Well said Kentonio
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
John Redwood is also the economist at Charles Stanley, an investment manager which is politically neutral in its corporate stance.Or if she has a larger majority, with lots of lovely soft brexit tories, she doesnt need the hard brexit tories to get it through
It's odd- he's clearly frothing at the mouth but can't say what he truly thinks. What is the split of hard/soft Brexit among Tory MPs do we reckon?
Well no. It represents a fundamental misunderstand of how the EU works and why our position is weak, but I guess theres a lot of that going around.
Well yes but while there's hope. If it is a soft Brexit then the pound will gain, if it's hard then it will lose again
@Paul the Wolf
Will your tory friends back home change their way of voting now?
Once bitten and all that.
Will your tory friends back home change their way of voting now?
Once bitten and all that.
It's going to be as hard as IDS's cock when the universal credit cuts were announced, I fear.
Funny I was thinking on similar lines also as to how all the Labour voters I know who voted for Brexit.
I've no idea and nor do they probably
Also if I was there now I wouldn't have a choice for who to vote for. No-one represents my views, so no vote.
Last edited:
I would have thought so, as there was little point otherwise - the only reason I see for this election is to ensure she's still in power if it all goes wrong
Read some articles today about Brexiters getting angry that some EU-related companies are leaving UK. Apparently Brexit means Brexit, who would have thought that?!
Surely you would vote for the most pro eu person you could find, nes pas?
Well if.you all get together and change it then these companies will be shown up to be the pricks they really are, and they really are pricks.
Why EU related companies (medicine, EURO banking sector, EU funded space projects etc) are pricks for wanting to work in EU instead of a third country? Why don't UK companies who clear derivatives denominated in pounds work in Frankfurt? Gesture of good sport and all that.
Lib dems - don't think that would make much difference, the UK are off anyway - if I hadn't made the decision to emigrate 10 years ago, I would now
Yep the UK didn't trade pre EU, well done.
This is Stanley levels of not properly reading the post you're replying to.
yep, well done on the introspect
Historic British trade isn't exactly something to be proud of. The country certain did well out of it, at least until all those empires destroyed each other fighting over who gets to plunder less developed nations.
Every country has the right to trade with the EU
However, not every country can compete for EU contracts. This is why, UK based airlines are setting up EU subsidiaries (so they don't lose the right to work in the EU), and why Lloyds of London is setting up a subsidiary in Berlin.
This doesn't mean that the UK is shedding ten's of thousands of jobs to the EU... yet. What it means is, companies are preparing to move their operations to the EU, if it looks like the UK companies will lose their right to work in the EU.
But if you aren't convinced yet, please watch this video.
For my own work, its pretty clear that as things stand, we will lose the right to work in the EU under a T May Brexit. Management are considering opening two subsidiaries, one in Ireland and one in the Netherlands. If we do lose the right to work in the EU, then the majority of the jobs will be transferred to the EU, but not all of them.
There is a huge difference between trading with the EU, and working in the EU. Saying the two things are the same, is fundamentally wrong.
Right now, we are mostly hearing about UK financial companies that are working in the EU, and their passporting rights. But they are by no means the only ones that work there, and may not even be the largest employers of UK citizens that work in the EU.
The only part of the Empire worth a damn to Britain economically was India, and that relationship was based on trade, not plunder.
What does 'plunder' even mean? Ships like the old Spanish galleons leaving the New World laden with gold and silver? It didn't do the Spanish much good - all that gold caused inflation and destroyed their native industry, with their economy not recovering until the second half of the 20th century. Most countries in the European Empires were at subsistence level - there was nothing to plunder.
The only way colonies could theoretically benefit the mother country substantially was through a monopoly on trade a la the mercantile system, but even that was challenged by nineteenth century laissez faire liberalism.
Cameron risked chaos by promising a referendum and started the slide.
Now if May loses this election, whoever the next PM is inherits a half baked mess and that'll set back the Trade negotiations even further.
Now if May loses this election, whoever the next PM is inherits a half baked mess and that'll set back the Trade negotiations even further.
I think you need to do a little bit of reading on the subject kid.
This is not only incorrect, but almost offensive. Do yourself a favor, pick a history book (not written by somebody from the UK) and read it. Alternatively google incidents (Just to name a few) like the famine in Bengal, where a quarter of the population died, and the British watched.
Ignorant.
I've done plenty of reading of economic texts, but not much left-wing propaganda with no interest in economic analysis.
Not even right-wing historians bother denying that the British plundered India these days.
You have to remember Will hasn't caught up to the 20th century yet.
What has that got to do with 'plunder', or any economic benefit to Britain from its Empire? Britain benefited from World trade, a minority of that trade with its own colonies, but its real strength was its head start in the Industrial Revolution.
Last edited:
What the Empire was trading exactly? If I'm not mistaken the Empire benefited greatly from the colonies since the goods were coming from the colonies.
When they conquered India, it was one of the richest collection of kingdoms in the world. They left it an extremely poor country, but sure, they didn't "plunder" it.
Read a book.
The world's trade and economy changed completely over those 200 years.
