Brexit Thread VI - The Knockout Phase ?!?

[Dachs]

A bit off-topic, but as imperial collapses go I don't think britan's was that bad. A few colonial wars where the british decided to leave relatively quickly, and the partition of India. Considering the alternatives to the partition, It may have been the best of several bad options. A larger India might have offered the world the bloodiest civil war of the 20th century. And a more divided India a number of wars because Congress politicians would be bent on conquering most of it. The British Empire smothered a number of latent local conflicts that its collapse would almost inevitably allow to play out.

I dunno about that. The United States was six years of hard fighting with a couple years of kleinkrieg before and after. Malaya was twelve years of war that drew in troops from across the Commonwealth. Ireland was four-ish including the civil war that immediately followed, plus several decades of Troubles. Four years of Mau Mau fighting before Kenyan independence and another four after that British troops stayed involved for. Fifteen years in Zimbabwe/Southern Rhodesia, although the British themselves didn't fight in that. Several individual short wars in Palestine and Israel, plus a lot of low-level ongoing violence. The First Kashmir War in India ought to count. And there were a bunch of other situations that, while maybe not full-scale war, were messy and bloody in a way that probably would've been costly to solve more effectively.

Britain's colonial projects didn't all end in total, unmitigated disaster for all involved like, say, Belgium's did, but that is not exactly a high bar.

 

[Arakhor]

Australia, Canada and New Zealand were all ruled from London by Britain, but they achieved their independence from Britain without any acrimonious divorce.

As an aside, the British government of the time was sensible enough to realise that both Australia and Canada were potent enough that they could successfully declare independence if they wanted to, hence their granting of Dominion status, etc. The current crop of Tories is on course to shatter a 300-year-old union, apparently because they don't have an ounce of sense between them.

In other news, Johnson has been showing a comparative ounce of sense for a change:

Boris Johnson has admitted he would need EU co-operation to avoid a hard Irish border or crippling tariffs on trade in the event of no deal. In an exclusive interview with the BBC, the favourite to be next prime minister said: "It's not just up to us." But he said he did "not believe for a moment" the UK would leave without a deal, although he was willing to do so.

 

[Hrothbern]

As an aside, the British government of the time was sensible enough to realise that both Australia and Canada were potent enough that they could successfully declare independence if they wanted to, hence their granting of Dominion status, etc. The current crop of Tories is on course to shatter a 300-year-old union, apparently because they don't have an ounce of sense between them.

In other news, Johnson has been showing a comparative ounce of sense for a change:

Boris Johnson has admitted he would need EU co-operation to avoid a hard Irish border or crippling tariffs on trade in the event of no deal. In an exclusive interview with the BBC, the favourite to be next prime minister said: "It's not just up to us." But he said he did "not believe for a moment" the UK would leave without a deal, although he was willing to do so.

So...
he has admitted that he is back in the Theresa May start position:
* an internal Tory (MP and member base) debate-division on a clean no-deal versus some deal with FTA.
* using no-deal as leverage towards the EU for "a deal".

But ofc everything is different now... because reasons....

Hallelujah

 

[Akka]

The UK people voted on 23 June 2016 to Leave the EU.

The EU Commission decided that it would not do a deal for Leaving, but a deal to penalise and/or prevent Leaving.

Ah, yes, these Evil Europeans

"I want to leave the club"
"Okay, but you won't get the club benefits anymore"
"YOU'RE TRYING TO PUNISH ME THAT'S IT ?"

And a second because it's badly needed.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I dunno about that. The United States was six years of hard fighting with a couple years of kleinkrieg before and after. Malaya was twelve years of war that drew in troops from across the Commonwealth. Ireland was four-ish including the civil war that immediately followed, plus several decades of Troubles. Four years of Mau Mau fighting before Kenyan independence and another four after that British troops stayed involved for. Fifteen years in Zimbabwe/Southern Rhodesia, although the British themselves didn't fight in that. Several individual short wars in Palestine and Israel, plus a lot of low-level ongoing violence. The First Kashmir War in India ought to count. And there were a bunch of other situations that, while maybe not full-scale war, were messy and bloody in a way that probably would've been costly to solve more effectively.

