Westminster Politics

nickm said:
Poster 2 does not point out what happened as result of that punching. Poster 2 actually picks a single example rather than make a more balanced assessment of how British interests have been served by our international relationships. Basically shouting “Iraq bad” all the time is not an argument especially nearly two decades after the event.
Click to expand...

It's not nearly two decades after the event. It ended this decade and the direct repercussions are still being felt internationally. That's basic shit.

People like you either trying to rewrite history or being ignorant of it might be part of the reason that others feel the need to remind you about it.
 
nickm said:
Poster 2 does not point out what happened as result of that punching.
Click to expand...
Given that we are in 2019 I thought the result didn't need pointing out.

nickm said:
Poster 2 actually picks a single example rather than make a more balanced assessment of how British interests have been served by our international relationships. Basically shouting “Iraq bad” all the time is not an argument especially nearly two decades after the event.
Click to expand...
Firstly I picked the Iraq war because as we've all seen the sheer mention of it(All I did was post 1 picture) makes you piss your pants. Secondly as the last couple of pages have shown its a good example(Although there are plenty more examples)of the outcome of Britain punching above its weight.


nickm said:
That’s again a remarkably simplistic way of looking at it.
Click to expand...

You've literally offered nothing but nostalgia for a time that never existed.

nickm said:
Our legacy is also in the international legal institutions that we helped establish. Our influence sprung partly from that too. Bemoaning the torching of our international relationships and our increasingly provincial worldview, isn’t about defending our colonial legacy.
Click to expand...
What feck does any of this mean ?
 
Last edited:
RedChip said:
Come on now. This is ridiculous. You have countries like Uganda, where being gay is only marginally better than being the devil. These former colonies have had decades to change the laws and they have not because in most cases anti-gay is consistent with local customs and culture. I think it spurious to blame the former colonial powers, British or otherwise.
Click to expand...
these things don't happen in a vaccum, 2 seconds of google will give you this about the example you choose, showing the anti-gay movements started as a result of colonisation not because it was an existing cultural fact, the more recent extreme anti-gay laws also have some roots in American evangelism

Vitro said:
That’s true, however the researchers concluded that the British colonial experience did not make it harder/less likely that states would decriminalize homosexuality later on.

The quotation makes it sounds as if the opposite assertion is true.
Click to expand...
it doesn't matter which way history forked in those countries, lasting damage was done by the colonisers
 
nickm said:
That’s again a remarkably simplistic way of looking at it. Our legacy is also in the international legal institutions that we helped establish. Our influence sprung partly from that too. Bemoaning the torching of our international relationships and our increasingly provincial worldview, isn’t about defending our colonial legacy.
Click to expand...
be specific for once for fecks sake no one has any idea what you're talking about
 
Silva said:
these things don't happen in a vaccum, 2 seconds of google will give you this about the example you choose, showing the anti-gay movements started as a result of colonisation not because it was an existing cultural fact, the more recent extreme anti-gay laws also have some roots in American evangelism
Click to expand...
I meant local customs as they are now, not more than a century ago. Views on sexuality have changed almost everywhere in that time. In countries like Uganda, the change has been towards less permissiveness. The tilt towards zero tolerance occurred many years after they gained independence, in the 80s and 90s. Therefore, a better explanation might be the osmosis of American Evangelism, not colonialism. These countries were more tolerant in the immediate post colonial days than they are now.
 
Shamwow said:
It's not nearly two decades after the event. It ended this decade and the direct repercussions are still being felt internationally. That's basic shit.

People like you either trying to rewrite history or being ignorant of it might be part of the reason that others feel the need to remind you about it.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I’m not going to argue about Iraq again. My point is wider one, and the context is Brexit- here and now - not Iraq, where the decision was made nearly 20 years ago. Perhaps you need to reminded about that.
 
RedChip said:
I meant local customs as they are now, not more than a century ago. Views on sexuality have changed almost everywhere in that time. In countries like Uganda, the change has been towards less permissiveness. The tilt towards zero tolerance occurred many years after they gained independence, in the 80s and 90s. Therefore, a better explanation might be the osmosis of American Evangelism, not colonialism. These countries were more tolerant in the immediate post colonial days than they are now.
Click to expand...
it's always all of the above, I don't know if western chritisian theology would have this particular impact without colonialism - would those american evangelists had the same effect on the country if anti-gay sentiments didn't get planted in the region? idk maybe, maybe not, but what we do know is that the British empire planted the anti-gay sentiments to begin with
 
Silva said:
be specific for once for fecks sake no one has any idea what you're talking about
Click to expand...