In 1757 both the economies of East and West were still overwhelmingly agricultural, but by 1948 the West had shifted to a largely industrial economy, whereas the East, and India, had not altered their ancient mode of existence. It wasn't 'plunder' but the lack of industrial development that caused India's eclipse.
You might argue that it was the self-interested hand of Britain on the tiller that kept India mired in the old ways. But, without the British presence, would those benighted little kingdoms you spoke of really have thrown off centuries of medievalist autocracy and embraced the opportunities of the modern world like 19th century Singapores and Hong Kongs? I doubt it. What development that occurred was largely down to the British.
The East in general was slow to abandon the old ways. Thailand never suffered colonization, but didn't rush to embrace the new world. The only Eastern state to enthusiastically do so was Japan, and that only after a humiliating encounter with Admiral Perry in Tokyo Bay.
benighted little kingdoms? Stopped reading. Won't bother replying. Continue living ignorantly.
We are eternally grateful that you taught us your advanced language. That legacy of your benevolent rule allows me to tell y̶o̶u̶ your post to feck off.
I had nearly the same view of Britain's relationship with India till about 2 years back. I was also an Idiot for having that view.
I'm genuinely curious, what changed your view?
I never argued with the economic exploitation in the first place for a start.
What I did think back then was that the political outcomes for the region as a result of the empire were positive at least for India (the country now) . I also believed in the gift of English language and railways.
Over the last couple of years, I have visited there more often and read more about the politics of South Asia. The poverty that is a result of systemic changes made by the empire. The fledgling industries were dismantled and the goal of agriculture shifted from feeding the population there to feeding the industry here.
The British era railways are really not a positive for India, they are more of a burden. Not fit for purpose, focus excessively on the old colonial outposts rather than the masses of the country. They really were never designed to be accessible for rural population. That said, 70 odd years should have been enough to sort it out but the country never managed to resulting in bulging overpopulated cities and poor rural population.
Its funny how the press and media in India dont do enough to highlight all these things and large chunk still think that there were benefits from the colonial rule. We did a seriously good PR job while leaving.
Last edited:
I find it interesting in the last week Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. have all changed their policy on worker Visa's to prioritise their citizens. Its the kind of policy that when has been suggested in the UK during the Brexit debates has been labeled racist.
I know this forum and this thread especially is very much pro-free movement but the world as a whole seems to be going drip by drip they other way, with country's worrying more and more about how they are going to provide work for their citizens.
I know this forum and this thread especially is very much pro-free movement but the world as a whole seems to be going drip by drip they other way, with country's worrying more and more about how they are going to provide work for their citizens.
I never argues with the economic exploitation in the first place for a start.
What I did think back then was that the political outcomes for the region as a result of the empire were positive for India (the country now) . I also believed in the gift of English language and railways.
Over the last couple of years, I have visited there more often and read more about the politics of South Asia. The poverty that is a result of systemic changes made by the empire. The fledgling industries were dismantled and the goal of agriculture shifted from feeding the population there to feeding the industry here.
The British era railways are really not a positive for India, they are more of a burden. Not fit for purpose, focus excessively on the old colonial outposts rather than the masses of the country. They really were never designed to be accessible for rural population. That said, 70 odd years should have been enough to sort it out but the country never managed to resulting in bulging overpopulated cities and poor rural population.
Its funny how the press and media in India dont do enough to highlight all these things and large chunk still think that there were benefits from the colonial rule. We did a seriously good PR job while leaving.
Same thing happened to Malta. The islands rebelled against Napoleon’s garrison and naively asked the Brits to blockade the port to cut French supplies to the city. When the French were kicked out, the empire became Malta’s protector but they swiftly changed the deal into full blown colonisation.
Aware of Malta’s strategic importance + its historical link to Italy, the British empire made sure that the Maltese would be solely dependent to them. They killed off any industry that wasn’t linked to UK military turning this once prosperous island into a military fortress which was totally dependent to the empire. That caused such a high level of poverty that at one point there was a need to create a coin for the Maltese (the third farthing).
Despite everything the Maltese remained loyal to the crown even when Mussolini offered all Maltese full Italian citizenship in exchange of the allegiance. That cost the Maltese dear as the islands was heavily bombed (the most bombed country during WW2) and nearly starved to death.
Following the war the Maltese were rewarded with some tin medal, some spare change to rebuild the country and loads of job cuts which crippled the economy. That caused an outrage which was followed by a referendum on independence.
Since then, our economy grew stronger in every passing year and I dare to say we have a better standard of living then the Brits.
Its amazing how the same scarmongering tactics used in Malta is currently being used with Scotland. Scotland won't survive without Westminster etc etc etc.
Last edited:
Scotland is a very different story to ex-colonies. it was basically a failed state prior to the Act of Union. It then blossomed as a major player in the UK and the British Empire (in which Scots were disproportionately prominent) before suffering from post-war desindustrialisation (like the North of England and South Wales). It is legitimate to ask how it would fare as an independent state in an era of low oil prices, particularly as Ireland has had a 30 year head start in promoting itself as the business-friendly, low-tax, English speaking gateway to Europe.