Dazey said:

It's not a terrible idea in theory. Would you rather rely on Trump for protection against Russia over the next decade or so?

We have NATO. An EU army seems redundant.

[AtariLegend]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

We have NATO. An EU army seems redundant.

NATO is dependent on the US, the years since the turn of the century have shown that the US cannot be relied upon.

Also the UK is leaving the EU and such an endeavor would need support from more EU nations along with public support, meaning it's not likely soon.

Not a fan of Macron, but he's right on this. Europe's defense shouldn't be held to ransom by Trump. Europe needs to be able to defend itself.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

NATO is dependent on the US, the years since the turn of the century have shown that the US cannot be relied upon.

Also the UK is leaving the EU and such an endeavor would need support from more EU nations along with public support, meaning it's not likely soon.

Not a fan of Macron, but he's right on this. Europe's defense shouldn't be held to ransom by Trump. Europe needs to be able to defend itself.

I am not sure what episodes since 2000 implies that USA in NATO cannot be relied upon.

NATO is also independent of the EU. Brexit will not affect the UK's involvement in NATO. Norway is not a member of the EU, but still member of NATO. Like USA.

I don't think Europe's defense are held to ransom by Trump. There is nothing that stops European countries from investing more in NATO and hence building up a better protection of themselves.

My point is, why already have a defence alliance that protects us, NATO, and regardless of whether USA is part of that, we, the Europeans countries, can still strengthen NATO and make is better for us. We don't need to set up a second defense alliance.