Is that what you imagine you are doing? Okay... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Printable View
Is that what you imagine you are doing? Okay... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
...and that's why Venice is still part of Austria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Well, we would say France never really fully recognise English Independance. So, as Richard failed to find a buyer for London, perhaps it is time for UK to come back under the French rules...Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Dieu et mon Droit, Honni soit qui mal y Pense...
I've always found it worth a chuckle that Richard I "Lionheart" gets all of the "good guy" image in Robin Hood pictures -- but historically is known to have spoken French and Occitan, but not much if any English and may well have spent fewer than six months in England during the entirety of his life. One of the great "English" kings....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Well I hope this possibility comes to pass:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39510351
The embrace of Scotland within the Canadian fold would bring the colonizer legacy full circle :clown:
He was a king. Disagree with the other two adjectives though. His father was a far better king for England (saying to his illegitimate son, who stuck with him, "You're the only one of my sons who's not a bastard". IIRC Henry V was the first king to really identify himself as English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Or the beggining of the reverse-reintegration of the empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Richard was undoubtedly a great king, he displayed all the bravery, chivalry, leadership and piety expected of his position. Well, the last one is a bit debatable as he seems to have sometimes sought "alternative companionship" whilst on campaign. Despite that apparent weakness, however, Richard was undoubtedly a great warrior-king. His attitude to England in this context is understandable - unlike his possessions on the Continent or Outremer England was stable and essentially safe. If England had been constantly menaced by the Scots or Norse I imagine he would have spent more time there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As to Henry V being the first "English" King since the Conquest that's essentially Tudor propaganda. The Plantagenet Kings were native English speakers from at least Edward III and possibly from the time of Edward II. At the court of Richard II English prose and verse was as popular as Anglo-Norman French.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
He had a good PR manager.
According to Steven Runciman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Crusades), Richard was a great warrior, but a bad king.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
That is History for you. I wrote my Degree in History about it, how media (in this case books, series and movies) shapes the representation of yourself as Nation. We have a similar case in France. Thanks to Alexandre Dumas and his 3 Musketeers, the Cardinal de Richelieu, one probably of the top 5 great French politicians, is always the bad guy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
French kings are bad by default get over it
Richelieu was not a King.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
He was the King's Hand in GoT terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
And yes, he was flippin' brilliant and a better long-term planner then most.
And they have a pretty impressive helicopter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBz_EnNVmIs
Probably why I linked it, then again even South Africa can build their own attack helicopter. Only Germany can't do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
Can't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Doubt that.
We really can't. The Tiger for France has a gun mount just like the Apache that the pilot can aim with his head or so. We only ordered the Tiger in tank buster config and had the gun removed to save money. Then we sent it to Afghanistan where the army found out that it is useless for fire support because aiming with gunpods under the stub wings is quite hard...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Obviously anyone with half a brain could have figured that out before, but in our army we also can't fly with half our interceptors due to a lack of spare parts while the ministry can't spend all its budget because the suppliers can't supply any material that we could pay for. Meanwhile the budget is being increased further to meet NATO standards.
I guess we can kill the Taliban individually with anti tank guided missiles and bury Putin in money, should he invade. :clown:
Wow, and I thought the Pentagon was chasing its own tail in useless circles...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Well, there are of course other programs that seem to work, such as the new Puma IFV, the Leopard 2 still works and I have no idea about the infantry upgrades. The truth about the accuracy of the G-36 seems hard to find though. It's mostly the aerial stuff where we seem to have huge issues. The A-400M was delayed for a very long time and the NH-90 was apparently built to the weirdest requirements, most striking seems to be the lack of ground clearance that makes it impossible to land on terrain that isn't very flat...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I keep wondering how they work on the requirements and how much those highly paid engineers think about them or whether the industry does this on purpose to demand more money for fixes and so on...
After all they source all these flying machines from EADS, which is a merger of a bazillion former airplane manufacturers (including famous ones like Fokker and Messerschmidt) and pretty much a monopoly by now. In the civilian sector they have Boeing as a competitor but the German Air Force would probably not make them compete with Dassault from France whereas Dassault probably had to make the Rafale extra good so France would buy it over the Eurofighter....
Not that the Eurofighter is terrible, it just lacks spare parts and still needs upgrades for full functionality, oh and it cost a fortune...
