No deal Brexit

1568101117

Comments

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    I didn't realise that Telford came from the sort of society that knows about, or belongs to, golf clubs, but, if so, we must defer to his superior knowledge and understanding of the whole Brexshit question.

    BTW, who was it who described golf as 'a good walk spoiled'?
    Once again you prefer to discuss me rather than the subject of the thread.



    Don't flatter yourself. I've watched more interesting paint drying.
    I'm never sure whether the assertion that the PM knows more than we do is a belief or a hope but it inevitably an admittance that, on the publicly available evidence, the PM has fucked up good and proper.

    O I think the conclusion in your last sentence is probably correct.
  • BTW, who was it who described golf as 'a good walk spoiled'?
    Mark Twain.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Ah yes - he who remarked that the reports of his death were somewhat exaggerated (or words to that effect).
    :lol:
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Do you know more than he does? Or do you just know what you think you heard someone (you can't remember who) say on the telly (you can't remember when)?
    No I do not know more than he does and neither do you
    So you are retracting your statement that:
    The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
    on the grounds that you don't actually know?
    If you think you're in a position to know enough to make that statement then the rest of us may actually know enough to tell you that you're wrong.



  • [
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Do you know more than he does? Or do you just know what you think you heard someone (you can't remember who) say on the telly (you can't remember when)?
    No I do not know more than he does and neither do you
    So you are retracting your statement that:
    The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
    on the grounds that you don't actually know?
    If you think you're in a position to know enough to make that statement then the rest of us may actually know enough to tell you that you're wrong.
    In 2016 the public voted for independence. On very many occasions government politicians have stated that they want tarrif free trade with the EU.

    Now if I am wrong, please explain how I am wrong.

  • Telford wrote: »

    [
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Do you know more than he does? Or do you just know what you think you heard someone (you can't remember who) say on the telly (you can't remember when)?
    No I do not know more than he does and neither do you
    So you are retracting your statement that:
    The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
    on the grounds that you don't actually know?
    If you think you're in a position to know enough to make that statement then the rest of us may actually know enough to tell you that you're wrong.
    In 2016 the public voted for independence.

    No, they voted to leave the EU. That's the only thing that was on the ballot paper. The UK was already independent, you know how I know? The UK didn't need anyone's permission to hold the referendum. Unlike, say, Scotland.
  • Telford wrote: »

    [
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Do you know more than he does? Or do you just know what you think you heard someone (you can't remember who) say on the telly (you can't remember when)?
    No I do not know more than he does and neither do you
    So you are retracting your statement that:
    The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
    on the grounds that you don't actually know?
    If you think you're in a position to know enough to make that statement then the rest of us may actually know enough to tell you that you're wrong.
    In 2016 the public voted for independence.

    No, they voted to leave the EU. That's the only thing that was on the ballot paper. The UK was already independent, you know how I know? The UK didn't need anyone's permission to hold the referendum. Unlike, say, Scotland.

    In that case they voted to remain independent.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    [
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Do you know more than he does? Or do you just know what you think you heard someone (you can't remember who) say on the telly (you can't remember when)?
    No I do not know more than he does and neither do you
    So you are retracting your statement that:
    The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
    on the grounds that you don't actually know?
    If you think you're in a position to know enough to make that statement then the rest of us may actually know enough to tell you that you're wrong.
    In 2016 the public voted for independence.

    No, they voted to leave the EU. That's the only thing that was on the ballot paper. The UK was already independent, you know how I know? The UK didn't need anyone's permission to hold the referendum. Unlike, say, Scotland.

    In that case they voted to remain independent.

    In that case, a vote either way would have still meant independence, which means your statement is nonsense.

    It's like saying they voted to still be an island.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    So you are retracting your statement that:
    The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
    on the grounds that you don't actually know?
    If you think you're in a position to know enough to make that statement then the rest of us may actually know enough to tell you that you're wrong.
    In 2016 the public voted for independence. On very many occasions government politicians have stated that they want tarrif free trade with the EU.

    Now if I am wrong, please explain how I am wrong.
    You're trying to change the subject.
    Either you retract your claim to know the UK negotiating position or you admit it's possible other people understand it better than you.

