Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
To be fair, we only entered it cos Poland got invaded.

And Merica only joined WW1 cos they intercepted (or whatever they did back than), a telegram from Germany to Mexico saying they would help Mexico invade California, or somewhere anyrate.

All very unsavoury.

Serious point. When we leave properly, will we be booted out of the Ryder Cup?

Thats why Rory represents the ROI isnt it? The snake.


We had a treaty with Poland which was triggered by the German invasion on 1st September 1939. Ourselves and France honoured that treaty. One might also say that the 'indicators' were somewhat strong at that point, Germany having taken back the Sudetenland, then taken Czechoslovakia, then annexed Austria. All the signs were there, and the warnings of Churchill in the mid-'30s (for which he was castigated at the time) were coming true.

As for the Ryder Cup, I would rather paint an outside privvy and spend all day and night watching the paint dry than watch a second of golf...
 
I'm sure all is sweetness and light.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/u...pecial-forces-public-order-tactics-1089953113
UK trains Oman's police and special forces in 'public order' tactics

British police officers have trained members of Oman's special forces, police and military in "public order" tactics since 2014 as part of a controversial $1.2m security and justice project, it has emerged.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland has been training members of Oman's police, military and special forces in how to deal with strikes and stifle protests under a Foreign Office-funded project revealed after a Freedom of Information request.

New of the training project, which came to an end in March, has been met with dismay by Omani rights campaigners. They say that the training included officers from Oman's elite Northern Frontier Regiment, which they claim opened fire on protesters in 2011 during the Arab Spring.

Khalfan al-Badwawi, an Omani human rights campaigner who fled the country in 2013 after being repeatedly detained by police, told MEE: "UK intervention in Oman has a long history from the start of the colony era, and these documents show us that Oman is still colonised."

He added that he was "horrified" by the revelation that the UK was training key Omani officers.

"These documents reach the point that the UK is not only training authoritarian regimes how to repress their people, but also using taxpayers money to train them how to do it," said Badwawi.

Controversial prisons deal

Ruled since 1970 by Sultan Qaboos bin Said al-Said, Oman is an absolute monarchy and has been condemned for its restrictions on freedom of expression by Human Rights Watch, which says authorities in the strategically placed country target peaceful activists and critics of the government.

Details of the Omani-PSNI training project have come to light two years after the UK government was forced to withdraw from a controversial $8m prisons deal with Saudi Arabia and Oman.

However, newly released documents show that Omani officials, police and military officers have made at least 14 trips to Northern Ireland since 2014 as part of Foreign Office-funded training in command and control, crowd control, public order policing and firearms demonstrations. The training is delivered by the PSNI through NI-CO, a firm owned by Northern Ireland's regional development agency.

PSNI says it does not train foreign militaries. But in a recent interview with Private Eye magazine the force's chief constable, Barbara Gray, admitted: "In respect of work with Oman, on occasion their partner agencies who also have responsibility for security within the country have been present."

Omani officials, police officers and military personnel have made at least 14 trips to Northern Ireland, according to the documents, and stayed in a five-star hotel while receiving public-order training and firearms demonstrations.

The training, which ran until this March at Garnerville Police College, in Belfast, also saw Omani officers receive intelligence-gathering, community-policing and road-safety training.

A history of control

Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where police are routinely armed and can deploy rubber bullets and water cannons. Omani officers reportedly gave positive feedback on the visits and requested, and were granted, permission to observe PSNI policing of Loyalist sectarian marches during Easter 2016.

In total, more than 100 Omani officials and officers have travelled to Northern Ireland, while five teams of NI-CO consultants and PSNI officers have visited Oman. Most recently, 13 Omani officials travelled to Northern Ireland in March for command-and-control training for senior officers.

The most high-profile visit occurred in March 2015, when a senior Omani officer came to Northern Ireland and met Arlene Foster, the now leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), at the five-star Merchant Hotel in Belfast.

The UK maintained control of Oman throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries. As late as the mid-1960s, the country received more than half of its income directly from London, while British military officers had key roles there.

Meanwhile British forces, including RAF planes and elite SAS soldiers, were used to put down a number of uprising from the 1950s to the 1970s. MI6 is alleged to have helped oversee a coup that deposed Sultan Said bin Taimur in 1970 and put the present ruler, his son, in power.

Most of the documents from the period remain closed until 2021 under the Official Secrets Act.

Mark Curtis, a historian and foreign policy analyst, said the newly revealed training of Oman's security forces was just the latest chapter in the UK's long-running support for the country's leadership.

He told MEE: "Britain's support for Oman is intended to help the ruler stay in power, increase the regime's ability to counter dissent and cultivate relations with military and intelligence officials who buy British weapons, promote British and Western interests in the region and who could be future leaders."

Curtis added that human rights are "nowhere" to be found in UK government calculations in the country. "I doubt they figure at all in the internal planning, except for public-relations purposes," he said.

New base east of Suez

The latest training deal comes as the UK further deepens relations with Oman. About 200 UK military personnel are based in Oman, including some on loan to the Omani armed forces. The two countries will hold major joint military drills next year, the largest overseas deployment of British forces since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The UK and Oman also recently signed a deal on a new naval and logistics base at Duqm in Oman, which will support the Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers when they deploy to the Gulf, amid claims that the UK is putting defence and security priorities above human rights.

