Current Affairs EU In or Out

[roydo]

But when unsubstantiated premises are advance on any subject, from any side, then they rightly deserve to be challenged.

That £350,00000 a week for the NHS was tripe. But people didnt challenge it. They seemingly believed it. Same thing really. Folk will grope for any reassurance to back their decision. On both sides.

All I do is question the wisdom of making such a seismic decision maybe influenced by the likes of Farage, Boris, et al. I am certain you know your own mind, others, (many?) who voted the same way, I am less sure of.

 

[Old Blue 2]

1. That was my point, that we "had deliberately not taken an effective part in European affairs for most of the past hundred and twenty-five years".

2. I didn't say interfere in German politics, I said "failing to build any kind of anti-Hitler coalition". Germany was surrounded by hostile regimes and we let almost all of them down.

3. This is a bit of a myth, sadly. In 1933 when Hitler came to power Germany had a tiny army, a tiny navy and the beginnings of an air force wheras Britain still had an empire. We negotiated a treaty which allowed them to build their navy to the point that it was threatening to us, and let them get away with tearing up those bits of Versailles that prevented them tanks and aircraft. It wasn't so much us catching them up as us being miles ahead, stopping, giving them a hand up, a masasage and a seat on the pace car and then trying to catch them.

1. We didin't need to, for the reason I already stated...

2. What would any hostile coalition have done? Are you seriously saying that that any coalition would have brought down Hitler?

3. You need to read up a bit more on it. Foir starters, check out what von Seekt had been doing for many years in building up the German army at secret bases in Russia. Ditto for the German airforce. Those things didn't just appear overnight. Secret planning and training operations had been going on for over a decade prior to 1933 and Hitler's assumptionof power. Their navy, admitted by the Kriegsmarine, was still nowhere near our capability in 1940 - their estimate was that they hoped to reach parity around 1942-43. As far as the airforce was concerned, to suggest we were miles ahead is laughable. We only caught up in fighter terms in 1940 when the Hurricane and SPitfire reached sufficinet squadrons to give us parity. Before that (i.e. 1938 & 1939) we would have been putting up biplanes against Messerschmitt 109s and 110s. Our light bombers were, unfortunately, very poor (Bristol Blenheim & Fairey Battle), and were knocked down quite substantially whenever they were intercepted in any strength by Luftwaffe fighters. Ditto for our heavy bomber in the early part of the war (check out what happened to Wellingtons in the 'Battle of Heligoland Bight' in 1939). Us miles ahead? Sorry, you are wrong on that.

 

[roydo]

For the avoidance of doubt, I know, for certain, that @Old Blue 2 is way more than "well informed" on this WW2 stuff. Planes especially.

Proceed with caution.

 

[Old Blue 2]

That £350,00000 a week for the NHS was tripe. But people didnt challenge it. They seemingly believed it. Same thing really. Folk will grope for any reassurance to back their decision. On both sides.

All I do is question the wisdom of making such a seismic decision maybe influenced by the likes of Farage, Boris, et al. I am certain you know your own mind, others, (many?) who voted the same way, I am less sure of.

Oh dear, roydo, are you still trotting that old chestnut out? It shows how far the remain debate has come. It was a comparative. Neither campaign had the ability, or executive authority, to implement anything. It was a comparative figure, and a comparative statement.

Second paragraph, fair enough. I made my own mind up, outwith anything that Farage or Boris said. But others may have been swayed by them. Just as some no doubt were swayed by what Cameron said (and his £9.5 Million booklet), or the threat of a swingeing budget from the Chancellor is leave won the day. It's a two-way street, roydo...

 

[Old Blue 2]

For the avoidance of doubt, I know, for certain, that @Old Blue 2 is way more than "well informed" on this WW2 stuff. Planes especially.

Proceed with caution.

 

[roydo]

But others may have been swayed by them. Just as some no doubt were swayed by what Cameron said (and his £9.5 Million booklet), or the threat of a swingeing budget from the Chancellor is leave won the day. It's a two-way street, roydo...

It is indeed. But like many campaigns, a single moment seemed in hindsight to be decisive. Or memorable. We are both old enough to remember Thatcher win in 1979, and the abiding memory is the "Labour isnt Working" Saatchi bill boards.

Miliband with that Tablet of stone. "You are no JFK" in Merica, so they can work the other way round. Leave got it right, Stay got it wrong. Fair play.

Like you seem to agree, folk were swayed on both sides. Which is why I think there would be an appetite for some to realise they were lied to, maybe regret their decision, (on both sides), and now some of the reality has started to be revealed, maybe would like to rethink their decision.

 

[Old Blue 2]

It is indeed. But like many campaigns, a single moment seemed in hindsight to be decisive. Or memorable. We are both old enough to remember Thatcher win in 1979, and the abiding memory is the "Labour isnt Working" Saatchi bill boards.