    In 2016, the public voted to give up any say in making EU rules. When it was pointed out that none of the Leave campaigners said we'd leave without a deal and most of them said we'd stay in the Single Market, you responded that it didn't matter what the campaign said or what people thought they were voting for: all people voted for was what was on the ballot paper. And what was on the ballot paper was nothing about independence: it just said Leave. All we need to do to Leave is give up our say in making EU rules. Johnson could sell the country to be run from Brussels and as long as we don't have any say in how Brussels run us we will have left the EU in accordance with the 2016 referendum, at least according to the logic that Leave has been putting forth.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    [
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Do you know more than he does? Or do you just know what you think you heard someone (you can't remember who) say on the telly (you can't remember when)?
    No I do not know more than he does and neither do you
    So you are retracting your statement that:
    The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
    on the grounds that you don't actually know?
    If you think you're in a position to know enough to make that statement then the rest of us may actually know enough to tell you that you're wrong.
    In 2016 the public voted for independence.

    No, they voted to leave the EU. That's the only thing that was on the ballot paper. The UK was already independent, you know how I know? The UK didn't need anyone's permission to hold the referendum. Unlike, say, Scotland.

    In that case they voted to remain independent.

    In that case, a vote either way would have still meant independence, which means your statement is nonsense.
    So why did they vote to leave the EU then? Perhaps they did not want 'Ever closer unity'

    It's like saying they voted to still be an island.
    The UK is more than one island

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    So you are retracting your statement that:
    The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
    on the grounds that you don't actually know?
    If you think you're in a position to know enough to make that statement then the rest of us may actually know enough to tell you that you're wrong.
    In 2016 the public voted for independence. On very many occasions government politicians have stated that they want tarrif free trade with the EU.

    Now if I am wrong, please explain how I am wrong.
    You're trying to change the subject.
    Either you retract your claim to know the UK negotiating position or you admit it's possible other people understand it better than you.

    In 2016, the public voted to give up any say in making EU rules. When it was pointed out that none of the Leave campaigners said we'd leave without a deal and most of them said we'd stay in the Single Market, you responded that it didn't matter what the campaign said or what people thought they were voting for: all people voted for was what was on the ballot paper. And what was on the ballot paper was nothing about independence: it just said Leave. All we need to do to Leave is give up our say in making EU rules. Johnson could sell the country to be run from Brussels and as long as we don't have any say in how Brussels run us we will have left the EU in accordance with the 2016 referendum, at least according to the logic that Leave has been putting forth.

    BIB...If this was true, Why did it take so long a agree a withdrawal agreement?

  • Because by putting a hard border between NI and the ROI, we break an international treaty to which the ROI, UK, US and EU are joint signatories and guarantors. Because we wanted to give ourselves time to negotiate a trade deal (in which we exchange some independence for some access to the EU tariff-free zone). Because we realised that falling off a cliff onto WTO rules would destroy large swathes of the UK economy overnight, and even the Tories didn't want that.
  • Plus the time taken to reach the withdrawal agreement was extended because the government didn't have a majority, the majority of our democratically elected representatives were (and, probably still are) opposed to Brexit and those few who favoured Brexit couldn't agree on what form of Brexit they wanted. Of course 2019 did slightly change the Parliamentary arithmetic, though I still think the majority of MPs are opposed to Brexit those in the Conservative Party at least are willing to hold their noses and vote against their beliefs and for the government. But, I'm still not sure the Brexiteers have agreed what they want.

    Now, if we'd followed precedent and required the Vote Leave campaign to produce a manifesto then we'd not have taken so long to get where we are, because the government would have known what to negotiate for from the beginning.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Because by putting a hard border between NI and the ROI, we break an international treaty to which the ROI, UK, US and EU are joint signatories and guarantors. Because we wanted to give ourselves time to negotiate a trade deal (in which we exchange some independence for some access to the EU tariff-free zone). Because we realised that falling off a cliff onto WTO rules would destroy large swathes of the UK economy overnight, and even the Tories didn't want that.
    At true
    Plus the time taken to reach the withdrawal agreement was extended because the government didn't have a majority, the majority of our democratically elected representatives were (and, probably still are) opposed to Brexit and those few who favoured Brexit couldn't agree on what form of Brexit they wanted. Of course 2019 did slightly change the Parliamentary arithmetic, though I still think the majority of MPs are opposed to Brexit those in the Conservative Party at least are willing to hold their noses and vote against their beliefs and for the government. But, I'm still not sure the Brexiteers have agreed what they want.

    Now, if we'd followed precedent and required the Vote Leave campaign to produce a manifesto then we'd not have taken so long to get where we are, because the government would have known what to negotiate for from the beginning.