Military hardware is something I do genuinely find interesting, but discussing it in a Brexit thread seems overly tangential.
:focus:
~:smoking:
Call it revenge, IIRC the last thread about something happening in Germany ended up being about Britain once more.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You Brits still think you own the entire world and all its threads, topics an opinions, don't you? :stare:
You (Germany) has bigger problems, the Netherlands isn't going to leave very soon but willl eventually, going to ask for tarrifs for the supply of your own key-industries, just like the British will come out of this unharmed so will the Netherlands, and that is going to happen as the EU isn't exactly popular here, who really wants to comfort something that's slowly dying unless you give a damn about it dying. Nobody gives a fuck about the EU, only a handfull of europhiles. Trade will continue, deals will still be made. Just without that repulsive facehugger who is too drunk to find his breakfest-cognac
Let's go back to the original topic. I want to return to the "Gibraltar Affair", now that smoke cleared.
What happened so far.
The British people decided to leave the EU, obviously thinking they could save money, get rid of European immigrants and regulations while keeping access to the EU market. The result was tight and while some areas were pro Brexit, others were not.
The EU made clear that there could not free access to the EU market without accepting the other freedoms of the EU.
The British Prime replied that the Brits wanted to have a HARD EXIT, which means total control over the borders at any cost.
Scotland's government refused to follow this position, they argued that the English may leave if they want to but that they want to have the same freedom to decide to stay.
UK and EU prepared for the negotiations. There will be million things to negotiate, but there are obviously some central issues: borders, economy, money. UK and Britain have two common land borders, both with difficult historical background. It is clear that the UK gov. will try to support the special interests of Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. In return the EU will have to respect the interests of all members (I guess all have to agree to an arrangement), so you do not have to have access to secret strategy papers to know that the EU will support the interests of Spain and Ireland regarding the borders.
Even though this is so clear that it does not seem to be worth mentioning, members of the UK government got upset and even talked about war. Well, this is something you can expect from a war crazy forum like this :laugh4:, but what the hell came to the minds of the UK politicians? Even if UK leaves the EU, it will still be part of NATO. It has been allied with Spain for decades, even won the cold war together. And now they are talking about war? Why? To me it shows how nervous and clueless the UK government is.
To me it seems that the two main results of the negotiations are already clear: the UK will close its borders and the EU will close its market. There will be some trade agreements, but in the end, conditions will be much worse than before. However, I am curious about a solution for Ireland. Both sides seem to want a permeable border there. But how can this be realized when UK wants to have impermeable borders to the EU? This is something I am really curious.
They have different currencies so money will not be an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Conditions will better as there are no longer limitations on trading outside of the EU, and the EU will cave in as EU-countries WILL make agreements. It's a beauty really. I love the Brits for their 'just piss off' mentality. Hopefully we will be next. Diplomatic truth, the Netherlands agrees with England but obeys Germany. And that plumb childles eastblock farmhorse called Merkel makes it soooo easy, hermotivstions are her own, she doesn't have to import her little children that should come to herQuote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Money, I meant who has to pay for what.
Wishful thinking will not take the Brits very far, nor the Dutch. And hateful visions of a German domination does not meat reality at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I also love the Brits for their consequence. But they are used to blame the EU for everything. In the end, they will blame the EU that life will be so much worse after BREXIT. (sigh)
One example. You know that England is the homeland of football and each and every English I know still believes that England ought to be the leading country in football. In fact no other country spends so much money on football and the English league is the most expensive one in the world. However, the English team has not been able to match with the top nations for decades, Who is to blame. The EU of course. There are far too many middle class players from all over Europe playing in the major league, taking away chances for Engllish talents. After Brexit, things will become better, of course. Who am I to disagree. But if you look at the most successful teams of the last decades - Brazil, France, Spain, Italy, Germany - with one exception they are all members of the EU and they will remain.
No member of the UK's government talked about war, or the Falklands. It was Lord Howard who made the comparison between the rights of the Falklanders as defended by Margaret Thatcher and the defence of the Gibraltarians under Mrs May. Howard did not say "we will go to war" he said that we would defend the Gibraltarians as we had the Falklanders, which is true, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Lord Howard is a former minister and Leader of the Opposition - he is not a member of the current government.
