Byretorial - Brexit or the UK falls apart, or just both?

As a child, I was taken to post-war Germany and nothing could prepare you for the shock of seeing people with little or nothing to eat. Old women were injured as they tried to steal coal from passing goods trains, children had to take a few sticks of firewood to school, so that the classrooms were heated. Those children did not have books, paper, pens and pencils at school, but slates and hard chalk sticks.

Just ten short years earlier, Germany had emerged from total destruction and complete anarchy. Historian Keith Lowe described it, “Imagine a world without institutions. No governments. No school or universities. No access to any information. No banks. Money no longer has any worth. There are no shops, because no one has anything to sell. Law and order are virtually non-existent because there is no police force and no judiciary. Men with weapons roam the streets taking what they want. Women of all classes and ages prostitute themselves for food and protection.”

Those memories of total destitution and misery are burnt upon the psyche of mainland Europeans. Two world wars tore their lands apart, dictators like Franco, Mussolini and Hitler brought dread and hatred to their countries and the wholesale slaughter of their own countrymen. Communism brought a permanent state of fear and poverty to the whole of Eastern Europe, turning their states into little better than open prisons, where your dissention was met with your disappearance.

I was there when the Berlin Wall fell. I saw men and women streaming across that boarder with tears in their eyes. In historical terms, that was just yesterday. It is within the living memory of nearly all voters that communism was replaced by democracy and relative affluence. The fear of a return to those days runs through all East Europeans like the word 'Blackpool' through one of those sticky sticks of sugar.

Similar fears run down the backbones of the Italians, French, Greeks, the Spanish and the Portuguese, as they remember a post-war parade of incompetent clowns and despotic generals. The European Union is the only real protection they have against those days ever returning and the European Court of Human Rights the real protector of the rule of law. We may regard the EU as restrictive and even stultifying, but for most of Europe, they have experienced the alternative and it is too dreadful to even think about.

Britain is unique in Europe as the only country that has had hundreds of years of stable and evolving government, without wars tearing the very fabric of society apart. The Wars of the Roses and the Battle of Culloden were a long time ago. We no longer live in fear that soldiers will come and rape our wives and daughters, behead our sons and burn down our villages, because the House of York and the House of Lancaster have fallen out again, or because we speak Gaelic.

Britain may have exported nastiness aboard: India, China, Africa and Ireland saw little of British tolerance and found little to laugh about. But at home, Britain has been lucky. The French Revolution may have spooked the aristocracy, but we avoided its wholesale slaughter. National Socialism floundered badly on the soft ground of British indifference and humour - it's hard to be a frightening and despotic leader, when people are laughing and pointing at you, because you are running around in baggy football shorts!

After the war, Britain was the richest larger country in Europe. Its infrastructure was nearly all intact, there was the rule of law and life may have been austere, but it was tolerable. The well educated workforce returned to the factories and to manufacturing civilian goods and these could be transported on the roads and railways without difficulty. Wealth and a new beginning beckoned. 'A land fit for heroes!' was the cry as a radical Labour government was swept to power under Attlee. Despite huge debts from the war effort, Britain should have been able to grow and prosper.

It didn't. Instead, what followed was the wholesale nationalisation of industry, the maintaining of a huge and unproductive conscripted military and the unpopular continuation of rationing.

Nationalisation started with the Bank of England, civil aviation, coal, and cables and wireless. Then came railways, canals, road haulage and trucking, electricity, and gas. Even bus services were nationalised. Finally Attlee nationalised iron and steel manufacturing. Altogether, about one fifth of the economy was taken over. The post war Labour government's ideology was so extreme, that they actually had plans to nationalise farmlands, but these were dropped when the money ran out!

But they kept their biggest mistake for the auto industry - a massive 60% luxury tax on cars!
Whilst Germany was subsidising its infant car industry and even handing out generous cash bonuses for exports and paying for R&D, Britain penalised car ownership with extra petrol rationing in Summer and added £600 to the cost of a £1,000 car, making cars more expensive than houses. By 1951, living standards were no higher than during the war. A grossly incompetent government had worn out its welcome and Churchill returned.

Until 1979, it really looked as if the Labour governments maintained a near-monopoly on stupidity and ineptitude. First Wilson and then Callaghan managed to mismanage Britain, staggering from one crisis of their own making, to another. This ended with the infamous 'Winter of Discontent' of 78-79.