    This as well.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    If this was true, Why did it take so long a agree a withdrawal agreement?
    Because all that was on the ballot was that we should give up our say in the EU rules, so the people who'd advocated Leave couldn't agree what else they wanted, most of them changed their minds on what they wanted in the middle of the process anyway, many of them didn't actually have a clue what they were talking about; and many of them had only ever wanted to get into power anyway - so they all held out for whatever version of Brexit hadn't been negotiated until they got into power. But you knew all that, or at least that was all obvious to anyone paying attention.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    If this was true, Why did it take so long a agree a withdrawal agreement?
    Because all that was on the ballot was that we should give up our say in the EU rules,
    Wrong. Did you actually see one of the ballot papers ?
    so the people who'd advocated Leave couldn't agree what else they wanted, most of them changed their minds on what they wanted in the middle of the process anyway, many of them didn't actually have a clue what they were talking about;
    I agree that it was not clear at all. I have no comment to make on the bit of your post I have not refered to


  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    If this was true, Why did it take so long a agree a withdrawal agreement?
    Because all that was on the ballot was that we should give up our say in the EU rules,
    Wrong. Did you actually see one of the ballot papers ?
    I explained that already. It asked, should we leave the EU. Leaving the EU means giving up our say in the EU rules. Anything else is extra.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    If this was true, Why did it take so long a agree a withdrawal agreement?
    Because all that was on the ballot was that we should give up our say in the EU rules,
    Wrong. Did you actually see one of the ballot papers ?
    I explained that already. It asked, should we leave the EU. Leaving the EU means giving up our say in the EU rules. Anything else is extra.

    I read the ballot paper and it asked us to tell the government if we wanted to leave or stay. It said nothing about actually leaving. That was outside the scope of paper. It was down to a government sucking up to its right.
    We cannot leave the EU and still have a say, so @Dafyd s correct.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    If this was true, Why did it take so long a agree a withdrawal agreement?
    Because all that was on the ballot was that we should give up our say in the EU rules,
    Wrong. Did you actually see one of the ballot papers ?
    I explained that already. It asked, should we leave the EU. Leaving the EU means giving up our say in the EU rules. Anything else is extra.

    I read the ballot paper and it asked us to tell the government if we wanted to leave or stay. It said nothing about actually leaving. That was outside the scope of paper. It was down to a government sucking up to its right.
    We cannot leave the EU and still have a say, so @Dafyd s correct.
    He's not right, because that's not what he was saying.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We cannot leave the EU and still have a say, so Dafyd s correct.
    He's not right, because that's not what he was saying.
    Yes it was, although I was unwisely relying on your ability to either remember or refer back to a previous post for context.
    If you're going to insist on the exact wording of the ballot paper, it didn't say anything about independence. Whatever people thought they were voting for, independence wasn't on the ballot paper. By any logic that says people didn't vote to stay in the Single Market, people didn't vote for independence.
  • Meanwhile, the negotiations creak on to their inevitable end, though what that end will be is not 100% clear.

    What is also not clear is the extent to which people in this country will benefit from Brexshit. Given the increasing poverty and deprivation in many areas, partly due to years of tory misrule, and partly due to the pandemic, the country could do with a boost.

    Any ideas as to what the tangible benefits of Brexshit might actually be, apart from Sunlit Uplands and Unicorns, of course?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We cannot leave the EU and still have a say, so Dafyd s correct.
    He's not right, because that's not what he was saying.
    Yes it was, although I was unwisely relying on your ability to either remember or refer back to a previous post for context.
    If you're going to insist on the exact wording of the ballot paper, it didn't say anything about independence. Whatever people thought they were voting for, independence wasn't on the ballot paper. By any logic that says people didn't vote to stay in the Single Market, people didn't vote for independence.
    They voted to leave and eventually we left.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    They voted to leave and eventually we left.
    Exactly. That is my point. We left, not when we stopped having to obey EU rules - we still have to obey EU rules and we shall continue to have to obey them if we have tariff-free trade - not when we became independent, whatever that means, as we still follow EU rules - but when we stopped having any say in what those rules are. That is when we left.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    They voted to leave and eventually we left.
    Exactly. That is my point. We left, not when we stopped having to obey EU rules - we still have to obey EU rules and we shall continue to have to obey them if we have tariff-free trade - not when we became independent, whatever that means, as we still follow EU rules - but when we stopped having any say in what those rules are. That is when we left.
    I see no advantage in having a say in what the rules are when they are agreed by so many other countries

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    One of those countries being (pre-Brexshit) the UK...agreement is the operative word here, I think.

    We are deliberately walking away from co-operation and agreement, and going for conflict and argument instead. No amount of Sunny Uplands and/or Unicorns can compensate for that, but the fact that we can commit national suicide is surely proof positive that we are independent.