British role in helping to set up nato: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO
British role at Bretton Woods: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_Conference
British role in setting up the UN: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_United_Nations

My point being, bemoaning the loss of influence, thanks to Brexit, isn’t about preserving our colonial legacy. It’s about wanting to play a role in shaping the institutions of the future too, rather than opting out of it. That kind of internationalist outlook is worth fighting for. IMO.
 
nickm said:
British role in helping to set up nato: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO
British role at Bretton Woods: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_Conference
British role in setting up the UN: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_United_Nations

My point being, bemoaning the loss of influence, thanks to Brexit, isn’t about preserving our colonial legacy. It’s about wanting to play a role in shaping the institutions of the future too, rather than opting out of it. That kind of internationalist outlook is worth fighting for. IMO.
Click to expand...
what that's it, pacts almost a century ago? and this waning influence is because of brexit, are you taking the piss?

Britain lost that influence decades ago because it no longer has the military might or economic power to swing that high, it wasn't punching above it's weight in those pacts - that was its weight

Brexit won't have an impact on those things, the economy will shrink and the NI will be a shitshow but the country will be essentially at the same power level it is now but in a different dynamic
 
The idea that Brexit will increase our impirtance and influence is outright ludicrous. We will have to beg for trade deals and tske the scraps that we are offered while losing much of our influence in Europe and officially becoming America's bitch.

Of course we could recolonise the world to get back what we once had.

And when the choice is between a rich public school buffoon and an uber rich publuc schoolboy who has already fucjed up.health and education I'd choose a faceless Eurocrat every daybof the week. If of course that alternative wasn't an invention of the Brexiteers.
 
Wibble said:
The idea that Brexit will increase our impirtance and influence is outright ludicrous. We will have to beg for trade deals and tske the scraps that we are offered while losing much of our influence in Europe and officially becoming America's bitch.
Click to expand...
the UK will rejoin the SM and CU not long after it leaves because it's the only workable NI solution, so trade deals will happen through the EU in the future. it's just a matter of if boris has the balls to destroy the economy because he over promised on no deal
 
nickm said:
British role in helping to set up nato: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO
British role at Bretton Woods: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_Conference
British role in setting up the UN: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_United_Nations

My point being, bemoaning the loss of influence, thanks to Brexit, isn’t about preserving our colonial legacy. It’s about wanting to play a role in shaping the institutions of the future too, rather than opting out of it. That kind of internationalist outlook is worth fighting for. IMO.
Click to expand...

The reason the UK could be influential in the UN and Bretton Woods is because it wasn't a "medium-sized economy" at that time, it was the biggest empire in world history. NATO happened just a few years after that. Hard to be provincial when the province extends as far as South-East Asia (where Britain would soon militarily intervene to keep its rule, another example of outward-looking leadership!).
 
Silva said:
the UK will rejoin the SM and CU not long after it leaves because it's the only workable NI solution, so trade deals will happen through the EU in the future. it's just a matter of if boris has the balls to destroy the economy because he over promised on no deal
Click to expand...
Do you actually think Boris understands the consequences of what he is doing? It would take understanding for it to need balls. I believe he thinks no deal will be as easy and glorious as he says it will be.
 
Wibble said:
The idea that Brexit will increase our impirtance and influence is outright ludicrous. We will have to beg for trade deals and tske the scraps that we are offered while losing much of our influence in Europe and officially becoming America's bitch.

Of course we could recolonise the world to get back what we once had.

And when the choice is between a rich public school buffoon and an uber rich publuc schoolboy who has already fucjed up.health and education I'd choose a faceless Eurocrat every daybof the week. If of course that alternative wasn't an invention of the Brexiteers.
Click to expand...

My that’s a keen understanding of world economics there.

Which brand of cornflakes did you read it on?
 
Ducklegs said:
My that’s a keen understanding of world economics there.

Which brand of cornflakes did you read it on?
Click to expand...

I don't eat carbs.

And I suspect I've experienced a far greater depth and breadth of political and economic circumstances than you which has armed me with a much more sophisticated understanding of how things work.

The bottom line is that we have always had a hugely inflated and unrealistic view of our place in the world. Only a feckwit would think that Brexit will be anything other than a disaster, with only the degree to be revealed.
 
D_OjE6TX4AE98HT.jpg
 
Silva said:
it's always all of the above, I don't know if western chritisian theology would have this particular impact without colonialism - would those american evangelists had the same effect on the country if anti-gay sentiments didn't get planted in the region? idk maybe, maybe not, but what we do know is that the British empire planted the anti-gay sentiments to begin with
Click to expand...

So did Africa have a liberal attitude toward gays before colonialism?
 
