Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

FUCK YES LET'S LEAVE GET HYPE YEY

Casual yes, let's leave and get independence done with

Meh, probably just scribble all over my vote ballot to spite tryhards

Casual no, let's remain and get integration done with

FUCK NO LET'S REMAIN GET CALM YEY

[MonkeyHead]

I have spent a little time thinking about this.

Regardless of the result, the Tories could be fucked.

If the UK goes "In", Tory party members who wanted "Out" could very well jump ship to UKIP who no doubt will bang the drum for Euroscepticism, leaving the minority of "In" Tories looking rather outnumbered.

If the UK goes "Out", the fact that major party figures including the PM and Chancellor wanted "In" will lead to even more backstabbing and schisms as power moves behind closed doors work to drive them further right under some kind of unholy Gove/BoGo coupling alliance. This gives up the centre ground to Labour, and we all know how things go when Labour own the centre.

*shrug*

[SirQuiamus]

My predictions are usually shit because I'm an ignorant pisshead, but I'm fairly confident that the following things will happen in the near future:

June 23 2016: Narrow Brexit victory.

June 24 2016: Hameron and his Brexin cronies try to pull a fast one.

Shortly after that: Hameron resigns amid massive protests before the matter gets taken to parliament.

A bit later: Boris rules the waves and all the Brexin Tories rally behind him.

Later still: Major Eurosceptic victories all over Europe.

Much later: ? ? ?

June 23 2026: THE EU IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE EU

[Loud Whispers]

I don't understand it, it looks like people believe leaving the EU means border closing and leaving behind regulations?

That doesn't make any sense. Those policies are almost always bilateral, do-ut-des kind of deal. Can't have your cake and eat it too, etc.

Looks like? Goodness, you don't need to look, you can always ask em directly :P
To answer your questions
1. No, border control =/= border closing
2. EU not controlling British regulation =/= Britain not following export regulations

The UK already opts out of half the EU deals - they are having their cake and eating it too.

So what's the cake
I mean serious OW, if we continually lose opt outs and sovereignty what is the end goal? Don't have to be a genius to see where that goes. A long line of compromises where we "only" give up our state one bit at a time doesn't sound like having my cake and eating it, it sounds like giving away my cake slice by slice whilst someone else eats it :|

I particularly liked that Question Time audience member's description of Cameron as a '21st-century Neville Chamberlain'. I bet that stung.

Haven't seen that yet.  Did anyone point out that without Chamberlain's deliberate policy of re-armourment, post-Munich, Churchill would have not had such a strong position to battle from when everything came to a head?
He also instituted the Factories Act to give workers paid holidays and other benefits we still enjoy today.
If only Cameron were a Neville Chamberlain, but I don't see it.

Oh yeah, rearmament post fuckup when war was inevitable, a rearmament which was insufficient in scope to defending the Empire. I won't give Chamberlain too much flak because he inherited a nigh-impossible situation of guarding an Empire too large with too few funds from too many enemies with no worthwhile friends after the devastating economic damage of WWI; my only main fault with him is that he was preparing for a war in moderation, when even his contemporaries knew WWII in defeat or victory a war involving the British Empire would end with the dissolution of the British Empire, thus the only logical conclusion could be to accelerate and beat Germany in the arms race - not try to appease Germany, thus preserving the most Commonwealth lives on the onset of inevitable war. And the inevitability of war was certain, with Japan confiscating British ships and testing British resolve (which Chamberlain demonstrated most spinelessly) and Germany acting up in Central Europe and Africa, it would only take one attack from Japan, Germany or Italy to draw all three of them into a war with Britain which they knew Britain would not be able to fight and hope to win. It would take some grand genius of Elizabethan quality to have somehow emerged WWII unscathed, but one thing for certain is that Chamberlain will for good or worse be remembered always as the man clutching onto the piece of paper reading "peace in our time" to his grave. I always find it amusing that even back then, our bleeding heart party was convinced that disbanding the British military would convince Nazi Germany to respond in kind. Naivety dies hard. Does Chamberlain deserve this reputation? I don't know, reputations are earned and lost without merit (I believe I've quoted that earlier ITT), and in modern times I've seen pushes to elevate Chamberlain and trim Churchill's mane.
One thing for certain though is that referring to someone as a modern Neville Chamberlain is not a compliment, any more than referring to someone as a modern Machiavelli is supposed to be a compliment on their being an honest taxpayer. This audience member was calling Cameron a spineless appeaser of tyrants who acted alone against the majority of his opponents, his party and his people's will, who will die despised by all under a delusion that history will vindicate him instead of stripping away his merits and leaving only his ills. Being famous is a terrible thing

If the UK goes "In", Tory party members who wanted "Out" could very well jump ship to UKIP who no doubt will bang the drum for Euroscepticism, leaving the minority of "In" Tories looking rather outnumbered.

That won't happen, UKIP is not the party they would join if they wished to advance their careers. In the Labour purges and strife of Corbyn's rise, I remember the rank and file MPs were giving each other the advice to just lay their heads low and not attract attention of the biggest dogs as they fought each other over the party. I imagine it will be the same with the Tories, where the Osbornes and Bojos fight whilst the rest keep their heads down and work on.