    Lunatics, yes, but independent lunatics...
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    I see no advantage in having a say in what the rules are when they are agreed by so many other countries
    That seems a rather curmudgeonly attitude to me.

  • Interesting times. After Brexit, Scottish Independence comes down the line. As an English person, I say all the best to them if it’s what they likely decide. Will then be a fast tracked application to join EU, and yet another border headache. England will then have lost another part of its first empire, reminds me of the knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, no legs, no arms, but still posturing.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Interesting times, indeed. The image of the legless, armless, posturing Knight is both graphic and apposite.

    ISTM that it's the French, the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish, who are going to be *taking back control* of the borders of England...

    Still, England is reputedly better than all of these nations, according to one Williamson. (Who he? Ed.)
  • One of those countries being (pre-Brexshit) the UK...agreement is the operative word here, I think.

    We are deliberately walking away from co-operation and agreement, and going for conflict and argument instead. No amount of Sunny Uplands and/or Unicorns can compensate for that, but the fact that we can commit national suicide is surely proof positive that we are independent.

    Lunatics, yes, but independent lunatics...

    If I had read this 5 years ago, I would probably have changed my vote.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    They voted to leave and eventually we left.
    Exactly. That is my point. We left, not when we stopped having to obey EU rules - we still have to obey EU rules and we shall continue to have to obey them if we have tariff-free trade - not when we became independent, whatever that means, as we still follow EU rules - but when we stopped having any say in what those rules are. That is when we left.
    I see no advantage in having a say in what the rules are when they are agreed by so many other countries

    Wow. So... if you were in a room with 27 other people trying to sort out what to do, you'd just up and leave because having all those other people involved was not to your advantage?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    After Brexit, Scottish Independence comes down the line. As an English person, I say all the best to them if it’s what they likely decide. Will then be a fast tracked application to join EU, and yet another border headache.
    Thank you. The chance of a Tory-dominated England requiring that Scotland stay out of the EU as part of any independence deal are surely quite high. I think Scotland is better off helping the sensible parts of England and Wales kick the Tories out. But then I thought that last time.
    England will then have lost another part of its first empire
    Scotland was never part of England's empire, any more than Newcastle was.

  • orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    They voted to leave and eventually we left.
    Exactly. That is my point. We left, not when we stopped having to obey EU rules - we still have to obey EU rules and we shall continue to have to obey them if we have tariff-free trade - not when we became independent, whatever that means, as we still follow EU rules - but when we stopped having any say in what those rules are. That is when we left.
    I see no advantage in having a say in what the rules are when they are agreed by so many other countries

    Wow. So... if you were in a room with 27 other people trying to sort out what to do, you'd just up and leave because having all those other people involved was not to your advantage?
    As far as the EU is concerned, Germany and France call the shots. Germany, especially calls the shots because they finance the poorer countries.

    As for your point it would be nothing to do with having an advantage, it would be an acceptance that we were just one voice in the room.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    After Brexit, Scottish Independence comes down the line. As an English person, I say all the best to them if it’s what they likely decide. Will then be a fast tracked application to join EU, and yet another border headache.
    Thank you. The chance of a Tory-dominated England requiring that Scotland stay out of the EU as part of any independence deal are surely quite high. I think Scotland is better off helping the sensible parts of England and Wales kick the Tories out. But then I thought that last time.
    England will then have lost another part of its first empire
    Scotland was never part of England's empire, any more than Newcastle was.
    If and when Scotland votes to leave the UK they will be free to do what they like once they have inherited their share of the UK's debt.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    . England will then have lost another part of its first empire, reminds me of the knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, no legs, no arms, but still posturing.

    Just what was England's second empire, please?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    After Brexit, Scottish Independence comes down the line. As an English person, I say all the best to them if it’s what they likely decide. Will then be a fast tracked application to join EU, and yet another border headache.
    Thank you. The chance of a Tory-dominated England requiring that Scotland stay out of the EU as part of any independence deal are surely quite high. I think Scotland is better off helping the sensible parts of England and Wales kick the Tories out. But then I thought that last time.
    England will then have lost another part of its first empire
    Scotland was never part of England's empire, any more than Newcastle was.

    Scotland used to have a sovereign parliament as an independent nation. Then its members lost their shirts investing in the Darien Scheme and were able to be bullied and bribed into accepting the union with England.
  • For Scottish independence, Brexit creates a whole shit load of additional problems. I don't think rejoining the EU is going to necessarily be a problem, the Scottish economy may take a few years to recover from Conservative rule from Westminster but is robust enough to meet all EU membership requirements and there's some sympathy within the EU towards our predicament of being a pro-EU nation being dragged out against our will.