There was of course an interlude for another incompetent, Ted Heath, who did nothing wrong, but then did nothing right either. Events flowed over him and civil servants pushed him which ever way they chose, using him to introduce their pet schemes, local government reform, decimalisation, abolishing retail price maintenance and, of course, joining the Common Market.

But when called to act decisively over devolution, the economy and the trades unions, he failed just as completely as Wilson and Callaghan and his premiership ended with strikes, the three-day-week, 'bath with a friend' and run-away inflation.

After the disaster that was Callaghan, in 1979 came Thatcher and she pushed for privatisation at all costs - and the costs were staggering. Civil unrest, the like of which we had never seen since the General Strike of 1926, threatened to tear the country apart, as the mines and factories closed and thousands of workers went on the dole. Pushing cosseted state-owned companies into privatisation may have been steps in the right direction, but the speed and ruthless nature of the push crippled them. It was as if you have a child that is protected against the World and hardly has to lift a finger - and then, on its 14th birthday, you throw them out of the house, without so much as a packed lunch!

The high costs of these violent economic reforms were met by North Sea oil - and this was the opportunity a tiny, tiny, wee party, founded in the 30s, called the Scottish National Party needed. "It's our oil!" was the slogan that brought them 11 MPs by 1979, but then they sided with the Conservatives in a vote of no confidence in Callaghan and lost all but two seats in the 1979 general election. But the seed had been sown and branches of the SNP sprang up all over Scotland. A disciplined and well defined structure began to emerge.

What was to follow, in retrospect, reads like a script written to favour the SNP and make Scottish independence inevitable.

Thatcher was seen as anti-Scottish and the SNP gained steadily in popularity, as she gave away Scottish fishing rights and imposed a poll-tax only on the Scots. Thatcher was followed by even more incompetents - Major, Blair, Brown and then, 'Call me Dave' all either ignored Scottish issues, or rode roughshod over Scottish interests. At the same time, Scottish demands lead to the reinstatement of the Scottish Parliament by Blair.

At first this new parliament was dominated by Labour, but as case after case of corruption and incompetence came to light, they lost control completely and it just became another stick with which the SNP could beat Westminster. Despite loosing the referendum for independence in 2014, promises made by 'Call-me-Dave' (which were then broken) meant that the following general election saw the SNP win an amazing 56 out of 59 Scottish seats in London.

Ever since then, the Labour Party has been in a constant state of civil war and this weekend, collective idiocy reached a new high, as Labour MPs lined up in a neat circle to form a firing squad, as everybody blames everybody else for the outcome of the Brexit referendum.

With the Labour Party totally preoccupied with attacking itself, 'Call-me-Dave' did not seem to be in any real difficulties. All he had to do, was to smile sweetly and carry on. But instead of just running the country and being boring, he decided to liven things up a bit and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In the true tradition of post war political blithering stupidity on a truly epic scale, he decided to call a referendum on EU membership - and lose.

Because this is a script seemingly written only to benefit the SNP, 'Call-me-Dave' forgot to check the constitutional issues involved if he looses. Any deal with the EU would have to be ratified by two acts of parliament - one by the Westminster parliament and the other in Edinburgh. In effect, to fulfil the outcome of the referendum, any government in London has to do a deal with the Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

And Scotland insists on maintaining those ties with Europe.
 

Jeff FV

Free Member
Jan 10, 2009
3,891
1,861
Somerset
A superb analysis - thank you.

... and the final, unwritten chapter, as a "Thank You" for keeping the UK in Europe, Nicola Sturgeon succeeds Elizabeth onto the throne.

(It is the one thing that has cheered me up since Friday, the discovery that Brexit could be scuppered by the Scots. )
 
Upvote 0

Toby Willows

Free Member
Jun 20, 2016
761
167
That's all great, but laws and constitutions can, and are changed in exceptional circumstances. The majority of voters voting to leave the EU is surely exceptional.

And it now looks like Sturgeon won't be calling for a second vote on Scottish independence now they've been told they'll have to apply for membership of the EU and it wouldn't be automatically accepted. Makes her look a bit of a fool to be honest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShirleyM
Upvote 0

Jeff FV

Free Member
Jan 10, 2009
3,891
1,861
Somerset
That's all great, but laws and constitutions can, and are changed in exceptional circumstances. The majority of voters voting to leave the EU is surely exceptional.

But did the majority of voters vote leave?

(circa) 70% of voters voted, and of those, 52% voted to leave.