If the UK goes "Out", the fact that major party figures including the PM and Chancellor wanted "In" will lead to even more backstabbing and schisms as power moves behind closed doors work to drive them further right under some kind of unholy Gove/BoGo coupling alliance. This gives up the centre ground to Labour, and we all know how things go when Labour own the centre.

Not much room to backstab after the knives have already been shown, and I'm not particularly sure why they'd arbitrarily seek to push further right by taking over the CCO in backdoor stabbity stab, as none have expressed any interest in doing so. This would still leave Labour stuck with the extreme left.

Interestingly whilst watching Corbyn's talk today, I did regret watching the first 15 minutes of cringe worthy "interviewing" of the selected audience, but when Corbyn got on the quality improved immensely. I find it most amusing that Corbyn is a eurosceptic of the soft kind, wanting to keep the structure of the EU so he can use it to advance socialism, definitely raises him in my eyes as a man of centipedal banter.

My predictions are usually shit because I'm an ignorant pisshead, but I'm fairly confident that the following things will happen in the near future:

June 23 2016: Narrow Brexit victory.

June 24 2016: Hameron and his Brexin cronies try to pull a fast one.

Shortly after that: Hameron resigns amid massive protests before the matter gets taken to parliament.

A bit later: Boris rules the waves and all the Brexin Tories rally behind him.

Later still: Major Eurosceptic victories all over Europe.

Much later: ? ? ?

June 23 2026: THE EU IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE EU

Fugggg :DDDDDDDDDD

[Shadowlord]

but one thing for certain is that Chamberlain will for good or worse be remembered always as the man clutching onto the piece of paper reading "peace in our time" to his grave.

The funny thing is that that isn't even what he said - It was "peace for our time."

[Loud Whispers]

but one thing for certain is that Chamberlain will for good or worse be remembered always as the man clutching onto the piece of paper reading "peace in our time" to his grave.

The funny thing is that that isn't even what he said - It was "peace for our time."

We went to war with the grammar nazis so we didn't have to put up with this shit

[Sergarr]

So, is it already time to do a Majora's Mask countdown?

[martinuzz]

So, is it already time to do a Majora's Mask countdown?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw

[mainiac]

when even his contemporaries knew WWII in defeat or victory a war involving the British Empire would end with the dissolution of the British Empire,

The British labour party already had adopted independence for India as it's party line.  WWII didn't make the empire breakup, it only changed when.  The only way to prevent the British Empire from ending would be to reverse election reform and end the free press because it was british democracy and free speech that made the empire untenable.

I always find it amusing that even back then, our bleeding heart party was convinced that disbanding the British military would convince Nazi Germany to respond in kind. Naivety dies hard.

There was no disbanding, there was a massive modernization program and expansion.  Even before Munich Britain was refitting it's ships, turning obsolete cruisers into aircraft carriers and equipping it's escorts with the ASW that would eventually kill off the German sub aces.  They also were refitting or replacing their battleships which would eventually win the Mediterranean theater.  Britain created a strategic bomber force ("the bomber will always get through"), something that Germany didn't create until several years into the actual war.  Britain completely motorized it's infantry, modernized it's field artillery and started forming tank divisions.  All this was well underway long before Munich.

The hindsight bias is so strong here.  You know looking back that Germany was going crazy but the British are looking at a world that's full of other conflicts.
-Italy is building a navy that is tailor built to attack British interests in the middle east.  They are the primary supporters of the fascist rebels in spain and the ones who ruined the arms embargo for the spanish civil war.  They have shown no interest in a generous British/French effort to offer them concessions in Africa.
-Japan has broken the naval treaties with gusto and is going hardcore on a navy that will be a threat in the short term but will quickly be obsolete, indicating the desire for a conflict soon.  They are also invading china in a war that is a humanitarian nightmare but also a long term threat to british interests and world peace.
-The Soviet Union has just demonstrated the technical capacity to launch an invasion across Central Asia.  British interests in Iran and India may need to be defended.  The Soviets have provoked four major border skirmishes with Japan.  They have built the largest army and air force on earth.

With all that shit going on, Germany building a bunch of submarines and reoccupying the Rhineland sort of get's lost in the crowd.  Imagine the things people on the internet would say if Chamberlin had increased the size of the BEF to a million men to counter a German invasion of Belgium and then the actual war turned out to be the Soviets invading Romania and Iran?  Why is Chamberlin wasting money on trucks in France without protecting the oil supplies for those trucks?  Why does he care about the second rate German military while ignoring the largest military on earth?  Why was a naval power investing in tanks but not investing in modern aircraft carriers to project power to the Black Sea and Tehran?

The British budget was in shambles and they had tons of other security problems.  They focused the naval ones first because they are an island.  They made long term security arrangements with the French and secured American economic friendship.  This ended up eventually winning the war.  Without hindsight, that's the best you can hope for.

[Sheb]

Out of curiosity, what's that soviet invasion across central asia you're referring to?

[Grim Portent]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36573766

Nissan are suing Vote Leave for using their logo in leaflets against their wishes.