    The big problem is the border and trade with/through England. The 2014 question was straightforward on this point, it would be a border between two nations within the EU. This time round the question's going to need to include both a border agreement between two nations outwith the EU, but also looking forward to it being a border between a nation in the EU and one outwith the EU. The end point would be that there would probably need to be arrangements for the border similar to the Irish border ... and we know how much of a mess that is in.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    England will then have lost another part of its first empire
    Scotland was never part of England's empire, any more than Newcastle was.
    The first English Empire was probably founded in 1277 with the Treaty of Aberconwy, the conquest of Wales by Edward Longshanks, certainly by the 1284 Statute of Rhuddlan with the Principality of Wales incorporated into the Kingdom of England. For Scotland, the corresponding date would be 1296 when Longshanks crushed the Scottish forces at Dunbar, imprisoned Balliol in the Tower of London, installed Englishmen into the Scottish government and confiscated the Stone of Destiny. It's probable that if he hadn't been fighting France at the same time to recover Gascony Edward would have followed the pattern he established in Wales of founding new towns of English settlers and replacing Scottish law with English law ... which might have made the conquest of Scotland more secure and possibly prevented re-assertion of Scottish independence with the victory of Robert the Bruce at Bannochburn in 1314 with that independence confirmed when the Pope accepted the pleas of the Scots in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 and the 1328 Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton where Edward III acknowledged Scottish independence. Not that it stopped the English invading a year later ...
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I see no advantage in having a say in what the rules are when they are agreed by so many other countries
    That seems a rather curmudgeonly attitude to me.

    It's a fairly typical attitude in England, where "cooperation" means "everyone does what I say". The truth is that when we were in the EU, we actually had quite a lot of power; we had to work harder to use it, because we had to get at least two other countries (or "sovereign nations", to use the Brexiters' preferred term) to agree with us, but it was there. In the UK, whatever England wants is usually imposed on the other three nations. The Brexit headbangers would never have been happy until we held the same position in the EU: second fiddle to Germany just isn't good enough for them. This is probably why they keep banging on about World War II.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    They voted to leave and eventually we left.
    Exactly. That is my point. We left, not when we stopped having to obey EU rules - we still have to obey EU rules and we shall continue to have to obey them if we have tariff-free trade - not when we became independent, whatever that means, as we still follow EU rules - but when we stopped having any say in what those rules are. That is when we left.
    I see no advantage in having a say in what the rules are when they are agreed by so many other countries

    Wow. So... if you were in a room with 27 other people trying to sort out what to do, you'd just up and leave because having all those other people involved was not to your advantage?
    As far as the EU is concerned, Germany and France call the shots. Germany, especially calls the shots because they finance the poorer countries.

    As for your point it would be nothing to do with having an advantage, it would be an acceptance that we were just one voice in the room.

    Oh, the horror of being just one voice in the room, instead of having a separate room entirely to yourselves.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    They voted to leave and eventually we left.
    Exactly. That is my point. We left, not when we stopped having to obey EU rules - we still have to obey EU rules and we shall continue to have to obey them if we have tariff-free trade - not when we became independent, whatever that means, as we still follow EU rules - but when we stopped having any say in what those rules are. That is when we left.
    I see no advantage in having a say in what the rules are when they are agreed by so many other countries

    Wow. So... if you were in a room with 27 other people trying to sort out what to do, you'd just up and leave because having all those other people involved was not to your advantage?
    As far as the EU is concerned, Germany and France call the shots. Germany, especially calls the shots because they finance the poorer countries.

    As for your point it would be nothing to do with having an advantage, it would be an acceptance that we were just one voice in the room.

    Oh, the horror of being just one voice in the room, instead of having a separate room entirely to yourselves.

