Perhaps the EU should glance East

[cajal]

and observe the unwanted outcome after the UK relinquishes its long term presence in a specific place within the world. Not for the first time either.

[idun]

Well, I had not thought that leaving NATO was also part of all this..???? is it?????????

[cajal]

[quote user="idun"]Well, I had not thought that leaving NATO was also part of all this..???? is it?????????

[/quote]

Try a little further afield. Say, Hong Kong. One protester shot by police with live ammunition.

Would never have happened during British governance.

[idun]

 yes, but that is a lot further east and traditionally China has never wanted a satellite state be independent of it. So no surprises for me that they are now doing this.

I truly thought that they would have done it sooner, but there you go. I am sorry for the people of Hong Kong though.

[richard51]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

Cajal - a friends father was a British soldier in Palestine. He once said that he was given a gun, but was not allowed to use it even when he saw terrible atrocities being commmited.

The "jolly good chaps" myth is just that.

[woolybanana]

Go study a bit of History. The Independent is not a good starting point.

[idun]

And my father was a soldier in Palestine too.

It is best left unsaid the stories he told about the place, and would really get you going Richard51. So I won't say any more.

[richard51]

What better history than listening to people who were there.

It is indeed strange that 40 odd percent of the yougov poll have read and studied history to the extent that they think British Governance must have been wonderful. Probably through the Daily Mail etc headlines. How bizarre also how the racist Churchill (pretty much undeniable) was so beloved. (See last comment in the reference).

Anyway, British influence is all over now.

[idun]

 really richard51, is this all going to lead to one of your 'sermons'???

What I will tell you is that he absolutely HATED being there, and he admitted that he respected the jewish population and the differences between the two populations was radical, as the jewish farms, quarters, were well ordered as opposed to the arab areas which he found disorganised and the men lazy.

And bear in mind that british troops were being attacked by the

jewish restistance movement.... and yet, he still had that respect for

what he always considered a hard working people.

For R&R a few of the soldiers went to Egypt, to Cairo, and that simply enforced his view of the arab world. Nothing to do with religion, just how people live and treat women.

And I add that, because, in spite of my having friends who actually had fathers who would have as much washed up, or cooked or cleaned, as cut their own throats. My Dad was not like that, he did everything to share the household work load and so I was brought up to expect equality. He had no religion, but believed in fairness within households.

Incidentally, he was based in Gaza. He was also in Jaffa and Jerusalem.

[nomoss]

[quote user="richard51"]What better history than listening to people who were there.

It is indeed strange that 40 odd percent of the yougov poll have read and studied history to the extent that they think British Governance must have been wonderful. Probably through the Daily Mail etc headlines. How bizarre also how the racist Churchill (pretty much undeniable) was so beloved. (See last comment in the reference).

Anyway, British influence is all over now.[/quote]

It's pretty obvious to which generation you belong.

[Meek Megan]

Why should the EU look east? What is the connection between the EU and the riots in Hong Kong? (which are probably instigated by the CIA)

[cajal]

[quote user="Meek Megan "]Why should the EU look east? [/quote]

If you aren't already aware the UK will be withdrawing its leadership abilities, stablizing influences and financial support from the EU on the 31st October. These are all qualities that Britain has diligently bestowed around the world for centuries.

The EU will regret its untimely stance with the UK and ultimately it will fall apart within itself via economic strangulation or civil unrest following Britains departure.

Hence the suggestion for the EU to look East to see what could possibly manifest itself similar to that of Britains withdrawl from Hong Kong 20 years ago.

To be clear, the end of the months events will have very little impact, if any, on my overall situation so I have no axes to grind.

[Cathar Tours]

Oh my God I don't believe people. In the 2008 banking crisis it was well published in UK and US press that the Euro would be gone inside six weeks and yet here it is the second most traded and strongest currency in the world (China first, the US third but only just).

I think you will find that after three years the EU is not that concerned about the UK leaving. Of course it will make a short term difference, nobody is denying that. For the UK it is different. Prices went up last year by on average 4% (note I don't say inflation because wages have risen as well).

The problem is with the UK, it has chosen to leave. It hasn't been thrown out by the EU so it is in no position to make demands.

