How About Another EU Referendum?

[theplayingmantis]

I doubt very much that the majority or leavers and remainers on this thread have in any proven way had any positive or negative impact on their own lives that they know is due to the consequences of brexit. Opinion is based from following their media persuasion of choice and taking that as gospel on both sides. Madness. Some will have experience of the ass ache of import/export ( as i do), but that is improving and will settle down once both sides move beyond the not losing face part and punishing each other.

A unprecedented global pandemic, followed swiftly by a f*cking war between 2 European sovereign states, i fail to see how given such unique situations anyone can form an opinion one way or the other of the successes or failures, although if the likes of Johnson remain in power for any length of time it will be a disaster once the waters are clearer, as he and his cronies are useless.

[Hungrymc]

Mortarboard said:

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

But would have not enabled the opening of a second front which was the original point.

That's a matter of debate. If the UK fell, there's plenty of room to take off from Ireland. In fact, the RAF did so many times during WWII.

So perhaps less going on about the UK being the only european country not to fall/capitulate might be prudent.

M.

Some slightly uncomfortable history there. Neutral status and trying to work both sides. Perhaps an unenviable position between the UK offering to reunify Ireland, and the possibilities of some common goals with Germany (oppressed nation rising up). Hard to know which way Ireland would have gone had the UK fell?

[Mortarboard]

Hungrymc said:

Mortarboard said:

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

But would have not enabled the opening of a second front which was the original point.

That's a matter of debate. If the UK fell, there's plenty of room to take off from Ireland. In fact, the RAF did so many times during WWII.

So perhaps less going on about the UK being the only european country not to fall/capitulate might be prudent.

M.

Some slightly uncomfortable history there. Neutral status and trying to work both sides. Perhaps an unenviable position between the UK offering to reunify Ireland, and the possibilities of some common goals with Germany (oppressed nation rising up). Hard to know which way Ireland would have gone had the UK fell?

That's a bit disingenious to the 80,000 irish that served in WW2.
And also, I note that you gloss over plans that the UK had to invade ireland. Post irish independence at that.

Perhaps you would have preferred UK service personnel be interned in Ireland, like the Germans were?

M.

[Hungrymc]

Mortarboard said:

That's a bit disingenious to the 80,000 irish that served in WW2.
And also, I note that you gloss over plans that the UK had to invade ireland. Post irish independence at that.

Perhaps you would have preferred UK service personnel be interned in Ireland, like the Germans were?

M.

Not intended as such. I said an unenviable position. And I think we know better than to judge people based on the acts of their political leaders. I don’t imagine many Irish people would have signed the book of condolences. Part of the 80,000 were 5000 defectors who paid quite a price for fighting with the allies. Many very brave people while the politicians did their politics and played neutrality in the face of the Nazis (note I’m not suggesting the UK government don’t play politics like this in times of conflict).

You don’t think it was an unenviable position and an uncomfortable history? Fair enough.

My post really wasn’t intended as Ireland bashing, I just thought you oversimplified the politics being played out at the time with your assumption about which way Ireland would go in the event of the UK falling.

[Mortarboard]

Actually, my main response was that Britain isnt all "two world wars and one world cup", which seems to be a dominant narrative at times.

M.

Edited by Mortarboard on Wednesday 29th June 00:31

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Mortarboard said:

And also, I note that you gloss over plans that the UK had to invade ireland. Post irish independence at that.

You mean the plans that were made in full conjunction with the Irish Army and would only ever be triggered by a German invasion?

Mortarboard said:

Perhaps you would have preferred UK service personnel be interned in Ireland, like the Germans were?

M.

Some were.

Irish neutrality meant that they only interned service personnel on offensive missions. German personnel found it harder to say they weren't.

[Hungrymc]

Mortarboard said:

Actually, my main response was that Britain isnt all "two world wars and one world cup", which seems to be a dominant narrative at times.

M.

Edited by Mortarboard on Wednesday 29th June 00:31

I guess no nation is defined by 3 actions. But Britain was on the right side for both world wars. Which isn’t something I could claim for Ireland.