In any case, point being made is not that we expect Spain to attack Gibraltar, it is that there will simply be no give so long as 99% of Gibraltarians want to remain British and only British.
That is why the tone out of Westminster, and the UK as a whole, was combative - because we want it to be ABSOLUTELY clear there is no give. Why is that you ask? Last time we weren't clear, over the Falklands, we had to fight a costly war to make the point.
All of this against the background of Spain regularly and maliciously interfering with the land-border and invading Gibraltarian waters. Spain is not really a UK ally, we have quite frosty relations with them and only NATO guarantees we would not end up in a shooting war over this. Be assured, though, if there ever is such a war it will start with Spain, not the UK.
No, the UK will not "close its borders", it will most likely be the case that people from the EU will still be able to travel to the UK with relative ease, they just won't be able to work here without a Visa. That's not "closed borders" that's just less-than-full Freedom of Movement. The issue with Ireland has nothing to do with rights of residence though as all Irish people automatically have the right to reside in the UK, work in the UK and vote in the UK. The concern over the Irish border is to do with movement of goods, i.e. customs.Quote:
To me it seems that the two main results of the negotiations are already clear: the UK will close its borders and the EU will close its market. There will be some trade agreements, but in the end, conditions will be much worse than before. However, I am curious about a solution for Ireland. Both sides seem to want a permeable border there. But how can this be realized when UK wants to have impermeable borders to the EU? This is something I am really curious.
Nobody's going to stop the Irish coming here, for one thing the British army would collapse!
Where does this apply? Elections at all levels if you're a UK resident of Irish nationality? I presume not referenda, though.Quote:
all Irish people automatically have the right to reside in the UK, work in the UK and vote in the UK
IIRC Irish citizens have the same electoral rights as UK citizens, up to and including standing for Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
There is no functional difference. Irish citizens have the same rights as citizens of the UK, and vice-versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
It is almost as though the British and the Irish were one nationality under two separate governments.
I can't find anything on Irish nationals' vote on Brexit in 2016, or eligibility to do so. Figures I see for the number of people eligible to vote on the referendum (~46 million) seem to account just for the official UK population, and not any special consideration such as a potential eligibility of all Irish nationals.
On the other hand, Ireland's population is small enough that they may plausibly fall into the above figure without looking at a breakdown.
Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...k-after-brexit
We could, in theory, have an Irish Prime Minister.
OK, here's a direct answer:
So they do need to be residents of some nature.Quote:
British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens who live in the UK, along with Britons who have lived abroad for less than 15 years, were eligible to vote.
Also, Maltese and Cyprian residents were eligible (noted for being both Commonwealth and EU citizens).
Anyone from the Commonwealth can vote or stand for Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
One of the reasons we want to strengthen ties with other Commonwealth nations is to convince them to (once again) reciprocate because we do not want to revoke those rights.
Pff, he is a lord in a monarchy, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is also called a duck, then it's a duck. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The reason of it was that under the EU the money wasn't spent effectively because of the beaurocracy in Brussels. England should introduce some kind of football tax which the will give England the edge over the EU and ensure the money isn't wasted like it used to be before Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
So EU citizens can directly elect the non-EU country's government? And now you will tell me that Brexit was neccessary to stop EUnians poking their nose into the UK's business?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Please explain me that? Why was EU beaurocrazy leading to bad football? What shall a football tax do to improve English football? And why are other EU countries much more successful? (Even Greece and Portugal won the Euro Championship!!!!)Quote:
The reason of it was that under the EU the money wasn't spent effectively because of the beaurocracy in Brussels. England should introduce some kind of football tax which the will give England the edge over the EU and ensure the money isn't wasted like it used to be before Brexit.
In fact, that was a piece of trolling on my part. I was imitating some Brits who explain all the problems of the country by its being in the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
English footballers are among the best in the world, but English football has two problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
1. Poor national-level management, especially picking "big name" players over the best team.
2. Everybody knows how English football works because we take so many players from other countries into out national league.
Basically, we are victims of our own success.
~:mecry: My sympathy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
1) may be right, I cannot judge this.
2) ? I do not think that the share of foreign players in England is bigger than in Germany. There was a discussion about that years ago. I think the Premier League is leading in marketing, so TV rights are sold all over the world and people watch them everywhere. Maybe they know English football this way.
