How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
don'tbesilly said:
amusingduck said:
ORD said:
sidicks said:
As many people have explained, there were many reasons for people choosing to vote to leave the EU.
Are you one of those people who wasn't well enough informed before making your decision?
Really? I thought it was now abundantly clear that every single Leave voter was absolutely insistent on leaving the Single Market and Customs Union? Just kidding: we all know that’s utter bAre you one of those people who wasn't well enough informed before making your decision?
ks for the reason you give.So it’s all up for grabs, and the softest of possible Brexits is the only rational outcome. It’s about damage limitation.
Remain set the rules, Remain said that if you leave, you must leave the SM/CU. Leave voters said 'OK then'.
Leave won, and the conservatives were re-elected on a manifesto confirming no SM/CU. The reason it was stated in the manifesto is because it was widely understood that thats exactly what Brexit would entail.
Over a year later you're still trying to re-write history and pretend that nobody said anything of the sort
Perhaps you need to re-watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
Unbelievable!
///ajd at least had the honesty to say he couldn't give a toss about referendum results and once in a generation votes etc, he just wants the chance to stop it in any way and get the result he would like.
I do like the front ORD has to say anyone opposing this is a democracy hater. He says it with such a cheeky chappy straight face too.
Tuna said:
jsf said:
psi310398 said:
Denmark is great. But, sorry, despite providing us with our bacon, it is impossible to find our cuts there.
A local butcher will provide whatever you ask for. 
jsf said:
ORD said:
Quite. But pretending that the UK was fine and dandy despite WW2 is rubbish. It crushed this country. If it shows anything of relevance, it’s that countries can take decades to recover from economic shocks.
WW2 was not just an economic shock.You apear totally confused.
The USA pulled financial support from the UK directly after the war, leaving us in dire straights. Keynes, probably not the best choice, an intellectual to negotiate with senators, went to the USA, cap in hand, to ask for money. We were allowed a loan, paid off in 2005 if memory serves. It was barely enough to feed our population, let alone support Germany. We did little for them, apart from stationing soldiers there, so boosting their economy slightly.
The USA then started Marshall Aid, of which the UK was the biggest beneficiary. It was divided in accordance with various criteria, but the main one was the advantage of having an aircraft carrier close to Russia in the event of a war. Given what they'd got from us during the war, it was reasonable. Germany got a lot as well and that is what funded their revival.
After WWI, the Americans and the French chose routes, the latter against the advice of the UK, to ensure that Germany would never become financially stable. It was a disaster of course, and gave rise to WWII. My history teacher said it would be called just one war in 'the future' in a similar vein to the Wars of the Roses.
Another reason was the dreadful financial management of many western countries post war, the UK especially so.
There's a strong argument, and a number of history books to support WWII being a financial war. There's a certain logic, although it's not a premise that I think has been proved.
Marshall Aid was an inspired move. Got to hand it to the Yanks, they knew what was good for them and went for it. Just like our government doesn't. Despite the selfish motives, it allowed us to move into the swinging 60s, leaving rationing and austerity behind. Rationing ended in '54, probably a little too early. I had a lot of childless widowed aunts and for my brother and me, so I didn't notice sweets coming off rationing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff