Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Can Britain Liberate The Entire Continent?
55 Answers
http:// www.the guardia n.com/p olitics /2016/a pr/19/b rexit-c ould-sp ark-dem ocratic -libera tion-of -contin ent-say s-gove
If we vote out could our actions start a domino effect and free the whole continent from tyranny?
If we vote out could our actions start a domino effect and free the whole continent from tyranny?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ."I don't think the in crowd have any idea how the rest of us feel on this."
I think by about now I've worked out that you feel fairly strongly about it... but that doesn't excuse the hyperbole of calling it an "invasion" or a "coup", and those who wish to stay in the EU as traitors. It's just another version of "project fear" -- nothing more.
I think by about now I've worked out that you feel fairly strongly about it... but that doesn't excuse the hyperbole of calling it an "invasion" or a "coup", and those who wish to stay in the EU as traitors. It's just another version of "project fear" -- nothing more.
When it isn't the elected members or some of them chosen from within the group, that decides on the legislation to discuss and vote on, it isn't really a representative democracy. The elected chamber is just there to pass that passed down to them. If they don't it is likely to come up again at some point.
But that's not even the whole of it. Europe as a whole is not a sovereign area; the individual nations are. So if the individual governments have no right to debate the "suggestions/advice" coming out of the EU and decide for themselves to adopt or reject them, that attrites democracy even further.
But that's not even the whole of it. Europe as a whole is not a sovereign area; the individual nations are. So if the individual governments have no right to debate the "suggestions/advice" coming out of the EU and decide for themselves to adopt or reject them, that attrites democracy even further.
I'd hope not, Naomi, but then what else would Gove's "voting to remain as a hostage in the back of a seat" imply, or someone's private email to me stating explicitly, "feel an element of fear when you vote to stay. You are selling our history, our freedom..."
It's pretty obvious that there are some, quite vocal, supporters of Brexit who do not just disagree with remain supporters, but despise them.
It's pretty obvious that there are some, quite vocal, supporters of Brexit who do not just disagree with remain supporters, but despise them.
@T-cubed
//
ToraToraTora
Question Author
I didn't call it a coup jim, that was Tony Benn. The Labour/Tories collaborated in 1973 to arrange the correct number of abstentions to push it through. //
I see you've been enjoying Nick Robinson's Europe - Them or Us? too?
Stupidly, stupidly, stupidly (or cunningly, cunningly, cunningly) scheduled to clash with "The A-Word" by the Beeb Beeb Ceeb.
I'll be watching Ep 2/2 later.
//PP: Translation please someone.//
The US *believed* that the loss of (French-held) Vietnam, to communism would cascade to neighbouring countries. After their eventual defeat, this did not come to pass.
My analysis is that poor people, suffering under Tsar-like unfairness will practically *request* communism because they stand to gain. Simple self interest. Countries with contented, or prosperous (and, needless to say, or both) do not seek communism and will fight tooth and nail to send it packing.
By the way, owners of German-made stutus symbol objects: are they traitors too?
//
ToraToraTora
Question Author
I didn't call it a coup jim, that was Tony Benn. The Labour/Tories collaborated in 1973 to arrange the correct number of abstentions to push it through. //
I see you've been enjoying Nick Robinson's Europe - Them or Us? too?
Stupidly, stupidly, stupidly (or cunningly, cunningly, cunningly) scheduled to clash with "The A-Word" by the Beeb Beeb Ceeb.
I'll be watching Ep 2/2 later.
//PP: Translation please someone.//
The US *believed* that the loss of (French-held) Vietnam, to communism would cascade to neighbouring countries. After their eventual defeat, this did not come to pass.
My analysis is that poor people, suffering under Tsar-like unfairness will practically *request* communism because they stand to gain. Simple self interest. Countries with contented, or prosperous (and, needless to say, or both) do not seek communism and will fight tooth and nail to send it packing.
By the way, owners of German-made stutus symbol objects: are they traitors too?
Also, isn't the truism "Europe will not put up barriers to sales of their own goods to us" expressed the wrong way around?
Instead, say that they will not put up barriers to *our* outgoing trade because, if we cannot earn, we cannot afford their luxury cars/fridges/furniture/clothes or whatever it is which is setting our balance of trade (with EU) in the red.