So that makes about 36% of voters voted to leave.

If my Trade Union wants to strike, 40% of those eligible to vote must vote for strike action. And that is just for one day's strike. For something as important as ceding from Europe, shouldn't a similar (or higher) threshold apply?

To an extent, I am playing devil's advocate. But rightly or wrongly, I do get a sense that a lot of time and thought is going into the question of how to wriggle out of exiting Europe.
 
Upvote 0

Toby Willows

Free Member
Jun 20, 2016
761
167
But did the majority of voters vote leave?

(circa) 70% of voters voted, and of those, 52% voted to leave.

So that makes about 36% of voters voted to leave.

If my Trade Union wants to strike, 40% of those eligible to vote must vote for strike action. And that is just for one day's strike. For something as important as ceding from Europe, shouldn't a similar (or higher) threshold apply?

To an extent, I am playing devil's advocate. But rightly or wrongly, I do get a sense that a lot of time and thought is going into the question of how to wriggle out of exiting Europe.

That's why I said "voters", those that voted. However I guess you have to presume the 30% who didn't vote would have returned the same % of in/out votes as the 70% that did vote, anything else is just speculation and therefore meaningless.

And no there shouldn't be a minimum 40% of eligible voters otherwise nothing would ever be decided in a election/referendum due to the % that never vote, and you have to admit 36% is pretty bloody close anyway!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jeff FV

Free Member
Jan 10, 2009
3,891
1,861
Somerset
That's why I said "voters", those that voted. However I guess you have to presume the 30% who didn't vote would have returned the same % of in/out votes as the 70% that did vote, anything else is just speculation and therefore meaningless.

And no there shouldn't be a minimum 40% of eligible voters otherwise nothing would ever be decided in a election/referendum due to the % that never vote, and you have to admit 36% is pretty bloody close anyway!

I agree, it shouldn't be a minimum of 40% of eligible voters, but that is the rule (law?) for unions to call strike action.

My point is is that there is a precedent (strike law) and that there are a lot, an awful lot, of the "establishment" that are now trying to find a way out of outing, whether that be by calling into question the validity of the result - 48v52 is very, very close, or the Scots vetoing the exit or some other means.

Rightly or wrongly, I still don't think that this is a done deal yet - politicians are very good at kicking the can down the road and it suits nearly all MPs to kick this as hard as they can, including - in fact, in particular - two of the main Leave protagonists, Johnson & Gove.

Sadly, we live in interesting, very interesting times.
 
Upvote 0

Clinton

Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,750
    1
    3,070
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    Because this is a script seemingly written only to benefit the SNP, 'Call-me-Dave' forgot to check the constitutional issues involved if he looses. Any deal with the EU would have to be ratified by two acts of parliament - one by the Westminster parliament and the other in Edinburgh. In effect, to fulfil the outcome of the referendum, any government in London has to do a deal with the Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
    Actually, Cameron did check and he did issue detailed warnings about exactly this.

    So did Nick Clegg.

    And various other Remain politicians.

    The possibility of Scotland voting Remain even if the rest of the UK voted Leave wasn't difficult to forecast. It was predicted. And the fallout, with the possibility of the UK breaking up, was also predicted. Unfortunately, it got drowned in the rest of the scaremongering.
     
    Upvote 0
    The possibility of Scotland voting Remain even if the rest of the UK voted Leave wasn't difficult to forecast. It was predicted. And the fallout, with the possibility of the UK breaking up, was also predicted. Unfortunately, it got drowned in the rest of the scaremongering.

    Exactly!

    Any powers that the Scottish government has, are indeed granted by Westminster - but (and this is a very big but) we must live in the World of what Willy Brandt called 'Realpolitik' - the politics of the real world!

    The reality is, that Scotland is moving politically and any attempt to halt that movement is doomed to failure.

    The SNP has a massive mandate to govern in Scotland AND the 'Remain' movement won 62% of the vote. Regardless of any constitutional niceties, that is a giant 'Real-World' boulder for any Westminster government to move.

    And NEVER forget that Scotland's political closeness to England is very recent and largely artificial. That closeness was spawned by two world wars. Before WWI, Scotland was clearly an occupied land and the Scots sought to rid themselves of English domination. Being 'Brothers in Arms' against a terrible foe changed all that for a while. We are now rapidly drifting back to the way things were.

    Scotland is not and never was 'Scotlandshire'! It always was a separate country.