Only by working with Oman can we bring about the changes we would like to see in the country

- UK Foreign Office

Oman is a major defence customer for the UK and recently purchased a fleet of 12 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, the first of which was presented to the government in Muscat by BAE Systems in May.

A spokesperson for the Foreign Office said: "We are helping train the Omani police force in how to manage public order in accordance with all international human rights considerations. Any assistance of training complies with our domestic and international human rights obligations."

They added: "Where we have concerns about human rights we will continue to raise them at an appropriate level, both in private and in public. Only by working with Oman can we bring about the changes we would like to see in the country."

1000+ words about personnel training outside of a country, with a small mention of a military agreement and the arab spring demos.

#1 don't care about the UK training officials from another country.

#2 Military agreement, fine i guess.

#3 The arab spring demonstrations in Oman were nothing like what swept the rest of the middle-east. It's a monarchy, but one that very much involves and works for it's residents.

http://m.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/oma...ision-to-give-council-of-oman-powers-1.776309

Muscat: Sultan Qaboos Bin Saeed’s Royal Decrees Sunday made the protesters happy as more of their demands were met, with some saying that they would end protests.

“Sixty to 80 per cent of demands have already been met so there is no reason to continue protesting,” Dr Hussain Al Abry, a psychiatrist with a government hospital, who was a solo protester against Oman Television for the last four days, told Gulf News.

There were still some demands, including salary increases, that had to be met but most of the protesters would gradually give up now, he felt.

“The decree to give Council of Oman legislative and regulatory powers is a huge step and we really appreciate our leader His Majesty Sultan Qaboos for that,” said the medico writer, whose award winning novel is banned in Oman.
 
Up to 22nd June 1941 neither the USA nor the Soviet Union were involved militarily.

After rolling up Western & Northern Europe,the Channel came between the UK and German forces. The invasion plans were thwarted by the inability of the Luftwaffe to destroy Fighter Command, a Fighter Command that admittedly had Commonwealth pilots as well as pilots from other countries in its ranks.

The consequences of a successful invasion of the British Isles in 1940 would have meant there would never have been a base from which the USA & other allies could have launched an invasion of Europe in 1944; Italian forces would have free reign in the Meditteranean Theatre, and German forces could have attacked the Soviet Union up to 6 weeks before they did, with the additional benefit of not having to deploy what became known as the Afrika Korps to the Med Theatre. Doesn't bear thinking about...

Therefore, one might say with a great degree of certainty that the British 'held the line' for a time until the other two major players entered the fray. And both entered the fray ONLY when they had been attacked, not through any act of kindness or understanding on their part...

The above does not include the lend-lease agreement with the USA in 1940, total repayment of which the USA held us to until the final payment (was it in the 1990s, or just after 2000?), just in case that might be thrown into the ring as a sop to how we were given a 'bunk up'. We didn't get anything that we did not have to pay for. And the Soviets benefited from the ASrctic/Murmansk convoys as well...

Just sayin'...

First i'm not sure how your history lesson backs up what Pete said about Britain saving Europe but ok i'll bite... You say you held up the lines until the others got involved. He suggests that Britain saved us all. I merely pointed out that was not entirely accurate.

I never actually disputed how it started or Britain's involvement and solid fighting and effort up until both Russia and America were inadvertently thrown into it. But for anyone to suggest Britain saved Europe is disingenuous simple as that.

If it had gone on much longer than 1940 without Allied support are you saying Britain would have been able to fight them off completely i doubt it.

Sure they did a great job holding them back but ultimately need allied assistance to fight the Nazis back.

Your country and its commonwealth simply didn't have the forces. Actually the Germans invading Russia and poking the bear with the US actually was a blessing. It meant 2 strong nations and a dogged Russian core now fought the Nazis.
 
Pretty sure America and Russia had a very big hand in this too RE Hitler that is. Don't make out Britain saved all of us by itself which is simply not even close to being true.

Also "if they are able" Are you suggesting without Britain it would be hard for them? Britain's military is insignificant compared to the US and China.

You come up with some whoppers Pete.

Also "Let the empire go". Hardly Pete. There are several reasons the empire collapsed. One being two great wars that nearly bankrupted your country and secondly the emergence of other nations which caused occupied countries to decide enough was enough. They would have new allies and or partners if need be. Simply put your country was not as mighty as it was and couldn't hold onto them even if it wanted to.

You make it seem like that your government woke up one day and decided to be nice and relinquish control of every occupied territory.

Indeed they did. But let's not forget that Russia and Germany were hand in hand until Britain, and nobody else, actually fought back. The USA kept out of it until Germany declared war on them after Pearl Habor. The war started in 1939 not 1941 so do not understate Britains involvement. The same happened in WW1, it started in 1914 not 1917.

My 'if they are able' comment is about more than military power, but also political influence.