Britain's colonial projects didn't all end in total, unmitigated disaster for all involved like, say, Belgium's did, but that is not exactly a high bar.

Which empires managed it better?
France had Algeria and Vietnam. Russia has Chechnya and the Ukraine ongoing. Spain didn't leave South or Central America or Cuba with good grace.
There is undoubtedly a lot of romanticism on the British right about how the British Empire was good for the natives and how we tried to manage leaving them gifts of democracy that the natives messed up.
All rubbish but empires usually end with violence. The British Empire seems pretty average in that regard.

 

[Akka]

The British Empire seems pretty average in that regard.

TBH, I'd give it to the British that they are probably the ones who dealt the best, by far, with their decolonization efforts. They didn't had wars, and most of their previous colonies came out of it with little acrimony and in a generally rather good situation compared to colonies by other powers.
France has probably the worst record by far.

 

[EnglishEdward]

It looks that your position (in using that history argument !) is a very traditional UK position also called: "The imperialism of free trade"

Not really, I was merely replying to Sofista's particular question.


But as for free trade, I am not in favour of what you term the imperialism of free trade.

It has a number of disadvantages; for instrance with one country or company with a competitive advantage with,
something, leveraging that to acquire dominance and then wiping out its competiton and becoming a near monopoly.

Countries* should be free to set quotas, require imported goods to conform to their standards and apply reasonable tariffs.

And I don't have a problem with organisations such as the WTO seeking to limit countries clearly abusing that.

Worth mentioning that the FTA rheteoic of conservatives is IMO the rhetroic of a minority of wealthy Leavers and Remainers;
and that one of the lesser reasons for the UK to leave the EU is so that the UK polticians might stop telling Europe what to do.

I rarely watch Parliament live on TV, but I can remember being astounded to hear female UK MPs spending
10 minutes debating n the House of Commons with a not too concealed view to disqualifying Bradley Wiggin's
win in the Tour de France regarding his utilisation of therapeutic use exemptions for banned substances.

(* In this context, I regard the EU27 as a country.)

A bit off-topic, but as imperial collapses go I don't think britan's was that bad.

TBH, I'd give it to the British that they are probably the ones
who dealt the best, by far, with their decolonization efforts.

Thank you.

But, who had the best/worst historic empire and/or withdrawal from empire is for the History sub-forum, so I won't debate it here..

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The whole blaming the Irish border on the UK's decision to leave thing seems a lot like blaming the ex-boyfriend for his ex-girlfriend for slitting her own wrists, just because she told him she'd do it if he ever left her. It's the EU insisting on the border control isn't it? And it's Ireland which will be remaining in the EU, not us.

In fact never mind that analogy, it's more like... blaming the hostage negotiator for the fact that you have a guy holding you hostage. Even if the hostage negotiator isn't doing a particularly sterling job of looking after your interests, he's still not the one trying to shoot you in the head.

Edit: Pre-empting responses of "you clearly don't know what you're talking about". Well in that case please take the opportunity to explain why that doesn't really reflect the situation.

 

[Dachs]

Which empires managed it better?
France had Algeria and Vietnam. Russia has Chechnya and the Ukraine ongoing. Spain didn't leave South or Central America or Cuba with good grace.
There is undoubtedly a lot of romanticism on the British right about how the British Empire was good for the natives and how we tried to manage leaving them gifts of democracy that the natives messed up.
All rubbish but empires usually end with violence. The British Empire seems pretty average in that regard.

"Not that bad" is a long way away from "average"! If Britain, France, Portugal, Belgium, and Russia all, on average, left their colonies in pretty rough places up to and including endemic war, that makes "bad" the average! I'm not grading on a curve here. If everybody gets a D (except France and Belgium, which get Fs), those Ds don't get boosted to Bs simply because nobody did very well.

TBH, I'd give it to the British that they are probably the ones who dealt the best, by far, with their decolonization efforts. They didn't had wars, and most of their previous colonies came out of it with little acrimony and in a generally rather good situation compared to colonies by other powers.
France has probably the worst record by far.

I mean the first part of that is objectively untrue but ok.

The awful thing about French decolonization is that it never ended and, in fact, started throwing up fresh awfulness in the 1990s and 2000s in countries that France didn't even colonize! Blame Jacques Foccart.