    After the war, it tried English Conservatism and rejected it. It then tried English socialism and rejected that too. Now it is trying a uniquely Scottish brand of social democracy and, so far, seems to like it quite a lot.

    But there is another problem for Westminster and its representatives in Scotland - the only real opposition to the SNP is Labour, but the poor quality of Scottish Labour politicians makes them into something close to a laughing stock.

    Worse still, becoming leader of the Scottish Labour Party is the most poisoned of poison challises. Become the leader and it is the certain ending of your career as you pass into total oblivion. Like the snows of Winter - all gone! Henry McLeish, Jack McConnell, Iain Gray, Wendy Alexander, Joanne Lamont, Anas Sarwar (yes, I did have to look that one up!) and finally poor old Jim Murphy - what ever did happen to that one-time high flyer? His CV tells me that he is now an occasional advisor to some obscure Finnish charity. i.e. unemployed!

    The present leader of Scottish Labour is one Kezia Dugdale, who is a rather pleasant woman who gives the impression that she came in on a work experience scheme. Watching her try to debate with Nicola Sturgeon is an experience that moves between embarrassment and hilarity.

    Right now Nicola Sturgeon is in 'wait-and-see' mode. She is watching Westminster throw its toys out of the pram and waiting for the dust to settle - as indeed are we all.

    As a lawyer, she knows that the letter of constitutional law requires any EU-deal to be ratified by Edinburgh, as well as Westminster, but that the UK can leave the EU with no deal in place. She also knows that European politics is all about realpolitik and never about the letter of the law. What appears to be constitutionally impossible one day, suddenly becomes feasible the next - if the EU's leaders want it and need it.

    She also knows that many European leaders would love to give Westminster a black eye and no eye could be blacker than making it possible for Scotland to maintain a special relationship with Europe. That would effectively short-circuit any attempt by England to leave the EU.

    But how can Scotland access the single market and retain freedom of movement for workers, goods, capital and services, while remaining part of the UK?

    Time may give her the answer, as she plays a 'softly-softly, catchee-monkey' game.
     
    Upvote 0

    TODonnell

    Free Member
    Sep 23, 2011
    1,405
    210
    London (UK)
    The European Union is the only real protection they have against those days ever returning and the European Court of Human Rights the real protector of the rule of law.

    I'm afraid I stopped reading here. The proposition that a sclerotic bureaucracy like the EU could stand up to any determined tyrant, is false.

    It's just a junket for mediocre politicians and bureaucrats, built upon a deceit about a free trade zone.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: MBE1 and ShirleyM
    Upvote 0
    I'm afraid I stopped reading here.

    Pity, you might have found bits you agree with!

    The proposition that a sclerotic bureaucracy like the EU could stand up to any determined tyrant, is false.
    It's worked so far!

    It's just a junket for mediocre politicians and bureaucrats,

    It is not 'just' a junket for the mediocre, but it really is a junket for the mediocre. It has become a massive money tree for those who know how to play the system.
    built upon a deceit about a free trade zone.

    Well, I and others are trading freely across the EU - but I will agree that freedom of cross-boarder services just does not exist, especially for the small enterprise. If you or I were to try to offer our services as a chimney sweep or window cleaner in France or Germany, we would end up in prison!
     
    Upvote 0

    Clinton

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,750
    1
    3,070
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    Right now Nicola Sturgeon is in 'wait-and-see' mode. She is watching Westminster throw its toys out of the pram and waiting for the dust to settle - as indeed are we all..
    No question about it, she's a cut above what Labour and the Tories have in Scotland. Like her policies or not, you can't argue that she does a superb job of fighting Scotland's corner.

    She's a pain in the butt. She'd make a great PM.

    If she can genuinely fight for the UK rather than Scotland, we could do a lot worse. She'd probably suggest that England and Wales break away from the UK. That stone would kill many birds (and kill them within EU rules on avian slaughter) - The "UK" (Scotland and NI) would remain in the EU and the countries breaking away, as we discovered in the Scottish referendum would need to apply anew to be EU members which is fine with England and Wales who'll choose to stay out. The disadvantage of currency is also easily solved. England and Wales retain sterling as a condition for breaking away and Scotland adopts the Euro.
     
    Upvote 0
    The one issue we all forgot was Gibraltar!

    For Spain, Brexit was like a wet dream come true! They seriously could hardly believe their luck!

    Spain will veto any 'accommodation' for the UK enjoying special status. They will do so, under the guise of opposing Scottish separatism, but the real prize for Spain is Gibraltar.