The 'let the empire go' is not how you suggest it but was in many ways forced upon Britain by the USA and the real changing world. The UK was bankrupt having fought nearly ten years of WW1 and WW2 versus the six years the Americans put in. Britains wealth while at war paid for America to come out of depression. While other European countries fought to keep their colonies, Britain took a sensible managed approach with minimal violence or warfare. I think they did it rather well......
 
Up to 22nd June 1941 neither the USA nor the Soviet Union were involved militarily.

After rolling up Western & Northern Europe,the Channel came between the UK and German forces. The invasion plans were thwarted by the inability of the Luftwaffe to destroy Fighter Command, a Fighter Command that admittedly had Commonwealth pilots as well as pilots from other countries in its ranks.

The consequences of a successful invasion of the British Isles in 1940 would have meant there would never have been a base from which the USA & other allies could have launched an invasion of Europe in 1944; Italian forces would have free reign in the Meditteranean Theatre, and German forces could have attacked the Soviet Union up to 6 weeks before they did, with the additional benefit of not having to deploy what became known as the Afrika Korps to the Med Theatre. Doesn't bear thinking about...

Therefore, one might say with a great degree of certainty that the British 'held the line' for a time until the other two major players entered the fray. And both entered the fray ONLY when they had been attacked, not through any act of kindness or understanding on their part...

The above does not include the lend-lease agreement with the USA in 1940, total repayment of which the USA held us to until the final payment (was it in the 1990s, or just after 2000?), just in case that might be thrown into the ring as a sop to how we were given a 'bunk up'. We didn't get anything that we did not have to pay for. And the Soviets benefited from the ASrctic/Murmansk convoys as well...

Just sayin'...

Indeed.......
 
First i'm not sure how your history lesson backs up what Pete said about Britain saving Europe but ok i'll bite... You say you held up the lines until the others got involved. He suggests that Britain saved us all. I merely pointed out that was not entirely accurate.

I never actually disputed how it started or Britain's involvement and solid fighting and effort up until both Russia and America were inadvertently thrown into it. But for anyone to suggest Britain saved Europe is disingenuous simple as that.

If it had gone on much longer than 1940 without Allied support are you saying Britain would have been able to fight them off completely i doubt it.

Sure they did a great job holding them back but ultimately need allied assistance to fight the Nazis back.

Your country and its commonwealth simply didn't have the forces. Actually the Germans invading Russia and poking the bear with the US actually was a blessing. It meant 2 strong nations and a dogged Russian core now fought the Nazis.

I mentioned more than just WW2. Also, WW2 without Britain would have resulted in the complete annihilation of Russia and probably America. Britain could easily have sued for peace, stood back with its Empire and watched what the Germans did. Even worse, we could have joined them and the whole world would now all be speaking German. The world has a great deal to thank Britain for........
 
wow Pete.
'We colonized you, you ungrateful lot, then we saved you from Hitler, and all we did back home is suffer while you basked in the warm glow of colonization, well, we're sick of it. We're not going to help by wiping out your culture and replacing it with ours any more. We're going to be completely insular because that's how our suffering will thrive'

You get it.....
 
Anyway, this tiny insignificant little country of ours wants to go it's own way. The rest of you can do what you wish, just don't involve us, nor cross us, and we will all just get along fine......
 
Indeed they did. But let's not forget that Russia and Germany were hand in hand until Britain, and nobody else, actually fought back. The USA kept out of it until Germany declared war on them after Pearl Habor. The war started in 1939 not 1941 so do not understate Britains involvement. The same happened in WW1, it started in 1914 not 1917.

My 'if they are able' comment is about more than military power, but also political influence.

The 'let the empire go' is not how you suggest it but was in many ways forced upon Britain by the USA and the real changing world. The UK was bankrupt having fought nearly ten years of WW1 and WW2 versus the six years the Americans put in. Britains wealth while at war paid for America to come out of depression. While other European countries fought to keep their colonies, Britain took a sensible managed approach with minimal violence or warfare. I think they did it rather well......
As much as I liked your post, it's not like America was just sitting idly before/after the Great War(s) though. They had Banana wars, Revolutions in Mexico, were also a part of WW1 for a brief stint and also had inside fighting, so to say.
 
Fairly sure if Russia crosses you Britain will be known as "far away Russia" within a month right now, to be fair lol

We don't need to be unfriendly with anyone. We are a tolerant people, but we also have a capability to defend ourselves or at least employ MAD........Russia has lots of tanks and missiles and nukes. They cannot invade the U.K. They can merely blow us up, but then they blow themselves up. If the UK takes an independent stance in the world both America and Russia will be our friends.....
 
We don't need to be unfriendly with anyone. We are a tolerant people, but we also have a capability to defend ourselves or at least employ MAD........Russia has lots of tanks and missiles and nukes. They cannot invade the U.K. They can merely blow us up, but then they blow themselves up. If the UK takes an independent stance in the world both America and Russia will be our friends.....
I know Pete, but the Russians are mad bastards and I'm fairly sure they can pull a Hannibal with the tanks, provided no one can nuke anyone else for some reason lol
 
No mate, our immigration people are ruthless, no passport or visa no entry......
Hannibal tho:
17424866_1802105783148415_8271353656933661150_n.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top