    You miss the point. I personally have no problem with other people making the rules. I don't feel the need to be involved in the process.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    England will then have lost another part of its first empire
    Scotland was never part of England's empire, any more than Newcastle was.
    The first English Empire was probably founded in 1277 with the Treaty of Aberconwy, the conquest of Wales by Edward Longshanks, certainly by the 1284 Statute of Rhuddlan with the Principality of Wales incorporated into the Kingdom of England. For Scotland, the corresponding date would be 1296 when Longshanks crushed the Scottish forces at Dunbar, imprisoned Balliol in the Tower of London, installed Englishmen into the Scottish government and confiscated the Stone of Destiny. It's probable that if he hadn't been fighting France at the same time to recover Gascony Edward would have followed the pattern he established in Wales of founding new towns of English settlers and replacing Scottish law with English law ... which might have made the conquest of Scotland more secure and possibly prevented re-assertion of Scottish independence with the victory of Robert the Bruce at Bannochburn in 1314 with that independence confirmed when the Pope accepted the pleas of the Scots in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 and the 1328 Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton where Edward III acknowledged Scottish independence. Not that it stopped the English invading a year later ...

    I would say that England's first empire would have been the Angevine empire of Henry II who ruled over an area covering roughly half of France, all of England, parts of Ireland and Wales, and had further influence over much of the remaining British Isles.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Henry II's lands in France were granted to him by the king of France in his capacities as Duke of Aquitane and Duke of Normandy, and Count of this that and the other) so that he was vassal of the King of France. They were independent of his Kingdom of England in which capacity he was not vassal of the King of France. Politics in medieval Europe was complicated.
    Henry II was not an especially loyal vassal, even by the standards of medieval Europe; one of the reasons he faced revolts by his sons was that it was easy for his sons to argue that none of Henry's vassals need fulfil their obligations to Henry if Henry didn't fulfil his obligations as vassal to France.

    To describe Henry's lands as an empire is therefore a misnomer; to describe it as an English empire is completely wrong.
  • It seems that 'some late-20th-century historians have combined British and French historical accounts of Henry, challenging earlier Anglo-centric interpretations of his reign.' (from Wikipedia, so it must be True.)

    IOW, he might equally well be called King of France, with England etc. as part of his Angevin Empire...
    :naughty:
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    IOW, he might equally well be called King of France, with England etc. as part of his Angevin Empire...
    He wasn't ever King of France. Just a really powerful and troublesome vassal.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Henry II's lands in France were granted to him by the king of France in his capacities as Duke of Aquitane and Duke of Normandy, and Count of this that and the other) so that he was vassal of the King of France. They were independent of his Kingdom of England in which capacity he was not vassal of the King of France. Politics in medieval Europe was complicated.
    Henry II was not an especially loyal vassal, even by the standards of medieval Europe; one of the reasons he faced revolts by his sons was that it was easy for his sons to argue that none of Henry's vassals need fulfil their obligations to Henry if Henry didn't fulfil his obligations as vassal to France.

    To describe Henry's lands as an empire is therefore a misnomer; to describe it as an English empire is completely wrong.
    N
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Henry II's lands in France were granted to him by the king of France in his capacities as Duke of Aquitane and Duke of Normandy, and Count of this that and the other) so that he was vassal of the King of France. They were independent of his Kingdom of England in which capacity he was not vassal of the King of France. Politics in medieval Europe was complicated.
    Henry II was not an especially loyal vassal, even by the standards of medieval Europe; one of the reasons he faced revolts by his sons was that it was easy for his sons to argue that none of Henry's vassals need fulfil their obligations to Henry if Henry didn't fulfil his obligations as vassal to France.

    To describe Henry's lands as an empire is therefore a misnomer; to describe it as an English empire is completely wrong.
    Never the less it is known as the Angevin Empire headed by the King of England

  • Well, yes - but it could have been otherwise (which I suppose is the point that 'some late-20th-century historians' were making).

    Apologies for the whimsical alternative-history tangent... :wink:
  • Jane R wrote: »
    second fiddle to Germany just isn't good enough for them.

    Nor should it be.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Wow. So... if you were in a room with 27 other people trying to sort out what to do, you'd just up and leave because having all those other people involved was not to your advantage?

    If the other 27 decided to do something that I didn't want to do then you're damn right I'd reserve the right to walk away rather than be forced to go along with it.
  • Jane R wrote: »
    second fiddle to Germany just isn't good enough for them.

    Nor should it be.

    Really? So which countries in the world are you willing to play second fiddle to, because the UK is going to have to play second fiddle to some of them.
    orfeo wrote: »
    Wow. So... if you were in a room with 27 other people trying to sort out what to do, you'd just up and leave because having all those other people involved was not to your advantage?

    If the other 27 decided to do something that I didn't want to do then you're damn right I'd reserve the right to walk away rather than be forced to go along with it.

    Congratulations, you are going to have to go along with it anyway, except now you no longer have a voice.
  • I hear that Slimy Gove is on his way to Brussels to sort things out. What could possibly go wrong?
This discussion has been closed.