Horizons Unlimited - The HUBB

Horizons Unlimited - The HUBB (https://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hubb/)
-   The HUBB PUB (https://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hubb/the-hubb-pub/)
-   -   Should Britain leave the E.U. ??? (https://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hubb/the-hubb-pub/should-britain-leave-e-u-85239)

Lonerider 23 Apr 2016 01:45

Great to see the Yanks are putting their 2 pennies worth in.
How Obama has the gall to tell us to stay in the EU is beyond me. All this coming from probably the most paranoid country over sovereignty and keeping people out. Glad Boris told him where to go (the way Boris does)
Then threatening us with trade deals. Cameron should have kicked him out.
Its really annoying when others stick there nose in to other people business especially when it will not effect them, except maybe less controllable

Wayne

Mezo 23 Apr 2016 06:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonerider (Post 536579)
Cameron should have kicked him out.

Cameron wrote his speech. :nono:

He should worry about his own backyard first, set an example & possibly the world would listen to him, but with Trump, gun crime, unemployment, racist police.

STFU Obama :thumbup1:

Mezo.

chris gale 23 Apr 2016 07:55

Well after Obama s intervention I am even more sure it's a vote for out, Cameron can go to. To say I was incensed to have a lame duck leader of another country making threats just about did it, shame he didn't put that much effort into gun control or in his dealing s with Putin.
When he opens his borders to everything south of him, gives those citizens the right of abode and work, allows his supreme Court to be over ruled by unelected foreign judges etc etc then I will take him seriously. In the mean time I suggest he buggers off and sinks into obscurity,
All above comes with apologies to our American cousins, you have a txat for a president and we have a lap dog for a prime minister........... Democracy took a hit last night.

XS904 23 Apr 2016 08:40

All this talk of leaving Europe makes me smile.

What's the plan? Tow the UK further into the Atlantic?

We are not leaving Europe. We are considering leaving the union. It was initially an economic union, but all that has drastically changes over the past 40 years.

I suppose one question you should be asking is given the change in the type of economy and our industries over the last 4 decades, going from large multinational companies a large number of which were nationalised, to smaller companies that do not have the clout to benefit from this new marketplace and are being strangled by red tape. If we we're not in the EU now, would it be in our best interests to join?

To be honest, all the scaremongering and lame threats from government are really not helping their cause. Neither is wheeling out your political chums to back you up.



Sent from my KFFOWI using Tapatalk

Walkabout 23 Apr 2016 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildman (Post 536573)
Back of the queue for trade deals with the USA? No problem. As TWB said, we can always do a trade agreement with Canada. That should replace the EU nicely.

:rofl:

"Standing in line" - the much more colloquial Yankie expresssion - for the intended TTIP can last for ever IMO.
How much do each of us trade, as individuals, with the USA?

Virtually everything physical that Brits import nowadays comes out of China; it's the same for those in the USA.
Both of the UK/USA real economies are living beyond their means.

As usual, the ones making the biggest noise are looking after their banking friends; talking of which, Herr Osbourne has made some 16 offiicial announcements in his time and every one of them has been wrong.
Deficit figures an embarrassment for George Osborne as he misses targets set last month
This from the guy who is forecasting 15-16 years ahead as his input to the arguments.

The Governor of the BoE has a similar track record and has never got a public announcement correct in his current role.

Meanwhile, here's an example of a "real queue":
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...=mailsignoutmd
The French government currently hold the UK national energy policy to ransom and can continue to do that until after their elections next year.
The popularity rating of the "socialist" Hollande is at an all time low so he has no reason to help out the UK until after those elections in 2017.

Tim Cullis 23 Apr 2016 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildman (Post 536573)
Back of the queue for trade deals with the USA?

So the US trade officials are incapable of working on more than one trade deal at a time. To quote another US president (Lyndon B Johnson), the officials clearly "can’t fart and chew gum at the same time."

Yes, I know the normal quote (Johnson talking disparagingly about Gerald Ford) is, "He can't walk and chew gum at the same time", but that's not what he actually said. :rofl:

America did us no favours in WWII, the assistance was dependent upon Britain relinquishing its empire, and America didn't even declare war on Germany, it was the other way round. FFS!

Ever heard of the USA's War Plan Red for a war with Britain and an invasion of Canada?

Maybe Britain shouldn't have stood up for the rest of Europe in 1939. Hitler didn't want war with the UK. If Lord Halifax (foreign secretary) had been made Prime Minister when Chamberlain resigned, instead of Churchill, we would have come to an understanding with Germany. Instead it cost us our empire, all our gold reserves and an awful lot more. Not to mention the loss of civilian and military life and loss of armed forces assets (ships, planes). What did Britain get out of it other than a gift of a Christmas tree on Trafalgar Square every year from Norway?

Fastship 23 Apr 2016 12:12

I Predict A War
 
Before the referendum I predict that this government will engage or attempt to engage this country in a war, most probably in Libya with the intention of rallying the voters to the flag/Government.


It was a tactic seen to work from the days of Thatcher in the Falklands and T.B. Liar was relentless in this most cynical of political tactics.