Miliband with that Tablet of stone. "You are no JFK" in Merica, so they can work the other way round. Leave got it right, Stay got it wrong. Fair play.

Like you seem to agree, folk were swayed on both sides. Which is why I think there would be an appetite for some to realise they were lied to, maybe regret their decision, (on both sides), and now some of the reality has started to be revealed, maybe would like to rethink their decision.

Agreed. I will never forget Thatcher's platitude on the steps of No. 10 when she won the election in 1979. 'Where there is discord we will bring harmony' etc.. That sticks in the craw right up to this day for me. Biggest lie ever by a politician, in the wake of what was to come from her and her Government...

 

[roydo]

Agreed. I will never forget Thatcher's platitude on the steps of No. 10 when she won the election in 1979. 'Where there is discord we will bring harmony' etc.. That sticks in the craw right up to this day for me. Biggest lie ever by a politician, in the wake of what was to come from her and her Government...

So in hindsight, do you think many would have reversed their vote once the truth dawned upon them?

 

[Old Blue 2]

So in hindsight, do you think many would have reversed their vote once the truth dawned upon them?

I don't know. I think a lot would have hardened their views in the light of how Juncker, Verhofstadt, and some of the other officials at the top of the tree at the EU have conducted themselves post-Brexit. You have probably seen my thoughts on that, and I am appalled at the pettiness and brinkmanship that I see from them. It might be the case (and it is only my opinion here) that some who voted remain have seen and heard those EU bods and may now think 'If that's their attitude towards us, then perhaps we're best out of there after all'. It's difficult to call that one. I really don't know.

 

[roydo]

I don't know. I think a lot would have hardened their views in the light of how Juncker, Verhofstadt, and some of the other officials at the top of the tree at the EU have conducted themselves post-Brexit. You have probably seen my thoughts on that, and I am appalled at the pettiness and brinkmanship that I see from them. It might be the case (and it is only my opinion here) that some who voted remain have seen and heard those EU bods and may now think 'If that's their attitude towards us, then perhaps we're best out of there after all'. It's difficult to call that one. I really don't know.

Fair point that. I fear that many do not follow events as closely as some do.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

What is this brinkmanship all about? We were informed by people in the government, the civil service and the EU that we wouldn't enjoy a better deal outside the EU than we enjoy in it. We were told by Boris et al that this was nonsense, that they need us far more than we need them and that they would succumb to our demands. It's a rhetoric that has been repeated numerous times on here, despite continued evidence to the contrary.

When Brits pointed this out they were branded remoaners (even traitors). When Europeans pointed this out they were branded petty and arrogant, all the while project fear was being dismissed as nonsense. They haven't changed their stance one iota, and indeed, the press conference I linked to a few posts ago reminded us of the salient point that Britain can't get a comparable deal outside the EU that we had inside it, so this sense of victimhood is very bizarre indeed. They've been good to their word. It's a pity the politicians you've tossed your hat in with haven't done likewise.

 

[peteblue]

“Britain must pay Brussels £2.4 billion of underpaid customs duties on cheap Chinese shoes and clothes or face legal action in the European Court of Justice and potentially huge, daily fines.

The European Commission on Thursday issued a formal demand for the money and accused British authorities of turning a blind eye to a massive fraud network operating in UK ports.

The demand relates to shoes and clothes arriving in UK ports from China since 2007, whose value was under-reported by importers in order to minimise the customs duties collected and passed on to the EU.”

I expect they’ll be trying a few of these on to drag more money from us. We should walk away as quickly as possible......

 

[tsubaki]

1. We didin't need to, for the reason I already stated...

We didn't need to get involved? We let the situation get so out of hand that Germany was a very real threat to our existence as an Empire and it cost millions of lives to stop them.

2. What would any hostile coalition have done? Are you seriously saying that that any coalition would have brought down Hitler?

They would have stopped him, which would probably have been enough to bring him down given the nature of his regime. If we had stood up to him at any point from 1934 onwards the Second World War would almost certainly not have happened, certainly not

3. You need to read up a bit more on it. Foir starters, check out what von Seekt had been doing for many years in building up the German army at secret bases in Russia. Ditto for the German airforce. Those things didn't just appear overnight. Secret planning and training operations had been going on for over a decade prior to 1933 and Hitler's assumptionof power. Their navy, admitted by the Kriegsmarine, was still nowhere near our capability in 1940 - their estimate was that they hoped to reach parity around 1942-43. As far as the airforce was concerned, to suggest we were miles ahead is laughable. We only caught up in fighter terms in 1940 when the Hurricane and SPitfire reached sufficinet squadrons to give us parity. Before that (i.e. 1938 & 1939) we would have been putting up biplanes against Messerschmitt 109s and 110s. Our light bombers were, unfortunately, very poor (Bristol Blenheim & Fairey Battle), and were knocked down quite substantially whenever they were intercepted in any strength by Luftwaffe fighters. Ditto for our heavy bomber in the early part of the war (check out what happened to Wellingtons in the 'Battle of Heligoland Bight' in 1939). Us miles ahead? Sorry, you are wrong on that.