No, to be clear: Michael Howard (a 74 year old arch-reactionary who hasn't been part of any government since 1997 and hasn't even been on the Conservative front bench for twelve years) made some vague remark about Thatcher and the Falklands which the meeja twisted into talking about war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Both of them boil down to ownership of teams by filthily rich tycoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
That's Socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
You just lost the argument, sorry.
Capitalism is never wrong, the UK invented it.
Are you talking about how Putin's buddies own half the UK's football teams and half the apartments in central London?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
See above, Socialist argument, wrong, wrong, wrong!
Also ,even if you weren't wrong, it would be the EU's fault.
If it's not the EU's fault, it's the fault of Britain and its people being so awesome and successful.
Just like how the Germans were so awesome and successful in the 1920s and then the Bolshevik jews and the Capitalist jews brought the recession upon us by replacing all their teeth with gold or something, YES HITLER!
What were we talking about? :dizzy2:
Not sure if your indignation is genuine or you are trolling as usual. I was talking of a tendency evident in modern English football to sell clubs (or franchises as Americans call them) to rich foreigners - not neccessarily Russians, but Arabs as well. So the sports competition turns into a contest of wallets. The EU has nothing to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Husar using the phrase "Yes Hitler!" and you aren't sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I think that's a pretty clear use of sardonic humor, for sooth.
My indignation at what? The one you're supposed to read very clearly between the lines or the superficial one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I can assure you the only indignation in my post was directed straight towards English nationalists and purely hidden in very obvious sarcasm...
I take offence at the insinuation that I am usually trolling, that's a very trolly comment considering it always comes up in attempts to shut me up or enrage me. Sarcasm is not the same as trolling.
I apologize if you are offended. Let me rephrase my statement: Husar trolls more often than others here and I'm not always good at detecting it (especially if no emoticons are in evidence).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Donald Trump reveals EU trade deal more important to US than deal with Britain after Brexit
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world...-a3521051.html
"oops"
You are not the only one with that issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Husar is either cuttingly witty or not at all witty - I can't decide.
The latter pretending to be the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I'm not sure whether that was a complete lack of response to my point or just a distracting ad-hominem now, I just can't decide...
Husar is a communist and thus devoid of all humanity.
I can't decide.
Keep mocking. There are many more Greyblades than there are Beskars.
I'm an noun now?
Figures it happens only once I'd started outgrowing that boyish desire for acknowledgement.
Same logic as I found with dating as a young fellow. Did miserably until I stopped giving a rat's patoot or trying. Then she chased me and I was married within two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Ah, if only all of life's successes could come without dogged persuit.
And pay attention that he used your name in plural whose form coincides with the singular. So now your are in one class with trout, salmon, deer, fish (should I mention swine?). Alternatively, since it has the s inflection you may be grouped together with glasses, scissors, braces (should I mention pants?). So pick one to your liking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
P.S. No offence intended. Just ruminations of a linguist.
Actually, that is false. Hard-line Brexiteers were estimated to be 17% of the vote, compared to the idea of 48% against leaving, and incorporating the large numbers who preferred soft-Brexit or believed promises plastered against the side of the bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
So if the vote was based on values and what people actually knew what they were voting for, then Brexit would have not occurred.
There are also more Germans than Englishmen...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
There are more a Russians than GermansQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
You are guilty of a number of logical fallacies here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
1. The assumption that more information and/or more accurate information automatically leads to a uniform swing in favour of Remain.
How many Remainers are aware that the EU has three salaried Presidents, for the Commission, the Council and the Parliament?
How many Remainers are aware the EU Parliament has TWO buildings, one for debate and one for voting?
How many Remainers are aware of the theoretical exchange rate between the Euro and the German Mark or the Greek Drachma, and understand the implications?
Finally, how many have reviewed the economic data, particularly unemployment, for Southern Europe since the Eurozone banking crisis?
How many Remainers are aware that "ever closer Union" is written into the treaty of Rome?
2. You are assuming a clear division between hard-Brexiters, soft-Brexiters and Remainers. All the data appears to point in the other direction. Most people who voted Remain want some immigration controls, most who voted Brexit want access to EU markets. When forced to choose between the two slightly more people, irrc it was 51% chose Immigration Control over access - i.e. the referendum result.
