Current Affairs EU In or Out

[SteveSC]

PM me mate, I don't mind. It's not bravado BS at all, believe me. And you know nothing about me and the work I have done...

I guess i missed your edit....

Thats the thing i don't. All i can take is your comments and tone in your posts to have an informed opinion on how i think you are acting.

You get awfully defensive when someone doesn't agree with you and your try put them down with comments on how much you know because of your past. simple as that.

 

[Fedlingen]

I don't need you to tell me to calm down. Who do you think you are? Some kind of higher authority? Don't make me laugh.

And not being interested shows that this really is sarcastic and useless: "...I respectfully suggest drinking a pint and going up half a shoe size..."

About as useful as telling another forum member that he has no knowledge of a subject and quite clearly taking his opinion of it personally.

I respectfully suggest you do not know your aviation history with regard to the Battle of Britain and beyond.

I respectfully suggest you do not know my aviation history. Some on here do...

"Respectfully" that's about as sarcastic as anything i said.

 

[peteblue]

You two are the most ridiculous people on here. Someone disagrees with you and this is what we get.

You know nothing about me nor my studies and because i disagree with both of you on British strength i know nothing got it. We get it both of you are super proud of your homeland and by all accounts the most knowledge people because of your wealth of experience i guess. Ridiculous keyboard warrior talk from both of you.

Both of you need to take it down a notch you come across like the two old geezers in the muppets in the theatre gallery with the antidotes about back in their day. Ridiculous

Tone it down with the bravado bs.

Just kidding lad, you obviously know your stuff......

 

[SteveSC]

I didn't put you down. Go back and read my original post which started this all off. It was putting the record straight with regard to the UK holding out for a period of time until greater forces were compelled to join the battle, which became global. If you read only one book concerning the Battl eof Britain and where things stood at the end of October 1940, I recommend 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' by Stephen Bungay. An excellent work.

Yes you did. I said Britain would not have survived much longer in the war past 41 if Russia and the yanks didn't join and you began to lecture me because of your experience you know otherwise and i was wrong and didn't know history.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Yes you did. I said Britain would not have survived much longer in the war past 41 if Russia and the yanks didn't join and you began to lecture me because of your experience you know otherwise and i was wrong and didn't know history.

From October 1940 the UK carried on to the Soviet Union's entry into the war on 22 June 1941, which really had no material effect on the British holding out.

The USA entered the war, as you undoubtedly know, on 7th December 1941, and the overall effect of their entry did not begin to be felt for quite some considerable time.

So Britain did survive much, much, longer. The Soviet Union took the brunt of the German Army for years, while the British (this includes Commonwealth trooops and those of other nations who escaped and joined the fight against the Germans) gradually overcame the Afrika Korps, eventually defeating them as the US invaded in the Med Theatre (and were initially opposed by French troops!). The massive capability of the USA and Soviet Union allied to other nations finally led to the defeat of Germany. So I still stand by the first sentence in this paragraph.

The above is the context in which my point was made.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Interesting though this (really) is, it's got nothing to do with Brexit, so might I request we move this to another thread so we can stay on topic on this one?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Why on earth did we trigger Article 50 then after some months seek a further transitional period with wriggle room to extend?
It's a right old fine mess we are in.

 

[peteblue]

Why on earth did we trigger Article 50 then after some months seek a further transitional period with wriggle room to extend?
It's a right old fine mess we are in.

It's just the process, Article 50 had to be enacted to leave, it also stipulated two years so after two years we are out. However while I would be happy to walk away after the two years and trade on WTO rules, the government feel that both the UK and the EU (although they would never admit it) need extra time to make it happen smoothly. While Mays offer was both practical and generous, the EU negotiators will probably view it as weakness and will just harden their stance and demand even more.......

 

[hullefc]

Why on earth did we trigger Article 50 then after some months seek a further transitional period with wriggle room to extend?
It's a right old fine mess we are in.

It could have been done and dusted by Christmas 2016, if it wasn't for the Tories attempting to gain political advantage by wrapping themselves in the union jack. It has badly misfired and they are exposed as being incompetent and stupid as the EU negotiators look on with amused bemusement.

 

[peteblue]

It could have been done and dusted by Christmas 2016, if it wasn't for the Tories attempting to gain political advantage by wrapping themselves in the union jack. It has badly misfired and they are exposed as being incompetent and stupid as the EU negotiators look on with amused bemusement.

They are not covering themselves with glory, that's for sure, but still the better of two evils......May needs to stress that this implementation period is purely that, for both the EU and the UK to seamlessly move to a new reality. I think the EU may have it in their heads that it's only for our benefit...

 

[hullefc]

They are not covering themselves with glory, that's for sure, but still the better of two evils......May needs to stress that this implementation period is purely that, for both the EU and the UK to seamlessly move to a new reality. I think the EU may have it in their heads that it's only for our benefit...

The EU have been forced to lead the UK by the hand so as not to fully expose the complete incompetence of May, Davis, Johnson and Fox. May's speech on Friday a case in point.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

They are not covering themselves with glory, that's for sure, but still the better of two evils......May needs to stress that this implementation period is purely that, for both the EU and the UK to seamlessly move to a new reality. I think the EU may have it in their heads that it's only for our benefit...

The major benefit is for us though, as the massive disruption that would be caused if we exited before the correct infrastructure was in place, would affect us more than anyone in the EU. Albeit you're right to a point and there is plenty of work that'd needed to be done across the channel - notably at Calais - but the benefit of a transition to us remains far greater to them as a collective of 27

 

[peteblue]

The major benefit is for us though, as the massive disruption that would be caused if we exited before the correct infrastructure was in place, would affect us more than anyone in the EU. Albeit you're right to a point and there is plenty of work that'd needed to be done across the channel - notably at Calais - but the benefit of a transition to us remains far greater to them as a collective of 27

Perhaps, and we could argue numbers etc etc all day, but this is an issue that you felt needing to be resolved so the two year transition is a solution. Whether it is worth paying £18-20,000,000,000 is perhaps another matter. But if it helps to move things forward then fair enough....

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[peteblue]

Excellent. Did he also forecast the last financial crash or did he miss that one. Leaving may make us richer, it may make us poorer, but whatever happens we will not be part of a newly forming superstate......