    It is the European Court of Human Rights that has protected Gibraltar in various landmark decisions. Abandon that and you abandon the only real legal protection it gave and we go right back to the 60s and blockages, telephone lines cut, flights over Spain banned and ships boarded.

    Leave the EU and you must abandon Gibraltar.
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    Dear Byre

    Except that the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution. There are nearly twice as many member signatories of European Court of Human Rights as there are members of the EU.

    Spanish politicians can talk about Gibralter with the same authority as Nigel Farage talking about UK fishing rights. Its a domestic issue only.
     
    Upvote 0

    Clinton

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,750
    1
    3,070
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    Remember the Afgan interpreters who put their lives in danger to help us?

    And the Chaggosians?

    Unfortunately, British politicians haven't always shown the decency and fair-play qualities for which their constituents are so well known.

    Gibraltar may turn out to be a pawn in the negotiating chess game and considered worth sacrificing to secure Spanish support.
     
    Upvote 0
    ...Despite huge debts from the war effort, Britain should have been able to grow and prosper....

    Well, Britain might have been able to grow and prosper if it had declared bankruptcy after the war, but it didn't. It paid back its debts, even though it took fifty years.

    An interesting polemic, but if you don't get how damaging the debt was or how Britain's perspective on having a civilised society was after two cataclysmic world wars and the decline of empire, and put a 1970's spin on the post war construction - including the creation of the NHS - you are missing some profound points about Britain's evolution since the war.
     
    Upvote 0
    Except that the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution. There are nearly twice as many member signatories of European Court of Human Rights as there are members of the EU.

    Spanish politicians can talk about Gibralter with the same authority as Nigel Farage talking about UK fishing rights. Its a domestic issue only.

    The UN General Assembly adopted during its twenty-third session resolution 2429 of 1968 (XVIII) that denounce the 1967 referendum in Gibraltar and requested that the United Kingdom not to delay negotiations to hand back the territory to Spain.

    During the 'Brexit' campaign, the Spanish government warned that if the UK chose to leave, Spain would push to reclaim control over Gibraltar 'the very next day'.

    The very day after the result of the Brexit vote, Spain's acting Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, as promised, renewed calls for joint Spanish/British control of the peninsula. He labelled the British people's decision to leave the EU as "a complete change of outlook that opens up new possibilities on Gibraltar not seen for a very long time" speculating "the Spanish flag on the Rock is much closer than before."

    Do you still think that it is just a domestic issue?
     
    Upvote 0
    Well, Britain might have been able to grow and prosper if it had declared bankruptcy after the war, but it didn't. It paid back its debts, even though it took fifty years.

    That debt was in no small part, incurred to cover (partially) the costs of nationalisation. Attlee's mad idea to nationalise farmland and create Soviet-style collectives was stopped when the Truman regime stopped lending.

    An interesting polemic, but if you don't get how damaging the debt was or how Britain's perspective on having a civilised society was after two cataclysmic world wars and the decline of empire, and put a 1970's spin on the post war construction - including the creation of the NHS - you are missing some profound points about Britain's evolution since the war.

    By 1950, standards of living in Holland, Germany and France were higher than in the UK. As for the creation of the NHS, I have seen and studied health care systems across Europe and every single one of them is better at meeting demands than the NHS.

    In 1998, I accompanied a German fact-finding mission to the UK and its hospitals and what they found shocked them. It shocked me as well; I didn't expect to find 12 old people in a ward room, lying there and crying. The windows could not be opened, the lavatories were filthy and the food hardly eatable. The young women in that group broke down in tears at the conditions in our hospitals.

    (At the same time, politicians were spouting the old lie about the NHS being the envy of the World!)

    Almost everywhere else in Europe, healthcare is paid for by a social insurance scheme. In the UK, the budget and setting that budget is a political decision. To achieve decent European standards in British hospitals and have European standards of access to specialists, two things would have to happen -

    1. Stop the practice of allowing those who have studied medicine to call themselves 'Doctor'. The title 'Doctor' should only be given to those who have completed a doctoral thesis and thereby become specialists, bringing them in-line with every other European country.