The whole blaming the Irish border on the UK's decision to leave thing seems a lot like blaming the ex-boyfriend for his ex-girlfriend for slitting her own wrists, just because she told him she'd do it if he ever left her. It's the EU insisting on the border control isn't it? And it's Ireland which will be remaining in the EU, not us.

I was under the impression that one of the top selling points of leaving the EU to Brexiters during the Brexit campaign was the notion that the UK would finally have the ability to impose controls on immigration from the EU.

 

[AmazonQueen]

"Not that bad" is a long way away from "average"! If Britain, France, Portugal, Belgium, and Russia all, on average, left their colonies in pretty rough places up to and including endemic war, that makes "bad" the average! I'm not grading on a curve here. If everybody gets a D (except France and Belgium, which get Fs), those Ds don't get boosted to Bs simply because nobody did very well.

If everybody only managed not that bad then it is average. Perhaps you need to reconsider your marking scheme.

 

[Lexicus]

Yo what about Spain, does Spain get a letter grade or did they get booted out of their colonies too early to count

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I was under the impression that one of the top selling points of leaving the EU to Brexiters during the Brexit campaign was the notion that the UK would finally have the ability to impose controls on immigration from the EU.

Ah well that's possibly true I suppose. And if it is the UK that is nominally insisting on putting walls up then that's different, but I was under the impression that that wasn't who was doing the insisting.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yo what about Spain, does Spain get a letter grade or did they get booted out of their colonies too early to count

Afaik most of their colonies declared independence when Spain was occupied by Napoleon's army. Spain did try to stop some of the rebellions, often with comical effect (Argentina, where a fleet of pirates and mechants defeated the spanish navy).

 

[Lexicus]

Ah well that's possibly true I suppose.

Don't tiptoe around it, it's obviously true. And it means that in your little scenario the one who has taken hostages is the UK.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yo what about Spain, does Spain get a letter grade or did they get booted out of their colonies too early to count

For that matter how do countries that still haven't begun the decolonisation process yet score?

 

[Lexicus]

For that matter how do countries that still haven't begun the decolonisation process yet score?

Well the only thing I know is that America gets an A but also doesn't have an empire

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Don't tiptoe around it, it's obviously true. And it means that in your little scenario the one who has taken hostages is the UK.

Charming as per.

 

[Hrothbern]

Not really, I was merely replying to Sofista's particular question.


But as for free trade, I am not in favour of what you term the imperialism of free trade.

I could already hardly imagine that you would favor boundless free trade,
At that time however trade was pretty free between the UK and its former colonies. And UK companies, bankers, and wealth mostly in the comfortable seat to continue a fair share of continuing their beneficial activities.
Pride and property the difficult factors.

It has a number of disadvantages; for instrance with one country or company with a competitive advantage with,
something, leveraging that to acquire dominance and then wiping out its competiton and becoming a near monopoly.

Countries* should be free to set quotas, require imported goods to conform to their standards and apply reasonable tariffs.

And I don't have a problem with organisations such as the WTO seeking to limit countries clearly abusing that.
(* In this context, I regard the EU27 as a country.)

Radical Free Trade can be merciless for the weak (economical sectors, areas, countries)
When the gap is too big it is not anymore about incentivising productivity increases, it becomes existential.
I doubt the low tariff and current quota policy of the EU can survive the cheap meanwhile high tech Chinese (Korean, etc) products. Not only goods, but emerging fast now also services and money (Ali-pay, etc). Just waiting for Ali-mortgages.
The current low tariffs are no match for the heavy state-aid policies of China to boost their international Corporate.
I also think that the redistribution within the EU is too small to compensate for the radical free trade of the Single Market. I rather tax per country the benefits they each have of the Single Market as areal redistribution contribution.
In that "protection" sense it is a good thing when the UK would be outside the EU decision structure, unless the dominant political culture becomes more protectionist..

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well the only thing I know is that America gets an A but also doesn't have an empire

Tell that to the native Americans, Mexicans, Hawaiians, and Puerto Ricans.

 

[Lexicus]

Tell that to the native Americans, Mexicans, Hawaiians, and Puerto Ricans.

Well I was being sarcastic but yes.