There are many examples of Britain behaving poorly, but this isn't one. I also believe Irelands position in WW2 is not widely understood, and I thought your claim that Ireland would inevitably side with the allies if the UK had fallen to be a stretch. An interesting topic which I think highlights the complexity of Irish politics back then. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to look at previous British behaviour as a driver / contributor to the approach Ireland took. But I still think the assumption that Ireland would join the allies a stretch, my view is they would have been much more likely to go the other way, in fact I think that a main driver of being neutral, to not be a threat to the winning side. Book of condolences was bonkers, but that’s politicians for you.

Anyway, it’s a thread derailment and sorry for prolonging it, I just find it an interesting and complex topic.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Mortarboard said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You dont do logic very well do you?
If the UK had not been the SINGLE European country, which did not fall, or capitulate to Nazi Germany in 1940, the US could not have entered the war against the Nazis (Indeed they did not even want to). How were American bombers, going to launch raids on Nazi held Europe, from the far side of the Atlantic?
How was D Day, going to be launched from the far side of the Atlantic? It was difficult enough just getting it across the English Channel.
How were the raids which disrupted, and delayed the Nazis nuclear weapons program, going to be launched, let alone even known about, from the far side of the Atlantic?
With the Western approaches to Europe controlled by Nazi U-boats and surface fleets, how were the billions of tons of war materiel, needed to keep Russia in the war against the Nazis, going to be supplied from the far side of the Atlantic
All the above, and much more was only made possible because the UK was the one country, that did not fall, or capitulate in 1940. and was the one country on this side of the Atlantic, `not' in control of the Hitler's Nazi Germany.
As for the voting system in this country it is not perfect by any means, but at its worst, it is still better than the systems used in many other countries.

Ireland says Hi! We were/are in Europe too.

M.

Indeed they were, and so were Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and not forgetting all the French, Polish, Dutch, Norwegians, and other European nationals who, were `only' able to join in with, and carry on the fight against Hitler, because the UK did not fall or capitulate to the Nazis in 1940. Just about everything that happened in the war after 1940, was dependent on the UK `not' falling to the Nazis in 1940, when it was still fighting them on its own.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You dont do logic very well do you?
If the UK had not been the SINGLE European country, which did not fall, or capitulate to Nazi Germany in 1940, the US could not have entered the war against the Nazis (Indeed they did not even want to). How were American bombers, going to launch raids on Nazi held Europe, from the far side of the Atlantic?
How was D Day, going to be launched from the far side of the Atlantic? It was difficult enough just getting it across the English Channel.
How were the raids which disrupted, and delayed the Nazis nuclear weapons program, going to be launched, let alone even known about, from the far side of the Atlantic?
With the Western approaches to Europe controlled by Nazi U-boats and surface fleets, how were the billions of tons of war materiel, needed to keep Russia in the war against the Nazis, going to be supplied from the far side of the Atlantic
All the above, and much more was only made possible because the UK was the one country, that did not fall, or capitulate in 1940. and was the one country on this side of the Atlantic, `not' in control of the Hitler's Nazi Germany.
As for the voting system in this country it is not perfect by any means, but at its worst, it is still better than the systems used in many other countries.

Agreed, but point of note, Germany declared war on the US not the other way round.

Indeed, but the US did NOT even want to get involved in yet `another' European war in the first place!
It was only after a German ally, the Japanese, attacked Pearl Harbour that Hitler declared war on the US.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Mortarboard said:

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

But would have not enabled the opening of a second front which was the original point.

That's a matter of debate. If the UK fell, there's plenty of room to take off from Ireland. In fact, the RAF did so many times during WWII.

So perhaps less going on about the UK being the only european country not to fall/capitulate might be prudent.

M.

The Irish received shipments of weapons from Germany for use against the British, in an attempt by Germany to destabilize the situation in Ireland.
It seems you dont do logic very well. If the UK had fallen to the Nazis in 1940, then `none' of what followed, including the allied bombing raids on Nazi Germany. The disruption of the Nazis nuclear weapons program. The defeat of Rommel in North Africa. the supply of the billions of tons of war materiel to Russia, to keep Stalin in the fight against the Nazis, and of course D Day could have, or would have even been able to happen.
So perhaps much more emphasis on this FACT, rather than less, might be prudent.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Quite, and Stalin saw the west as allies of convenience once the Germans have broken their word and their tanks rolled in.

No UK and there would have been no allied invasion of Europe.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Mrr T said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Mrr T said:

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

Nope the EU parliament is a smoke screen to pretend to the masses that democracy is retained, when in reality it's a sham.