The reason the EU does not want a border in Ireland is to protect the ROI and its trade with the north. It is not to protect the north because the north will not be in the EU. However it doesn't want an uncontrolled amount of non approved goods crossing into the EU.

The EU looks after it's own which has always been one of its core principles and reasons for existing. Indeed, just because he was quoted elsewhere, it is doing exactly what Churchill said Europe should do.

Anyway, like many colonial countries the UK has behaved terribly and it is well remembered by the inhabitants of countries it illegally occupied. We could look at New Zeeland and the "celebrations" for 250 year arrival of Cook on a replica Endeavour. First thing Cook did is start killing people. Before people say "the UK has apologised" you need to read what was said, it stopped just short of an actual apology.

Then there is the Middle East, read about the Sykes Pichot agreement and how the UK and France divided it up between them in secret.

We can move on to India if you want where on one occasion British troops only stopped shooting people because they run out of bullets.

I wonder how many Africans died being transported on the British slave ships going to America?

The list is enormous so to say "Would never have happened during British governance" is true, the British would have shot them all and not just one.

As to eyewitness accounts it is a proven fact that they change over time especially when talking about something that happened 70+ years ago in the case of Palistine. Also on who gave the accounts. For example most of the British troops in Palestine were conscripts and didn't want to be there mainly because of the kill rate. For every Palestine killed back then 3.5 British military were killed.

As to the comments about another country, well it was different times I guess. This period of UK history may well be remembered as its biggest mistake for leaving the EU and for streets running with blood from victim of stabbings.

[richard51]

"For example most of the British troops in Palestine were conscripts and didn't want to be there mainly because of the kill rate. For every Palestine killed back then 3.5 British military were killed"

Just for historic information the above does not really tell the true story. The Irgun were the predominent terrorist group and British conscription did not occur until the outbreak of ww2.

Sykes -Picot was arround ww1 when it was against the Ottoman empire.

https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/conflict-Palestine

[Cathar Tours]

I suggest you read your own link. We are talking 1947 and there was defiantly conscripted troops there or have you rewritten history like some 70 year olds like to do.

Sykes Pichot agreement was written around 1916 and presented, strangely, by the Russians in 1917.

For those that don't read the history try watching the last 40 minutes of the film Lawrence of Arabia.

The Igran were active between 31 and 48 and they were not Palestine's they were Jewish and considered terrorist by the British because they would not agree to what the British saw as a Jewish homeland which was to be under the influence of the British. They wanted to be their own masters. They were an offshoot of Haganah.

[richard51]

"For every Palestine killed back then 3.5 British military were killed.""

This quote is what made me respond - I felt it somewhat confusing in the context and may have conflated different eras.

I made the comment about conscription to avoid the assumption that you were talking about the Arab uprising pre-ww2. I dont know where the 3.5 to 1 comes from.

The reference I quote I think is accurate.

NB I have not had the pleasure of hitting 70 yet.

[Meek Megan]

"leadership abilities etc.."

I admire your sense of humour. Brilliant.

But the Hong Kong situation is not connected in any way to the current situation in Europe.

[Cathar Tours]

But to some it wreaks of the "good old days" when the UK had an Empire and ruled the world. Now it has become, in the words of a world leader, "...a small island of little consequence off the coast of Europe." or if you prefer the Daily Express version “a small island no one pays attention to”.

See in the "good old days" we would have gone round and shot loads of them like we did in India and other parts and if that didn't work we would send a gun boat over there. Thank God I was born in the early 90's and don't have to carry all this garbage around with me.

[nomoss]

It's amusing to observe middle aged people discussing matters of which they know little, until they search the net for snippets to suit their arguments.

Incidentally, I don't think a Russian spokesman can be classed as a world leader.

[idun]

I have no idea why on here so many state the history of the british empire and the likes of Churchill as, it feels like, being the most despotic in history. We weren't, there had been worse, there will be worse. We were just a country who pulled our selves to the top of the pile and acted like top dogs do.  It is simply what happened, no more or less.

And judging historical figures........ by what right or moral high horse should we mount to do that, in our plastic ridden over populated world. At least in the past, they didn't put the planet to death.