Honest John said:
So did Africa have a liberal attitude toward gays before colonialism?
Click to expand...

I think the problem with this conversation is that we’re projecting modern understandings of concepts such as homosexuality on to pre-modern societies. The little reading I’ve done on this, in the Middle Eastern context anyway, suggests that homosexuality as a concept or as the individual identity we are familiar with today didn’t really exist in pre-modern societies. What we would today describe as homosexual relations were generally tolerated behind closed doors in societies where strict gender segregation was the norm. And in certain exclusive sections of society they could even be celebrated. But this doesn’t mean there was general public toleration for homosexual acts or lifestyles (what Putin might refer to as gay propaganda).

Probably Britain’s (and the other modern colonial powers) role was to classify and codify what had previously been fluid and adaptable legal approaches to the issue along lines that they understood from their own historical experience. Which in turn meant these colonized nations entered modernity with a very rigid understanding of how homosexuality should be dealt with.
 
Silva said:
what that's it, pacts almost a century ago? and this waning influence is because of brexit, are you taking the piss?
Click to expand...

No, but I think you are. You implied I was trying to defend our colonial legacy, based on nothing I'd actually said. I said, no, there were other legacies worth defending. You asked me for some examples. I gave some - our role in shaping the rules based international order for one. So stop moving the goalposts, I've answered your question.

My broader point is, yes, we've clearly lost influence over the last decade or so. We have been stupid and cavalier. And Brexit now means we will lose more. That is not something we should be happy about as a country. It's a dangerous world, we need allies and we need institutions we can influence.
 
Silva said:
yeah he does he's not that stupid
Click to expand...
You have more confidence in him than I do. I don't think you can repeat lies for years and years and not start believing in them to some extent. Add to that the fact he rubbishes any expert opinion that doesn't fit his narrative and I can really picture him thinking no deal won't be that bad.
 
Silva said:
the UK will rejoin the SM and CU not long after it leaves because it's the only workable NI solution, so trade deals will happen through the EU in the future. it's just a matter of if boris has the balls to destroy the economy because he over promised on no deal
Click to expand...

That could be 20-30 years and I wouldn't be optimistic there will be a UK at all by then.
 
Abizzz said:
You have more confidence in him than I do. I don't think you can repeat lies for years and years and not start believing in them to some extent. Add to that the fact he rubbishes any expert opinion that doesn't fit his narrative and I can really picture him thinking no deal won't be that bad.
Click to expand...
He doesn't do that out of high levels stupidity though, he's a bullshit artist who has gone through life cheating and lying and only ever getting rewarded for it. He knows what happens if we leave with no deal, he's just arrogant enough to think the EU will blink and will have to decide if he has the balls to go through with his bluff.

nickm said:
No, but I think you are. You implied I was trying to defend our colonial legacy, based on nothing I'd actually said. I said, no, there were other legacies worth defending. You asked me for some examples. I gave some - our role in shaping the rules based international order for one. So stop moving the goalposts, I've answered your question.

My broader point is, yes, we've clearly lost influence over the last decade or so. We have been stupid and cavalier. And Brexit now means we will lose more. That is not something we should be happy about as a country. It's a dangerous world, we need allies and we need institutions we can influence.
Click to expand...
the examples you choose were a result of empire and wealth, we're not going to get to that level without fecking up a few countries and we're not strong enough anymore
 
So Trump is president of the world, essentially, and now another blonde buffoon will potentially lead another military super power.

Is this our Idiocracy era?
 
Silva said:
the UK will rejoin the SM and CU not long after it leaves because it's the only workable NI solution, so trade deals will happen through the EU in the future. it's just a matter of if boris has the balls to destroy the economy because he over promised on no deal
Click to expand...
When it comes to trade deals, what is it exactly that we have to trade?

That’s a genuine question that was posed to me last night and to tell you the truth I couldn’t answer. So I’m not being flippant, I have no idea.
 
Rolandofgilead said:
When it comes to trade deals, what is it exactly that we have to trade?

That’s a genuine question that was posed to me last night and to tell you the truth I couldn’t answer. So I’m not being flippant, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Britain still has a big aerospace sector, automotive industry and pharmaceuticals (If we are talking actual physical goods, not banking or software). It's also the center for a lot of niches, a lot of F1 teams for instance are located in the UK.
 
Abizzz said:
Britain still has a big aerospace sector, automotive industry and pharmaceuticals (If we are talking actual physical goods, not banking or software). It's also the center for a lot of niches, a lot of F1 teams for instance are located in the UK.
Click to expand...
Ok thank you.

I intended to look it up when I wake up later but asked in here instead. Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.