Great that you think NATO seems to be doing doing a reasonable job...who the hell do you think has countered the Russian threat since ww2....it wasnt Germany and France.

ETA
The elected members have the final say in the UK btw.

Where as the UK parliament where a 43% share of votes gives you a massive majority is clearly the pinnacle of democracy.

As for keeping Russia in check. The UK also only played a bit part compared to the US.

You dont do logic very well do you?
If the UK had not been the SINGLE European country, which did not fall, or capitulate to Nazi Germany in 1940, the US could not have entered the war against the Nazis (Indeed they did not even want to). How were American bombers, going to launch raids on Nazi held Europe, from the far side of the Atlantic?
How was D Day, going to be launched from the far side of the Atlantic? It was difficult enough just getting it across the English Channel.
How were the raids which disrupted, and delayed the Nazis nuclear weapons program, going to be launched, let alone even known about, from the far side of the Atlantic?
With the Western approaches to Europe controlled by Nazi U-boats and surface fleets, how were the billions of tons of war materiel, needed to keep Russia in the war against the Nazis, going to be supplied from the far side of the Atlantic
All the above, and much more was only made possible because the UK was the one country, that did not fall, or capitulate in 1940. and was the one country on this side of the Atlantic, `not' in control of the Hitler's Nazi Germany.
As for the voting system in this country it is not perfect by any means, but at its worst, it is still better than the systems used in many other countries.

FFS I post about Russia and FPP and you create one of your standard posts about WW2.

You also seem to have only very limited knowledge of what happened. You do realise the US had already invaded Europe before overlord?

As it is WW2 has nothing, zero, even less than zero to do with the UK or the EU today.

Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 28th June 17:42

You have just confirmed that you are definitely unable to do logic very well. by your f*ckwitted statement above.
If the UK had fallen, or capitulated in 1940, there would now NOT even be a UK, or EU today.
just a Nazi state, (which if it had been allowed to develop its own nuclear weapons, without disruption, or delay might also have taken over the US as well)
The UK today, and even more so the EU, has EVERYTHING to do with WW2
All the EU bleaters, keep going on about how it is the `EU' which has prevented wars in Europe since 1945, when it is nothing of the sort. It is NATO which has achieved that, and a NATO, where those who have the most to lose, dont even pay their due subscriptions toward the upkeep of NATO.
If Stalin had not received the billions of tons of war materiel from the west, that he demanded to keep him in the fight against the Nazis, how long do you think Russia would have lasted against a Nazi army fighting against no one in Europe but the Russians?

By the way, WHICH country is it, that is now doing exactly what Hitler did at the start of WW2, and against which NATO is trying to defend? Oh yes! that would be Putins Russia.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Wednesday 29th June 10:55

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Agree but the 2% NATO commitment isn't a subscription it's the agreed level of defence spending.....which Germany have never met.

[Jeanboi]

StevieBee said:

Jeanboi said:

StevieBee said:

Jeanboi said:

But I'd rather democracy was respected.

I'd agree with this, normally.

However, to use an analogy, we voted to go on holiday to Barbados but have ended up in Bognor.

I was under no illusion we'd be off to Barbados, but nor have we arrived somewhere sub par either.

Weren't you? To keep the analogy going, are you saying that you voted to go on holiday but had no idea where you'd actually end up?

I was really trying to say your analogy was pants. I think you're sealioning a bit now and continuing this will be futile.

[Oilchange]

Jeanboi said:

StevieBee said:

Jeanboi said:

StevieBee said:

Jeanboi said:

But I'd rather democracy was respected.

I'd agree with this, normally.

However, to use an analogy, we voted to go on holiday to Barbados but have ended up in Bognor.

I was under no illusion we'd be off to Barbados, but nor have we arrived somewhere sub par either.

Weren't you? To keep the analogy going, are you saying that you voted to go on holiday but had no idea where you'd actually end up?

I was really trying to say your analogy was pants. I think you're sealioning a bit now and continuing this will be futile.

Except when it doesn’t go your way, right?

[CharlesdeGaulle]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

Agree but the 2% NATO commitment isn't a subscription it's the agreed level of defence spending.....which Germany have never met.

Likely to be declared as a floor not a target before too long. Some nations have a way to go...