In the red *and* net contributors - where is the money going and how do we (I; non-owner of a passport) go to feel the benefit?
Instead, say that they will not put up barriers to *our* outgoing trade because, if we cannot earn, we cannot afford their luxury cars/fridges/furniture/clothes or whatever it is which is setting our balance of trade (with EU) in the red.
In the red *and* net contributors - where is the money going and how do we (I; non-owner of a passport) go to feel the benefit?
// The US *believed* that the loss of (French-held) Vietnam, to communism would cascade to neighbouring countries. After their eventual defeat, this did not come to pass. //
TY Hypo ....
hooray someone on AB passed O level history and remembers the Vietnam War ( cue 50,000 x 'wot dat den yeah innit ' and "wot vietnam wot ? yeah "
and hooray someone knows the Domino Effect ( yeah yeah wot dat den x 50 000 + 10 000 x "meh ?"
to be found here after 5 s googling
https:/ /en.wik ipedia. org/wik i/Domin o_theor y
wh was Kissinger 's pet theory ( who dat ? )
and mikey try not to join the
"woss ee on abart" set
it distresses me to see a sixty year old talk about the american involvement in south east asia in the sixties and seventies in terms
" were the yanks in Vietnam - were dey ? I neva knew dat den ! yeah !"
it is unbecoming
TY Hypo ....
hooray someone on AB passed O level history and remembers the Vietnam War ( cue 50,000 x 'wot dat den yeah innit ' and "wot vietnam wot ? yeah "
and hooray someone knows the Domino Effect ( yeah yeah wot dat den x 50 000 + 10 000 x "meh ?"
to be found here after 5 s googling
https:/
wh was Kissinger 's pet theory ( who dat ? )
and mikey try not to join the
"woss ee on abart" set
it distresses me to see a sixty year old talk about the american involvement in south east asia in the sixties and seventies in terms
" were the yanks in Vietnam - were dey ? I neva knew dat den ! yeah !"
it is unbecoming
@Peter_Pedant
Actually, I didn't take History beyond the third year, so no 'O'-level there. I just watch too many TV documentaries. :0D
Nevertheless, I know that the US kicked us out (acquiring a number of Pacific outposts, as a result of the peace treaty), took Texas from the Mexicans, had a slight spat with the Canucks, then settled in for so many years of peace that they had to go to war with themselves, to relieve the boredom. That was so traumatic that they averred all war for another *long* time (give or take clobbering the Native population into final submission).
They spent the best part of two years, deliberating whether to help stop The Great War *at all* (cf. modern day fears over young lives lost), let alone which side to come in on (a lot of German/Italian descent on the eastern seaboard, so it was a close run thing, until the Lusitania torpedoing settled it).
Too much preamble but, following WWI, WWII and Korea, Vietnam clinched the pattern (1=one off, 2=co-incidence, 3=a pattern) of USA as "the world's policeman"™, which was my main point.
The US had Europe as both a bulwark against the spread of communism but also a tinderbox which sucked them in, twice over. They would no doubt back EU as a route to world peace. We need to convince them that we can still be their "unsinkable aircraft carrier", in the eastern Atlantic.
Interlewd
Actually, I didn't take History beyond the third year, so no 'O'-level there. I just watch too many TV documentaries. :0D
Nevertheless, I know that the US kicked us out (acquiring a number of Pacific outposts, as a result of the peace treaty), took Texas from the Mexicans, had a slight spat with the Canucks, then settled in for so many years of peace that they had to go to war with themselves, to relieve the boredom. That was so traumatic that they averred all war for another *long* time (give or take clobbering the Native population into final submission).
They spent the best part of two years, deliberating whether to help stop The Great War *at all* (cf. modern day fears over young lives lost), let alone which side to come in on (a lot of German/Italian descent on the eastern seaboard, so it was a close run thing, until the Lusitania torpedoing settled it).
Too much preamble but, following WWI, WWII and Korea, Vietnam clinched the pattern (1=one off, 2=co-incidence, 3=a pattern) of USA as "the world's policeman"™, which was my main point.
The US had Europe as both a bulwark against the spread of communism but also a tinderbox which sucked them in, twice over. They would no doubt back EU as a route to world peace. We need to convince them that we can still be their "unsinkable aircraft carrier", in the eastern Atlantic.
Interlewd
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.