Humans are basically vile, voilant, uncaring and generally not very nice. And in western europe we are all pretty much secure in our lovely little lives, our little bubble, and do not encounter the horrible world around us and the atrocious things that are happening.

and this is just another point of view.[blink]

[Cathar Tours]

"And judging historical figures........ by what right or moral high horse should we mount to do that,".

Good grief your be saying Hitler was misunderstood and was really a nice chap.

The thing is people try to behave as if they have the moral high ground when, and your right, they don't have any.

Did you watch by chance a documentary called "Bombing Auschwitz". The Jewish community begged the British and Americans to bomb it which would have saved about 300,000 Hungarian Jewish lives but they didn't because it was "morally wrong". They talk about morals when 30,000 Jews were gases every day by the Germans?

History is littered with terrible things but everyone needs to know their place and not manipulate history for it's own end.

Everyone is dirty, everyone has a something nasty locked away so nobody really is in a position to criticise others. Likewise they need to be open about their own failings. Not to do so means you can never really move on.

[idun]

The clue was in saying that we were not the worst, and there has probably been as bad since WW11 and the absolutely horrific little man, look at Cambodia for example. Look at Daesh, they are monsters. Going on about decisions that happened many years ago does not help the future.

Awful decisions are being made now, we don't really learn. What is there to pat ourselves on the back about as humans. Especially as  we are currently poisoning our planet  and over producing humans. Think about it, has there EVER been humans who have started such destruction, never mind what we actually do to one another. which past generation has done that so blindly.

I know all about history, I am sick to death of politicians apologising about things done in the past. There is enough for them to be getting on with without such things and where will it end? Romans apologising to christians about them being thrown to the lions, or the scandanavians apologising about the viking raids.

We are the terrible blip in time at the moment. I hope that when we are gone ( I mean humans), that the planet regenerates and just has animals fighting it out. Just proper nature at work.

[nomoss]

I'm convinced that if people still read actual books they might be able to spell correctly[:(]

I get tired of having to mentally pronounce mis-spelled words in order to work out what is meant.

[richard51]

I think, Cathar Tours, that what these older people are saying now is that there have been lots of diabolical events, the holocaust being only one. They are correct and imho its a shame that people people in the west only focus on what they think is relevant to them. For goodness sake an estimate of 85 million people died in ww2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

I actually believe that there are a considerable and rising number of people who are willing to support people who are currently being oppressed - we can learn from the past but not totally correct all the old wrongs.

Its a shame that Idun thinks otherwise.

Sermon over and sod spelling.

[Cathar Tours]

"rising number of people who are willing to support people who are currently being oppressed"

I think you will find amongst the young that's no longer true.

The wests definition of oppressed may not necessarily be the opinion of others. The Americans answer to what it sees as oppressed is to invade the country or at least bomb it. Yet it is strange that it won't pick on bigger countries like Russia and China where people are "oppressed" but then when they have a bigger gun than you and can answer back it the bullies back away.

The problem with the west is it believes it has the moral high ground (older people will say they do because they saved the world in WW2 therefor they MUST be respected) and therefore it gauges the rest of the world by it's standards never thinking it might be wrong.

Look at the middle east. We call them Arabs, they are tribal and nomadic. There is a scene in Lawrence of Arabia when Lawrence says he wants the Arabs to be independent and one of the tribal leaders said (roughly) "I have heard of the Sunni's, I have heard of the Gadhafi's (and mentions a few other tribal names) but I have never heard of a tribe called the Arabs." which is a perfect example. We created the Arabs and we herded them countries and told them to stay there because we couldn't understand how they could spend their lives doing what we would call aimlessly wonder around deserts. The real reason of course was to divide and conquer so the west could extract whatever wanted, mainly oil.

Then there is that terrible and misused word called democracy. We are always saying when we attack or invade these countries that we are bringing the people democracy. Afterwards what we have really done is destroyed the country, made it more corrupt than before and more dangerous than before. Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Strangely the UAE is not "democratic" but as they own most of the oil and buy a shed load of weapons from the west we ignore that they do not run their country as democratic state.

So the question younger people ask "why are we getting involved, it's nothing to do with us". We hear the word sovereignty banded about by Brexiteers. Well these countries are sovereign yet we attack them. Hierocracy at it's best.