[Pan Pan Pan]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

Agree but the 2% NATO commitment isn't a subscription it's the agreed level of defence spending.....which Germany have never met.

You are correct. But it is still surprising, when those countries closest to what has turned out to be an aggressive and acquisitive Russia, and with arguably the most at risk from Russia, are those that have not kept to their agreed level of commitment towards the up keep of NATO.
They seem to be changing their minds rapidly now though!

[Pan Pan Pan]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

Quite, and Stalin saw the west as allies of convenience once the Germans have broken their word and their tanks rolled in.

No UK and there would have been no allied invasion of Europe.

Absolutely, it is quite amazing how some are not able to look objectively at what happened in WW2 , and are not able to apply logic, to the sequence of events that `actually' happened.
Not forgetting of course, that Stalin's Russia started WW2, essentially as an ally of Hitler's Nazi Germany, supplying the Nazis with billions of tons of war materiel, for the German war effort, and agreeing to divide up Poland between themselves, after its invasion by the Nazi military.

[DeltonaS]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Mortarboard said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You dont do logic very well do you?
If the UK had not been the SINGLE European country, which did not fall, or capitulate to Nazi Germany in 1940, the US could not have entered the war against the Nazis (Indeed they did not even want to). How were American bombers, going to launch raids on Nazi held Europe, from the far side of the Atlantic?
How was D Day, going to be launched from the far side of the Atlantic? It was difficult enough just getting it across the English Channel.
How were the raids which disrupted, and delayed the Nazis nuclear weapons program, going to be launched, let alone even known about, from the far side of the Atlantic?
With the Western approaches to Europe controlled by Nazi U-boats and surface fleets, how were the billions of tons of war materiel, needed to keep Russia in the war against the Nazis, going to be supplied from the far side of the Atlantic
All the above, and much more was only made possible because the UK was the one country, that did not fall, or capitulate in 1940. and was the one country on this side of the Atlantic, `not' in control of the Hitler's Nazi Germany.
As for the voting system in this country it is not perfect by any means, but at its worst, it is still better than the systems used in many other countries.

Ireland says Hi! We were/are in Europe too.

M.

Indeed they were, and so were Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and not forgetting all the French, Polish, Dutch, Norwegians, and other European nationals who, were `only' able to join in with, and carry on the fight against Hitler, because the UK did not fall or capitulate to the Nazis in 1940. Just about everything that happened in the war after 1940, was dependent on the UK `not' falling to the Nazis in 1940, when it was still fighting them on its own.

O dear, Pan Pan Pan is drumming again on his Brexit drum; "We've won the war"

Pan, pan, pan, pan,, pan.... badum tish.

The UK was stuck on it's Isle being bombed during the entire lenght of the war. Early into the war it was saved by the channel and the North Sea when the Nazi's pushed the French and British troops back; fleeing via Dunkirk to the UK. Only when the US (and Canada, Australia, New Seland etc.) stepped in the UK really was able to fight back (instead of defending. Meanwhile Nazi Germany was fighting a war on 3 major fronts; after France it went to the East attacking Russia.

The UK dind't fight the Nazi's on it's own, because so did the Russians, the French, and all the countries Germany invaded, resistence included.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

DeltonaS said:

O dear, Pan Pan Pan is drumming again on his Brexit drum; "We've won the war"

Pan, pan, pan, pan,, pan.... badum tish.

The UK was stuck on it's Isle being bombed during the entire lenght of the war. Early into the war it was saved by the channel and the North Sea when the Nazi's pushed the French and British troops back; fleeing via Dunkirk to the UK. Only when the US (and Canada, Australia, New Seland etc.) stepped in the UK really was able to fight back (instead of defending. Meanwhile Nazi Germany was fighting a war on 3 major fronts; after France it went to the East attacking Russia.

The UK dind't fight the Nazi's on it's own, because so did the Russians, the French, and all the countries Germany invaded, resistence included.

I'm pretty sure Britain was still fighting in Africa, plus those other places that everyone forgets about.

And, we've discussed this before, Britain wasn't "saved" by the Channel. The existence of the Channel was the key consideration that had formulated English and then British military strategy for the preceeding 300 years....it didn't just appear in 1940...."An amazing stroke of luck there chaps, that border stream flooded and saved the day, what were the chances of that happening".