Walkabout 23 Apr 2016 12:22

No doubt plans for Libya are in place
 
As per the last couple of posts, one of the functions of the military, any nations' military, is to plan for potential future conflicts.
It is the politicians who decide which possible future conflicts are to be implemented, irrespective of if those politicians are derived from a "representative democracy" (a substitute for a full-on-in-your-face democracy) or some other form of government.

Happy Saint George's day for this 23rd April 2016.

Arma 23 Apr 2016 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Cullis (Post 536606)
So the US trade officials are incapable of working on more than one trade deal at a time. To quote another US president (Lyndon B Johnson), the officials clearly "can’t fart and chew gum at the same time."

Yes, I know the normal quote (Johnson talking disparagingly about Gerald Ford) is, "He can't walk and chew gum at the same time", but that's not what he actually said. :rofl:

America did us no favours in WWII, the assistance was dependent upon Britain relinquishing its empire, and America didn't even declare war on Germany, it was the other way round. FFS!

Ever heard of the USA's War Plan Red for a war with Britain and an invasion of Canada?

Maybe Britain shouldn't have stood up for the rest of Europe in 1939. Hitler didn't want war with the UK. If Lord Halifax (foreign secretary) had been made Prime Minister when Chamberlain resigned, instead of Churchill, we would have come to an understanding with Germany. Instead it cost us our empire, all our gold reserves and an awful lot more. Not to mention the loss of civilian and military life and loss of armed forces assets (ships, planes). What did Britain get out of it other than a gift of a Christmas tree on Trafalgar Square every year from Norway?

There's taking an alternate look at history, which I'm all for. Then there is this.

Does anyone reasonably believe that Nazi Germany would have stopped the advance as soon as their boots touched a line which said "British Empire"? I'll concede that, had the Empire stayed out it would have maybe had a stay of execution for a few decades but war would have broken out again and the Nazis would have come out on top. The British would be worse off, instead of losing Empire or gold they'd have lost everything.

The only way to avoid loosing it by force would have been to become complicit in the crimes of the Nazi regime. In doing so we'd have lost something intangible but vastly more valuable than empire, gold or homeland.

Walkabout 23 Apr 2016 22:33

There is a certain irony that UK recent history, i.e. the past couple of hundred years or thereabouts, relates to dealing with the despot Napoleon in close cooperation with the Prussians; this was followed in fairly short order with a need to deal with the Prussians themselves via their new-found Empire building.

I can see the need for France and Germany to have some form of integrated "management", "government", "economy" or whatever else it takes to keep them from further attempts to dominate the European mainland as individual nations.
(My recent travels in the Alsace region have been a timely reminder).
This need for their integration does not extend to that of other nations however.

ridetheworld 24 Apr 2016 03:37

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 
After the current US president and likely the next US presidents recent statements, the Brexit crew are looking increasingly isolated.

Lonerider 24 Apr 2016 07:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by ridetheworld (Post 536654)
After the current US president and likely the next US presidents recent statements, the Brexit crew are looking increasingly isolated.

Why?

Its not really for anyone to say, except for those involved, i.e leaders within the EU and UK citizens. What has it to do with the US? Nowt! Maybe they should concentrate on sorting out their owns problems instead of interfering in other peoples and countries, then we all might have a better life

Wayne

Tim Cullis 24 Apr 2016 07:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arma (Post 536629)
Does anyone reasonably believe that Nazi Germany would have stopped the advance as soon as their boots touched a line which said "British Empire"? I'll concede that, had the Empire stayed out it would have maybe had a stay of execution for a few decades but war would have broken out again and the Nazis would have come out on top. The British would be worse off, instead of losing Empire or gold they'd have lost everything.

The only way to avoid losing it by force would have been to become complicit in the crimes of the Nazi regime. In doing so we'd have lost something intangible but vastly more valuable than empire, gold or homeland.

Well it's going off topic somewhat, but Britain was seen by Germany as a fellow aryan country, and one with a strong empire to back it up. Germany's eyes were always fastened on Lebensraum in the east, coupled with the Nazi hatred of communism. But I grant you that who knows what might have happened 20 years down the line. Despite the resources of the British Empire and its strong naval and air forces, it was ultimately Russia, not the Americans/Brits/Canadians, who defeated Germany on the ground—the western allies never faced more than one-third of the Wehrmacht.

Why did we get involved to support Poland? Why didn't we get involved to support Republican Spain when Germany and Italy were supporting Franco?

Lonerider 24 Apr 2016 07:45

Some of the comments in this article made me chuckle

Post-Brexit trade deal with US could take 10 years, Obama warns - BBC News

"Countries could not "pull up the drawbridge" when faced with the migration crisis"

"Returning to the UK's place in the EU, Mr Obama said the US wanted the UK to be "at the table" influencing countries that might not see things from a US view."

"Despite criticism from pro-Brexit campaigners, he said he thought "ordinary British voters" would be interested in his thoughts on the UK and the EU."

I wonder what "Ordinary British Voters" look like?

Wayne

Walkabout 24 Apr 2016 08:36

Because it was USA policy of the day to do so?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Cullis (Post 536663)
Why did we get involved to support Poland?

President Roosevelt's Campaign To Incite War in Europe
Within that article are some interesting contrasts made between Hitler and Roosevelt.

Blockades of trade, in various forms - physical navies or trade embargoes - have always been a favourite method of starting a conflict, just as we have in place with Russia at present.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:23.


vB.Sponsors