[Loud Whispers]

The British labour party already had adopted independence for India as it's party line.  WWII didn't make the empire breakup, it only changed when.  The only way to prevent the British Empire from ending would be to reverse election reform and end the free press because it was british democracy and free speech that made the empire untenable.

Heh, WWII most definitely did end the Empire, it was in the aftermath where the full extent of the Empire's decline was taken out of Imperial hands and given to Murrica and Soviets to decide

There was no disbanding, there was a massive modernization program and expansion.

Yeah, and our bleeding heart party was not in power
Details m8

Even before Munich Britain was refitting it's ships, turning obsolete cruisers into aircraft carriers and equipping it's escorts with the ASW that would eventually kill off the German sub aces. They also were refitting or replacing their battleships which would eventually win the Mediterranean theater.  Britain created a strategic bomber force ("the bomber will always get through"), something that Germany didn't create until several years into the actual war.  Britain completely motorized it's infantry, modernized it's field artillery and started forming tank divisions.  All this was well underway long before Munich.

Yes, and in insufficient number. The British military is always modernizing, every military worth its salt is always modernizing, whether it is capable of being mobilized and fighting is another matter entirely. To that end the British army could not fight on the European continent and so couldn't actually commit to defending the Czechs, the Poles - and ultimately, even the French. The air force was increased at the expense of the Navy as deterrent, without strengthening the operational capabilities of the Empire, what use are Naval Bases across the world when you can only fight in one ocean with the fleet you have? His limited liability doctrine which focused on sea and air was a mistake, as the focus should have been on land and air. British naval forces could not defend all of their Empire, and they desperately were in need of capable friends; to avoid the devastating loss of life of WWI's land campaign, Chamberlain forgot that if Britain had lost a major naval engagement in WWI, they would have lost the war in a day - whereas if France were able to contribute to the war effort alongside a strong British army, the German war machine would have ended up caught between France, Britain and the USSR.

The hindsight bias is so strong here.  You know looking back that Germany was going crazy but the British are looking at a world that's full of other conflicts.

My focus was not on Germany alone.

With all that shit going on, Germany building a bunch of submarines and reoccupying the Rhineland sort of get's lost in the crowd.  Imagine the things people on the internet would say if Chamberlin had increased the size of the BEF to a million men to counter a German invasion of Belgium and then the actual war turned out to be the Soviets invading Romania and Iran?  Why is Chamberlin wasting money on trucks in France without protecting the oil supplies for those trucks?  Why does he care about the second rate German military while ignoring the largest military on earth?  Why was a naval power investing in tanks but not investing in modern aircraft carriers to project power to the Black Sea and Tehran?

If the BEF had a million men to counter a German invasion of Belgium, Hitler would think twice about invading Poland and the allies could launch an offensive into Germany from the onset of war. The Soviet military was second rate and was the reason why Chamberlain had little faith in the Soviets being capable of taking on the German war machine. After German rearmament they were not a third rate military. Investment into the Navy would have to be focused on protecting the East Indies, Atlantic and Meditteranean commercial interests whilst gambling on the US wishing to protect the Pacific, which the Empire could not afford - in WWI, let alone WWII.

The British budget was in shambles and they had tons of other security problems.  They focused the naval ones first because they are an island.  They made long term security arrangements with the French and secured American economic friendship.  This ended up eventually winning the war.  Without hindsight, that's the best you can hope for.

With the British budget in shambles and secessionist movements springing up everywhere, it is best to focus on creating a force capable of securing objectives you can actually achieve, rather than half-heartedly committing to defending everything where you end up defending nothing. Security arrangements with the French were insufficient given their boat being as rusty as Britain's and American economic friendship was not American military support - that was brought about by Churchill and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour.

Out of curiosity, what's that soviet invasion across central asia you're referring to?

Either the Soviet-Anglo invasion or general paranoia that existed for quite a while between Russians and Anglos over Central Asia

[mainiac]

Out of curiosity, what's that soviet invasion across central asia you're referring to?

I'm not referring to a specific invasion but more the fact that the Soviets had shown growing technical sophistication.  They demonstrated very impressive logistical capacity against the Japanese in the border clashes.  They were developing central Asian infrastructure.  They were supplying the Chinese through ridiculously adverse terrain.  It wouldn't be anything like the mythical human waves with a six million man soviet army but they were capable of occupying Iran and were a plausible worry for Britain.  A managable worry but it was a plausible threat unlike in the 1920s.  So that was one of the many headaches that the global empire had to keep an eye on.

[martinuzz]

Apparently my own country is quite afraid of Brexit. Not only did our prime minister make a plea to the British people to vote stay, even our King called upon the British to come to their senses before coming thursday.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/05/europe-needs-the-english-rose-dutch-king-tells-eu-parliament/

Our social economic planning agency has warned that a Brexit will cost the Netherlands 10 billion euros of GDP.
http://www.politico.eu/article/report-says-brexit-would-hit-dutch-economy-hard-eu-referendum-ten-billion-euros-leave-remain/

[Orange Wizard]

Leaving the EU is looking more and more like the American option of "us first, fuck everyone else"

[Jopax]

Well it's only natural after certain members of the EU started pulling the same shit in recent times.