3. You assume that Strike meant you to be emblematic of the Remain camp (and he know you aren't) and Greyblades to be emblematic on the Leave camp (clearly not, given that he holds different views to myself and Furunculus).
Are we still offering samples of grade three arithmetics tasks? Then no one will beat this: there are more Chinese than Russians, Germans and Englishmen taken together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Labour's 'day one' pledge to EU nationals
Way to abandon your own people overseas, dumbass.Quote:
Labour says it would scrap Theresa May's Brexit plans and unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU residents before talks start, if it wins power.
Nope. The EU said it guarantees the right of Brits in Europe on condition that Europeans are protected here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Theresa May on other hand is holding EU nationals hostage by not agreeing to this, as she wants to get further concessions from the EU for it. In fact, she is willing to go as far as abandoning Brits overseas in exchange to keeping this 'bargaining chip'. EU has said this is a red-line and they want this agreed before any negotiation.
So no, he is not the dumbass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I believe their counterpoint would be that citizenship in the EU is protection enough.
Erm, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The Government said MONTHS ago that they would guarantee the rights of #EU nationals so long as Brussels reciprocated. Brussels refused to comment until we formally triggered Article 50.
From last November: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37997698
From July last year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36707420
So what you just wrote was diametrically opposed to the facts.
It is Britain that has sought to guarantee reciprocal rights and the EU that has hedged.
There are more Chinese than Russians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Come on, didn't even read to that before I replied, but yeah...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I was going to say there are more Asians than Chinese east of India/Bangladesh, but it turns out there aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yet India seems set to overtake China by the end of the decade.
And Georgia's population trend is to double in size within 2500 Years of Darkness.
There are more stars than Chinese?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...y-eu-migrants/
So, apparently, despite the British Government showing full willingness to grant resident EU citizens full rights of residency, the EU doesn't believe they can do an early deal - but don't want to be seen as "blocking" such a deal.
In other news, Beskar to select most edible hat.
I reccomend a nacho sombrero.
This is why ensuring EU residents without guarenteed reciprication would be a massive mistake; You can not give away your only hostage and expect an opponant of this bad character to just do the same through honour.
And the UK needed to exit the EU to keep the immigrants away? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
What's the astonishment here? That EU believes a deal can't be struck as early as June? Or because she mentioned twice that she wants it done by June? OMG, Theresa has spoken twice now, everybody drop whatever you're doing and make it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It wouldn't work like that if EU was the Catholic flock and Theresa May the Pope.
May's already made the offer of equivalent guarentees of citizenship, she did it months ago. The only thing keeping May from making a deal is the EU not reciprocating, and the article indicates they're refusinv in an attempt to make May look bad.
It helped didn't it, it's the Brexit's most immediate succes. Out of many to come as the UK is better of without the Brussel and the Eurocrats know that very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
timber
After watching the ECB turn off an on the liquidity taps to Italy until their gov't collapsed from the economic chaos, reading the ugly and duplicitous way that the Eurogroup Working Group bounced Yanis Varoufakis from pillar to post, and watching Cameron's failed attempt to renegotiate from the stated position of staying in the EU, you better believe I want a 'bloody difficult woman' to lead Britain now.
I want a good deal, something equivalent to the Ukraine DCFTA with less ECB supervision, and there is no reason on god's earth why this should not be achievable. But... I am 110% ready to turn Britain into Singapore-on-steroids (relative to the EU), if that is the most effective economic response to EU intransigence. Britain would become a market economy rather than a social democracy, which is not what the left would want, but i'd be quite comfortable with that. It's not what I'd prefer, but freedom has a price.
Except of course if you are the one having to work in the sweat shop... And a nice tax-barrier with EU might made you still too competitive for European market, but I am sure Zimbabwe will buy something... And say good-bye to your mobile, tablets, and giant TV screens, but, as say the one who never really suffer of lack of comfort, freedom has a price. Ask Bangladesh...Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
And by the way, the "bloody difficult woman" changed her mind faster then Billy The Kid draw his gun.
on the contrary, we'd end up growing faster than the continent (again).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
it would involve a lot of adam smithian creative destruction, the economy would look different in twenty years time, but we'd remain a rich country.
but remember; this is not my preference, merely a fallback position. if all the points in my previous post that you fail to address come to pass.