    2. Bring spending up to European standards. Yes, the NHS is very efficient - it has no choice but to be efficient, when it is under-funded by c.a. £1,000 per person, per year. Some £60 billion extra needs to be spent on decent health care - but that is only possible, if we get away from this idiotic idea that only government can set spending levels on healthcare.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Upvote 0

    quikshop

    Free Member
    Oct 11, 2006
    3,644
    714
    54
    Wolves
    The UN General Assembly adopted during its twenty-third session resolution 2429 of 1968 (XVIII) that denounce the 1967 referendum in Gibraltar and requested that the United Kingdom not to delay negotiations to hand back the territory to Spain.

    During the 'Brexit' campaign, the Spanish government warned that if the UK chose to leave, Spain would push to reclaim control over Gibraltar 'the very next day'.

    The very day after the result of the Brexit vote, Spain's acting Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, as promised, renewed calls for joint Spanish/British control of the peninsula. He labelled the British people's decision to leave the EU as "a complete change of outlook that opens up new possibilities on Gibraltar not seen for a very long time" speculating "the Spanish flag on the Rock is much closer than before."

    Do you still think that it is just a domestic issue?

    Jose was playing to a domestic audience, jingoism plays well to the populous as UKIP and the SNP know all too well.

    This is as much a red herring as Scotland pining for EU membership without being attached to the rest of the UK. Jose would never allow that to happen, not to mention the other EU Countries stifling breakaway regions.

    Ref: Catalonia. Treaty of Utrecht. SNP losing popular support.
     
    Upvote 0
    By 1950, standards of living in Holland, Germany and France were higher than in the UK. As for the creation of the NHS, I have seen and studied health care systems across Europe and every single one of them is better at meeting demands than the NHS.

    The Byre, I am going to have to bow to your superior knowledge here, but you do leave out information that might give a different perspective and doesn't fit your theory. The difference between the UK and Europe post war was that Britain took out commercial loans with the US (as aid was not forthcoming), while Europe received aid via the Marshall Plan. I'm not sure that the UK could have achieved very much better than it did under the circumstances.
     
    Upvote 0
    The difference between the UK and Europe post war was that Britain took out commercial loans with the US (as aid was not forthcoming), while Europe received aid via the Marshall Plan. I'm not sure that the UK could have achieved very much better than it did under the circumstances.

    That is a myth.

    Germany France and the UK all received large sums under the Marshall plan, of which 15% was borrowed and 85% was a direct grant by the US.

    Germany received $1,448m, France $2,296m and the UK a massive $3,297m. Altogether, some 18 countries received Marshall Plan aid totalling about $13bn on similar terms, but those three were the top recipients.

    And all paid for by the US tax payer - I hope someone said 'Thank you!'

    At first, the UK and France and other former allied countries were the only ones to be granted a 15:85 loan-to-grant split, but in 1953, this generosity was extended to Germany. As a result, Germany was extremely careful with these funds, as it assumed that everything would have to be paid back.

    The Attlee government used those funds for various nationalisation and other government schemes and basically, blew the lot out of the window, whereas Germany created a special fund that lent money to industry that it then had to repay with interest. As a result, Germany was able to clear all debts for both WW1 and WW2 by 1971. (It was forgiven the WW1 debts, but it chose to repay them anyway.) It took the UK about 60 years to repay its 15% share of the $3.3bn.

    I am not taking sides here! I do not have a left v. right leaning. I am trying merely to point out that the Attlee government was grossly incompetent, as is the present Cameron administration.

    Indeed, nearly all post-war UK governments have proven themselves to have been unbelievably incompetent and most were run along politically dogmatic lines and at huge cost to the economy.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: TODonnell
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    I'm not sure that the UK could have achieved very much better than it did under the circumstances.
    The UK could have done much better except that we followed some very silly policies. Instead of keeping the best civilians in their jobs there was a sentiment to allow returning ex-servicemen to take over where they left off. Unfortunately they returned with six year old skills while the civilians had been at the forefront of ever changing technology.

    As an indicator of just how stupid we were read
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika_groundnut_scheme
     
    Upvote 0
    The 'Groundnut Scheme' was just one of many, many lunatic ideas financed with the funds from the Marshall Plan. All that money from US taxpayers poured down the sink of stupidity!

    In the mean time, German launched the 'Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau' (Reconstruction Credit Institute) which as I outlined above, lent money to industry.

    That scheme is still going today and has nearly €500bn in funds and earns over €80bn p.a. in interest payments. Today, it funds schemes in four groups for 1.housing and environmental improvements, 2.SMEs, 3.development aid and 4.export schemes.
     