This is where you are going wrong.

The Germans had been secretly co-operating with the Soviets as part of the Rapallo Pact, but they were testing tactics and equipment that were at best equal to what the British and French were fielding, there was very little innovation beyond that (and what did happen was in the Soviet's benefit) and it was emphatically not about stockpiling equipment that could be quickly used (which is what "building up the German Army" would require). We even knew about it at the time, via our own intelligence and by reports in the German press, but decided to ignore it.

As an example of how "developed" they were, when Guderian was posted to be the expert on armoured warfare for the German Army in 1931 he had never actually been in a tank (he had to wait until a working holiday with his wife to Sweden, when the Swedes let him have a go on one of their ex-WW1 machines), and he and his then boss had to create the Panzer forces from nothing.

When Hitler took power in 1933 the Panzer forces didn't exist in any real form, nor did the Luftwaffe, nor did the Kriegsmarine. They were inferior to the French (never mind everyone else), which is why the French insisted at the Geneva Conference that Germany should remain militarily inferior to them. They were still inferior to them by 1936, when Hitler went into the Rhineland and terrified almost all of his senior officers who knew what would happen if the French sent their army in. If he had been confronted by a combination of the UK, the French, the Poles and the Czechs at any point up to the Anschluss (and probably any point up to Munich) he would have lost, or more accurately he would have backed down and then lost.

In short, the dominance they appeared to have in 1938/9 that you point to was because we had spent five or six years not stopping him, letting him build his forces up and generally looking the other way (edit: and not rearming properly ourselves). Had we stepped in earlier, as we might well have done (and as Barthou had tried to do before his death) then he would not have got to that point.

That is what I was trying to say when mentioning our inaction during the 19th century, during the 1930s, what it led to and the fundamental daftness of yet more inaction now.

 

[peteblue]

We didn't need to get involved? We let the situation get so out of hand that Germany was a very real threat to our existence as an Empire and it cost millions of lives to stop them.



They would have stopped him, which would probably have been enough to bring him down given the nature of his regime. If we had stood up to him at any point from 1934 onwards the Second World War would almost certainly not have happened, certainly not



This is where you are going wrong.

The Germans had been secretly co-operating with the Soviets as part of the Rapallo Pact, but they were testing tactics and equipment that were at best equal to what the British and French were fielding, there was very little innovation beyond that (and what did happen was in the Soviet's benefit) and it was emphatically not about stockpiling equipment that could be quickly used (which is what "building up the German Army" would require). We even knew about it at the time, via our own intelligence and by reports in the German press, but decided to ignore it.

As an example of how "developed" they were, when Guderian was posted to be the expert on armoured warfare for the German Army in 1931 he had never actually been in a tank (he had to wait until a working holiday with his wife to Sweden, when the Swedes let him have a go on one of their ex-WW1 machines), and he and his then boss had to create the Panzer forces from nothing.

When Hitler took power in 1933 the Panzer forces didn't exist in any real form, nor did the Luftwaffe, nor did the Kriegsmarine. They were inferior to the French (never mind everyone else), which is why the French insisted at the Geneva Conference that Germany should remain militarily inferior to them. They were still inferior to them by 1936, when Hitler went into the Rhineland and terrified almost all of his senior officers who knew what would happen if the French sent their army in. If he had been confronted by a combination of the UK, the French, the Poles and the Czechs at any point up to the Anschluss (and probably any point up to Munich) he would have lost, or more accurately he would have backed down and then lost.

In short, the dominance they appeared to have in 1938/9 that you point to was because we had spent five or six years not stopping him, letting him build his forces up and generally looking the other way (edit: and not rearming properly ourselves). Had we stepped in earlier, as we might well have done (and as Barthou had tried to do before his death) then he would not have got to that point.

That is what I was trying to say when mentioning our inaction during the 19th century, during the 1930s, what it led to and the fundamental daftness of yet more inaction now.

Excellent post btw......

 

[peteblue]

I don't know. I think a lot would have hardened their views in the light of how Juncker, Verhofstadt, and some of the other officials at the top of the tree at the EU have conducted themselves post-Brexit. You have probably seen my thoughts on that, and I am appalled at the pettiness and brinkmanship that I see from them. It might be the case (and it is only my opinion here) that some who voted remain have seen and heard those EU bods and may now think 'If that's their attitude towards us, then perhaps we're best out of there after all'. It's difficult to call that one. I really don't know.

I see that Gibraltar, who were 95% remain, are having second thoughts with many now changing their opinions. It might also of course be affected by the fact that they’ve discovered that about 90% of the trade they currently do with the ‘EU’ is actually done with the U.K........