    Upvote 0

    DishonestDave

    Free Member
    Jun 24, 2016
    78
    26
    Britain may have exported nastiness aboard: India, China, Africa and Ireland

    An interesting post, but I have to call misinformed on this one. I am part British and part Indian, as well as other bits and pieces. What Britain replaced in India was much, much worse than what it installed. There are estimates that 100 million Indians were killed by Muslim occupation in India. Vast swathes of the area were forced and coerced into the Muslim religion to the extent that historic Hindu areas are now almost wholly Muslim and partitioned to Pakistan. Check out the Wikipedia article on Hindu persecution. There are several pages worth of info on Muslim persecution ... and two sentences on British persecution.

    What was the better option than British rule in India? Continuing Muslim rule? Russian? Spanish? Portuguese? Self-rule? There was no option for self-rule at that time as India was too weak and fragmented. What was there better in the world at that time?

    Some considerable time before the empire came to a close, the British establishment began educating and training Indian, Kenyans and others to take the reigns of their countries in a global federation, known as The Commonwealth.

    I'm not sure if anywhere the British colonised would have been better of with the alternative - self-rule or rule by another power. Take Nigeria for example. That was colonised by the British to end slavery. At this point about 30% of all men in West Africa were slaves and most women were as good as. If you look at the places that were not colonised or colonised by other countries, they are typically much worse off today - CAR, DR Congo, Eq. Guinea.

    If the empire was so wholly nasty The Commonwealth would not exist today with practically every colonised area as a member and several others joining and wanting to join for the benefits.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: ShirleyM
    Upvote 0
    An interesting post, but I have to call misinformed on this one. I am part British and part Indian, as well as other bits and pieces. What Britain replaced in India was much, much worse than what it installed. There are estimates that 100 million Indians were killed by Muslim occupation in India.

    I do take your point, but the object of that paragraph was to contrast the turmoil that occasionally existed in the 'colonies' and the relative peace and harmony in Britain.

    The piece was quite long enough as it stood; qualifying each and every statement, possibly with footnotes and references to learned works and key newspaper articles of the day would just pish everybody off even more than were at the sheer length of the bloody thing!

    I am far from misinformed on conditions on the Indian subcontinent at the time: my father was born there.

    In any brief essay on any subject, there are going to be passages that gloss over vast subjects that beg further explanation. As it was, I shortened it substantially, as the original was about double the length.

    There are estimates that 100 million Indians were killed by Muslim occupation in India. Vast swathes of the area were forced and coerced into the Muslim religion to the extent that historic Hindu areas are now almost wholly Muslim and partitioned to Pakistan.

    I have to admit that I deliberately avoid discussing religious conflict, as I find the whole concept of people killing one another over a fictitious bearded man in the sky singularly revolting. What those involved in these farcical wars do not realise, is the fact that the rest of humanity could hardly care less.

    I had enough of that absurd nonsense as a soldier in Northern Ireland. What both sides never wanted to allow to sink-in, was the fact that the average squaddie neither understood, nor sympathised with either side. Catholic v. Protestant. Hindu v. Muslim. Big-Enders v. Little-Enders.


    Time to get over all that nonsense!
     
    Upvote 0

    WebFixer

    Free Member
    Jul 14, 2012
    50
    15
    London
    The UK should just park whatever warships it can muster at Gibraltar and then say "your move".

    That's what it comes down to. Not whiny 'resolutions'. I don't respect the UN.

    [Western upper classes have arrived at a peculiar consensus we might call liberal-left-political-correctness without ever considering, individually or collectively, whether this consensus is practical, reasonable or even in it's own long-term interests (never mind the proles'!)

    I can only scratch my head at people who continually attack their own society, as a default mode]
     
    • Like
    Reactions: ShirleyM
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    The UK should just park whatever warships it can muster at Gibraltar and then say "your move".]

    Without making a big fuss the British and Spanish navy's already do joint excersises off Gibraltar. They have even had a Spanish commander in charge of a British ship, Admiral Colon a direct desendant of Christopher Columbus. What the Spanish do for domestic consumption is a different matter.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: The Byre
    Upvote 0
    The UK should just park whatever warships it can muster at Gibraltar and then say "your move".

    Quite apart from the fact that gunboat diplomacy does not work and that age of that tactic is long gone, as we do not have any aircraft carriers and destroyers and frigates are no use at ship-shore warfare, that will be our one very old assault ship.

    Spain just has to close the boarder, until the Gibraltarians say 'Uncle'.
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles