Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Despite an overwhelming majority of voters thinking Brexit is

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited June 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Despite an overwhelming majority of voters thinking Brexit is going badly, a similar overwhelming majority still expect Britain to leave the EU

Whether or not you support it, do you think Britain will or will not go ahead with leaving the European Union:All Brits: 70% leave, 15% stayLeave: 77% leave, 13% stayRemain: 69% leave, 18% stay https://t.co/rHXCuZ3WKm pic.twitter.com/jHGXlT8zoB

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    First, like a meeting between the USA and North Korea.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,744
    British sense of fair play - having voted to punch ourselves in the face, even those who voted against it are going to go ahead and do it.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 820
    I think it is going badly, I think it is a bad idea, I think we have to do it in some form without some huge shifts in opinion.

    Also I might be tempted to be a bit more pro EU if it wasn't used as a constant weapon against Corbyn.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,254
    Nigelb said:

    British sense of fair play - having voted to punch ourselves in the face, even those who voted against it are going to go ahead and do it.

    Expecting something to happen isn’t the same as wanting it to
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,187

    I think it is going badly, I think it is a bad idea, I think we have to do it in some form without some huge shifts in opinion.

    Also I might be tempted to be a bit more pro EU if it wasn't used as a constant weapon against Corbyn.

    Maybe, just maybe, Corbyn got his position on the EU wrong and has unnecessarily upset a lot of people.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,584
    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,187

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    Bit early for Godwins law.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,232

    I think it is going badly, I think it is a bad idea, I think we have to do it in some form without some huge shifts in opinion.

    Also I might be tempted to be a bit more pro EU if it wasn't used as a constant weapon against Corbyn.

    I wonder if the position would be the same with a different Labour leader..... Ed Milliband for example.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    edited June 12

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    "Hired as a columnist for the Daily Express" - Oh the shame, the ignominy, the expense account .... Hhmmmm ....
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,254

    I think it is going badly, I think it is a bad idea, I think we have to do it in some form without some huge shifts in opinion.

    Also I might be tempted to be a bit more pro EU if it wasn't used as a constant weapon against Corbyn.

    I wonder if the position would be the same with a different Labour leader..... Ed Milliband for example.
    Corbyn’s greatest achievement is making Ed Millibands leadership look like a golden age of competence and decisiveness.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,542
    Do we have peace in our time?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,744
    tlg86 said:

    Do we have peace in our time?

    If nothing else, Kim can probably string out whatever process is agreed until the end of Trump’s term - which would avert any US pre-emptive strike.

    Let’s await the wording.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    Trump and Kim sign a historic document - worldwide trade barriers on pineapple pizza lifted - the world is saved !!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    I think it is going badly, I think it is a bad idea, I think we have to do it in some form without some huge shifts in opinion.

    Also I might be tempted to be a bit more pro EU if it wasn't used as a constant weapon against Corbyn.

    I wonder if the position would be the same with a different Labour leader..... Ed Milliband for example.
    Corbyn’s greatest achievement is making Ed Millibands leadership look like a golden age of competence and decisiveness.
    Which makes his relative electoral success all the more remarkable/strange.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,931
    OK, leaders only sign something after a couple of hours if (one or more of):

    - It doesn't really say anything important;
    - One side is dictating terms;
    - One side isn't paying attention;
    - It was all agreed beforehand

    Guesses?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    OK, leaders only sign something after a couple of hours if (one or more of):

    - It doesn't really say anything important;
    - One side is dictating terms;
    - One side isn't paying attention;
    - It was all agreed beforehand

    Guesses?

    Or all of the above, of course.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,232
    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    1942 started very badly though. Singapore fell in February and Stalingrad didn’t start well for the RUssians. And El Alamein wasn’t until the autumn.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,747

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    The difference is that the British didn't vote for World War 2.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245
    It's not that surprising I suppose if Kim and Trump got on well. One is a person who lies fluently, threatens to lock up his politcal opponents, boasts endlessly about his nuclear weapons, threatens world peace by his intemperate remarks and owes his position entirely to his family background.

    And the other is Chairman of the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    1942 started very badly though. Singapore fell in February and Stalingrad didn’t start well for the RUssians. And El Alamein wasn’t until the autumn.
    October, to be precise.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245
    FF43 said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    The difference is that the British didn't vote for World War 2.
    Neville Chamberlain was urged to hold an election after Munich to cash in on the great personal popularity he gained from it.

    Isn't it a good job Halifax talked him out of it? If the British had voted overwhelmingly for peace in 1938, that would have been awkward a year later.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,931
    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    1942 looks like the turning of the tide now (because it was), and to some extent it could be foreseen then, given the vast potential power of the enlarged Allies - but at the time, no-one knew whether Alamein and Stalingrad (and Midway) were critical turning points or just a blip on the trend that had seen the Axis sweep all before it since 1937.

    After all, for all the Allied potential, had the Soviet Union collapsed politically, socially or economically - and that was certainly possible - the future for the Western Allies would have looked extremely bleak with 100+ German divisions freed up to attack into the Middle East, India or Britain directly, and unlimited raw materials supplied to Germany for next to nothing with which to do so. Sure, in the end, the atom bomb would have been decisive, even if Britain had to ask for terms, but no-one - not even Roosevelt or Churchill - knew that in 1942.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,744
    ydoethur said:

    OK, leaders only sign something after a couple of hours if (one or more of):

    - It doesn't really say anything important;
    - One side is dictating terms;
    - One side isn't paying attention;
    - It was all agreed beforehand

    Guesses?

    Or all of the above, of course.
    Well it’s quite likely that one side though they were dictating terms, but wasn’t paying attention...
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,567
    ydoethur said:

    It's not that surprising I suppose if Kim and Trump got on well. One is a person who lies fluently, threatens to lock up his politcal opponents, boasts endlessly about his nuclear weapons, threatens world peace by his intemperate remarks and owes his position entirely to his family background.

    And the other is Chairman of the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea.

    Clever soundbite but you forgot that Trump was elected by a democratic vote. In fairness the meeting is welcome progress from a very bad place.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,567
    Ouch - CNN in sour grapes shocker.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 340
    FF43 said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    The difference is that the British didn't vote for World War 2.
    You could argue that if they (UK, France) had tried a bit harder at engaging beforehand ie during the Spanish Civil War, the invasions of Africa, the occupation of Austria etc then WW2 may never have happened- not a great parallel comparing BREXIT to WW2 apart from the fact it cost a lot of treasure, credibility and humiliated a whole class of Conservative politicians
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,282

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    It really was. An awful time. The channel dash, the fall of Singapore and serious reverses in North Africa. On top of a string of disappointments in 1941. And the Germans were still advancing deep into the Soviet Union.

    ”In hindsight, do you think the UK was right or wrong to declare war on Germany in September 1930?”
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,931
    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    The difference is that the British didn't vote for World War 2.
    Neville Chamberlain was urged to hold an election after Munich to cash in on the great personal popularity he gained from it.

    Isn't it a good job Halifax talked him out of it? If the British had voted overwhelmingly for peace in 1938, that would have been awkward a year later.
    I don't think that would have been the issue - the British public turned their opinion round anyway when Hitler broke the deal and demonstrated that he wasn't interested in genuine grievances for their own sake but in exploiting them for gain. The bigger problem might have been the removal from the Commons of Churchill and other anti-appeasers. Certainly, there were moves to deselect him for the 1940 election, though these hadn't come to anything by Sept 1939 and so it's possible that they're overstated. But an election called on Munich? Churchill couldn't have ducked the question. Perhaps his local party would have stood loyal to him but in the heat of the moment, who can know? And it may not have just been him but Eden, Cooper and so on. Maybe they would have been returned later (and without the Norway fiasco, Churchill might have been even 'cleaner' on returning after war broke out), but it would still have been, as you put it, awkward.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,282

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    1942 looks like the turning of the tide now (because it was), and to some extent it could be foreseen then, given the vast potential power of the enlarged Allies - but at the time, no-one knew whether Alamein and Stalingrad (and Midway) were critical turning points or just a blip on the trend that had seen the Axis sweep all before it since 1937.

    After all, for all the Allied potential, had the Soviet Union collapsed politically, socially or economically - and that was certainly possible - the future for the Western Allies would have looked extremely bleak with 100+ German divisions freed up to attack into the Middle East, India or Britain directly, and unlimited raw materials supplied to Germany for next to nothing with which to do so. Sure, in the end, the atom bomb would have been decisive, even if Britain had to ask for terms, but no-one - not even Roosevelt or Churchill - knew that in 1942.
    The first few months of 1942 looked dire for the Allies.

    If I were Churchill (at the time) I would have been pleased the Americans had declared war but very nervous about just how seriously they’d get involved, and whether they’d look for retribution against Japan above all else.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    1942 looks like the turning of the tide now (because it was), and to some extent it could be foreseen then, given the vast potential power of the enlarged Allies - but at the time, no-one knew whether Alamein and Stalingrad (and Midway) were critical turning points or just a blip on the trend that had seen the Axis sweep all before it since 1937.

    After all, for all the Allied potential, had the Soviet Union collapsed politically, socially or economically - and that was certainly possible - the future for the Western Allies would have looked extremely bleak with 100+ German divisions freed up to attack into the Middle East, India or Britain directly, and unlimited raw materials supplied to Germany for next to nothing with which to do so. Sure, in the end, the atom bomb would have been decisive, even if Britain had to ask for terms, but no-one - not even Roosevelt or Churchill - knew that in 1942.
    I think you somewhat exaggerate the threat to the Soviet Union. By mid-1942 there was no risk of collapse. The risk had come earlier at Moscow, and had gone again. True, that's far from saying all was rosy. The Soviet Economy had been severely disorganised, but it was still capable of outproducing Germany and in particular its tank production was cranked up very rapidly. Perhaps Roosevelt and Churchill thought that was more Soviet propaganda, but it wasn't. Moreover, the brutality of the Nazis had turned much of the initially pro-German Ukraine against them, leaving their supply lines vulnerable.

    Embarrassing though the loss of Singapore was for the British, it wasn't fatal. Australia was the more important prize and the Japanese were never strong enough to attack it. By summer 1943 things looked distinctly better.

    If you'll tell me that Brexit is now at its Singapore phase and will soon move on to Alamein, I'll be delighted, but colour me sceptical.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,074
    felix said:

    Ouch - CNN in sour grapes shocker.
    Don’t see how it’s sour grapes. Right now we don’t really know what’s in that document, so hard to react until we know that.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,931

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    It really was. An awful time. The channel dash, the fall of Singapore and serious reverses in North Africa. On top of a string of disappointments in 1941. And the Germans were still advancing deep into the Soviet Union.

    ”In hindsight, do you think the UK was right or wrong to declare war on Germany in September 1930?”
    I think it'd have been premature.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,931
    ydoethur said:

    OK, leaders only sign something after a couple of hours if (one or more of):

    - It doesn't really say anything important;
    - One side is dictating terms;
    - One side isn't paying attention;
    - It was all agreed beforehand

    Guesses?

    Or all of the above, of course.
    I did say 'one or more of'. FWIW, I suspect it's all but the 'dictating terms', which is in practice probably incompatible with 'doesn't really say anything'.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    1942 looks like the turning of the tide now (because it was), and to some extent it could be foreseen then, given the vast potential power of the enlarged Allies - but at the time, no-one knew whether Alamein and Stalingrad (and Midway) were critical turning points or just a blip on the trend that had seen the Axis sweep all before it since 1937.

    After all, for all the Allied potential, had the Soviet Union collapsed politically, socially or economically - and that was certainly possible - the future for the Western Allies would have looked extremely bleak with 100+ German divisions freed up to attack into the Middle East, India or Britain directly, and unlimited raw materials supplied to Germany for next to nothing with which to do so. Sure, in the end, the atom bomb would have been decisive, even if Britain had to ask for terms, but no-one - not even Roosevelt or Churchill - knew that in 1942.
    The first few months of 1942 looked dire for the Allies.

    If I were Churchill (at the time) I would have been pleased the Americans had declared war but very nervous about just how seriously they’d get involved, and whether they’d look for retribution against Japan above all else.
    The Americans declared war on Japan - after Japan had committed an act of war (which one Congresswoman famously claimed was probably invented by the British).

    Germany declared war on America, not the other way around. I'm not sure whether Congress ever actually voted on war with Germany. In practical terms since Roosevelt had been more and more openly keeping Britain afloat with Lend Lease anyway the difference wasn't as great as it might have been.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,282
    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    None of that happened until the latter half of 1942.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    It really was. An awful time. The channel dash, the fall of Singapore and serious reverses in North Africa. On top of a string of disappointments in 1941. And the Germans were still advancing deep into the Soviet Union.

    ”In hindsight, do you think the UK was right or wrong to declare war on Germany in September 1930?”
    I think it'd have been premature.
    Stopping Hitler before he had even started would have been awesomely far-sighted of Macdonald.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    None of that happened until the latter half of 1942.
    The initial point just said 'in' 1942, without qualification.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,081
    Good morning, everyone.

    Ironic that the final impact of a failure of the EU/UK to understand one another could be the absence of any deal at all.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,217
    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's not that surprising I suppose if Kim and Trump got on well. One is a person who lies fluently, threatens to lock up his politcal opponents, boasts endlessly about his nuclear weapons, threatens world peace by his intemperate remarks and owes his position entirely to his family background.

    And the other is Chairman of the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea.

    Clever soundbite but you forgot that Trump was elected by a democratic vote. In fairness the meeting is welcome progress from a very bad place.
    Trump was elected in a democratic vote by a margin of 3 million fewer votes than his opponent.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,421
    This is not surprising.

    After all Leavers think Brexit is going badly as with her transition period, exit bill and regulatory alignment May is not being pro Brexit enough
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,511
    edited June 12
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    1942 looks like the turning of the tide now (because it was), and to some extent it could be foreseen then, given the vast potential power of the enlarged Allies - but at the time, no-one knew whether Alamein and Stalingrad (and Midway) were critical turning points or just a blip on the trend that had seen the Axis sweep all before it since 1937.

    eSure, in the end, the atom bomb would have been decisive, even if Britain had to ask for terms, but no-one - not even Roosevelt or Churchill - knew that in 1942.
    I think you somewhat exaggerate the threat to the Soviet Union. By mid-1942 there was no risk of collapse. The risk had come earlier at Moscow, and had gone again. True, that's far from saying all was rosy. The Soviet Economy had been severely disorganised, but it was still capable of outproducing Germany and in particular its tank production was cranked up very rapidly. Perhaps Roosevelt and Churchill thought that was more Soviet propaganda, but it wasn't. Moreover, the brutality of the Nazis had turned much of the initially pro-German Ukraine against them, leaving their supply lines vulnerable.

    Embarrassing though the loss of Singapore was for the British, it wasn't fatal. Australia was the more important prize and the Japanese were never strong enough to attack it. By summer 1943 things looked distinctly better.
    If you'll tell me that Brexit is now at its Singapore phase and will soon move on to Alamein, I'll be delighted, but colour me sceptical.
    If anyone is interested I have just read a book called "The Road past Mandalay" which is about the experiences of the author John Masters in Burma in WW2..Chindits and all that... ( after the war he wrote the fictional Bhowani Junction that was made into a film starring amongst others Ava Gardner
    Not sure if the book is still in print but www.abebooks.co.uk is a great resource for old out of print and second hand books..
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,931
    ydoethur said:

    1942 looks like the turning of the tide now (because it was), and to some extent it could be foreseen then, given the vast potential power of the enlarged Allies - but at the time, no-one knew whether Alamein and Stalingrad (and Midway) were critical turning points or just a blip on the trend that had seen the Axis sweep all before it since 1937.

    After all, for all the Allied potential, had the Soviet Union collapsed politically, socially or economically - and that was certainly possible - the future for the Western Allies would have looked extremely bleak with 100+ German divisions freed up to attack into the Middle East, India or Britain directly, and unlimited raw materials supplied to Germany for next to nothing with which to do so. Sure, in the end, the atom bomb would have been decisive, even if Britain had to ask for terms, but no-one - not even Roosevelt or Churchill - knew that in 1942.

    I think you somewhat exaggerate the threat to the Soviet Union. By mid-1942 there was no risk of collapse. The risk had come earlier at Moscow, and had gone again. True, that's far from saying all was rosy. The Soviet Economy had been severely disorganised, but it was still capable of outproducing Germany and in particular its tank production was cranked up very rapidly. Perhaps Roosevelt and Churchill thought that was more Soviet propaganda, but it wasn't. Moreover, the brutality of the Nazis had turned much of the initially pro-German Ukraine against them, leaving their supply lines vulnerable.

    Embarrassing though the loss of Singapore was for the British, it wasn't fatal. Australia was the more important prize and the Japanese were never strong enough to attack it. By summer 1943 things looked distinctly better.

    If you'll tell me that Brexit is now at its Singapore phase and will soon move on to Alamein, I'll be delighted, but colour me sceptical.
    I'm not sure I agree about the USSR. Yes, there were no illusions in the Kremlin about what suing for peace would mean but that had been true (more or less) for the tsar too: it hadn't stopped Imperial Russian troops from stopping fighting. It is remarkable that the Soviet troops did carry on to the degree that they did (and there is a limit on what you can do through compulsion, when people think they're going to die anyway). I don't think it's unfeasible to imagine that a bottom-up mutiny might have snowballed through the ranks.

    I agree re Singapore. All the same, it was a disastrous loss.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,747
    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    The difference is that the British didn't vote for World War 2.
    Neville Chamberlain was urged to hold an election after Munich to cash in on the great personal popularity he gained from it.

    Isn't it a good job Halifax talked him out of it? If the British had voted overwhelmingly for peace in 1938, that would have been awkward a year later.
    Indeed. Goes to show the difference. World war II was thrust upon us. We thrust Brexit on ourselves. Also our allies essentially won the war. Brexit is a decision to get rid of allies.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,931
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    1942 looks like the turning of the tide now (because it was), and to some extent it could be foreseen then, given the vast potential power of the enlarged Allies - but at the time, no-one knew whether Alamein and Stalingrad (and Midway) were critical turning points or just a blip on the trend that had seen the Axis sweep all before it since 1937.

    After all, for all the Allied potential, had the Soviet Union collapsed politically, socially or economically - and that was certainly possible - the future for the Western Allies would have looked extremely bleak with 100+ German divisions freed up to attack into the Middle East, India or Britain directly, and unlimited raw materials supplied to Germany for next to nothing with which to do so. Sure, in the end, the atom bomb would have been decisive, even if Britain had to ask for terms, but no-one - not even Roosevelt or Churchill - knew that in 1942.
    The first few months of 1942 looked dire for the Allies.

    If I were Churchill (at the time) I would have been pleased the Americans had declared war but very nervous about just how seriously they’d get involved, and whether they’d look for retribution against Japan above all else.
    The Americans declared war on Japan - after Japan had committed an act of war (which one Congresswoman famously claimed was probably invented by the British).

    Germany declared war on America, not the other way around. I'm not sure whether Congress ever actually voted on war with Germany. In practical terms since Roosevelt had been more and more openly keeping Britain afloat with Lend Lease anyway the difference wasn't as great as it might have been.
    Congress did vote on war with Germany (it passed 88-0 in the Senate and 393-0 in the House).

    https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/image/SJRes119_WWII_Germany.htm

    The difference was great: it meant that the US could send troops and air crew to the European theatre, as well as money and material.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,607
    ydoethur said:

    I think it is going badly, I think it is a bad idea, I think we have to do it in some form without some huge shifts in opinion.

    Also I might be tempted to be a bit more pro EU if it wasn't used as a constant weapon against Corbyn.

    I wonder if the position would be the same with a different Labour leader..... Ed Milliband for example.
    Corbyn’s greatest achievement is making Ed Millibands leadership look like a golden age of competence and decisiveness.
    Which makes his relative electoral success all the more remarkable/strange.
    Unless the voters don’t want a government capable of actually doing anything?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,288
    We have the government and the leadership of the Labour Party committed to respecting the vote of the British people and implementing Brexit. Of course the vast majority think it is going to happen. It is slightly surprising that as many as 15% are in the @Williamglenn camp. That must surely be a betting opportunity.

    Today and tomorrow are going to be important. At the moment it looks like May is going to get her way on all the votes. The only one thought to be at risk is the "meaningful vote" one. If May gets a clean sweep it is just possible that views on how well Brexit is going will start to change although the Summit later this month is more important still.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,584
    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    Erm, yeah, that sounds right. No Daily Express gig for me then.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,744
    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    The difference is that the British didn't vote for World War 2.
    Neville Chamberlain was urged to hold an election after Munich to cash in on the great personal popularity he gained from it.

    Isn't it a good job Halifax talked him out of it? If the British had voted overwhelmingly for peace in 1938, that would have been awkward a year later.
    Would probably have insisted on staying out of the war because democracy...
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,567

    felix said:

    Ouch - CNN in sour grapes shocker.
    Don’t see how it’s sour grapes. Right now we don’t really know what’s in that document, so hard to react until we know that.

    And yet that is exactly what CNN seeks to do.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,187

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    Erm, yeah, that sounds right. No Daily Express gig for me then.
    Especially considering you forgot to mention Diana.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,802
    FF43 said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    The difference is that the British didn't vote for World War 2.
    we declared war on Germany not the other way around

    so technically we did
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,398
    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.


  • felixfelix Posts: 7,567

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's not that surprising I suppose if Kim and Trump got on well. One is a person who lies fluently, threatens to lock up his politcal opponents, boasts endlessly about his nuclear weapons, threatens world peace by his intemperate remarks and owes his position entirely to his family background.

    And the other is Chairman of the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea.

    Clever soundbite but you forgot that Trump was elected by a democratic vote. In fairness the meeting is welcome progress from a very bad place.
    Trump was elected in a democratic vote by a margin of 3 million fewer votes than his opponent.
    Yes - no electoral system is entirely fair in an absolute sense and all systems have their quirks but it does not validate my point. I think most would agree the american system is more democratic than that of N. Korea.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,288
    Scott_P said:
    And if the government's position is not endorsed by the House of Commons or, in the latter case by the Lords, what happens then? Genuine question, I am not really sure I know what Grieve is hoping to achieve and he is a clever chap. If the House then directed the government to, say, suspend Article 50(2) and get more time the government would presumably have to try to comply but it would not be in their gift.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,398
    I was on holiday last week and my telly viewing was restricted to CNN for news. Wow! They don't like Trump, do they? Is it a personal thing?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,744
    edited June 12
    felix said:

    Ouch - CNN in sour grapes shocker.
    Hardly. In the absence of a substantive document, some skepticism is entirely justified. It’s not as though the US has not previously had agreements with North Korea.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    I'm not sure I agree about the USSR. Yes, there were no illusions in the Kremlin about what suing for peace would mean but that had been true (more or less) for the tsar too: it hadn't stopped Imperial Russian troops from stopping fighting. It is remarkable that the Soviet troops did carry on to the degree that they did (and there is a limit on what you can do through compulsion, when people think they're going to die anyway). I don't think it's unfeasible to imagine that a bottom-up mutiny might have snowballed through the ranks.

    I agree re Singapore. All the same, it was a disastrous loss.

    Not sure what your point about the Tsar is, as they never tried to sue for peace and that was why Nicholas' armies collapsed. Are you thinking of the Kadets being forced off the Provisional Government after Milyukov declared the war would go on?

    With regard to the Soviet troops, Nazi atrocities against Slavs were enormously helpful in that regard. As I have said, initially many Soviet citizens were very pleased to see them, especially in those areas the Soviets had conquered and held by force - the Ukraine and the Baltic states. That didn't last. The irony of course is that under Order no. 227 the NKVD were themselves responsible for a vast number of deaths among Soviet soldiers.

    What I meant was that the USSR was too big to be overcome as long as it kept fighting. When you look at his tactics with a cold eye, all Hitler's successes were due to the surrender of confused and demoralised opponents who found the Germans were unexpectedly quick and aggressive. That succeeded in France by the push through Ardennes, and failed in Britain where the natural defences were more formidable and the leader of the government point blank refused to even consider settlement. In Russia, the tactics nearly captured Moscow, but once that had failed there was no real hope of overcoming the Soviets.

    One statistic to chew in. Behind the Volga there were 300 km of defensive emplacements. That's as long as the M1. Imagine trying to fight through that if there was any resistance. Can't be done quickly. And as long as there was no sudden collapse, the sheer size of the USSR was always bound to tell sooner rather than later, especially when coupled to the US and UK.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,748
    CD13 said:

    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.

    You accurately describe the mindset of the illiberal, fascist wing of the Remainers.

    But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,288
    CD13 said:

    I was on holiday last week and my telly viewing was restricted to CNN for news. Wow! They don't like Trump, do they? Is it a personal thing?

    Yesterday morning the Today program had their traditional balance of views at 8.50. One of the contributors, Anne McElvoy, thought that Brexit was a "strategic mistake". The other, for balance, thought it was a complete disaster. CNN should be congratulated on their moderation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    1942 was a pretty good year for British and the Allies - the victory at El Alamein and Stalingrad, the turning around of the Battle of the Atlantic, the US joining the war, the Japanese stopped.

    Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
    Erm, yeah, that sounds right. No Daily Express gig for me then.
    Glad to have saved you from a fate worse than death! :smiley:
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,074
    felix said:

    felix said:

    Ouch - CNN in sour grapes shocker.
    Don’t see how it’s sour grapes. Right now we don’t really know what’s in that document, so hard to react until we know that.

    And yet that is exactly what CNN seeks to do.
    Well, they’re trying to find out what’s in the document, which is what we’d all like to know.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,802
    DavidL said:

    CD13 said:

    I was on holiday last week and my telly viewing was restricted to CNN for news. Wow! They don't like Trump, do they? Is it a personal thing?

    Yesterday morning the Today program had their traditional balance of views at 8.50. One of the contributors, Anne McElvoy, thought that Brexit was a "strategic mistake". The other, for balance, thought it was a complete disaster. CNN should be congratulated on their moderation.
    the thing which is quite consistent with a lot of the "we know best" lot is studying at Oxford.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,781
    edited June 12

    CD13 said:

    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.

    You accurately describe the mindset of the illiberal, fascist wing of the Remainers.

    But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
    This morning two national newspapers threaten MPs by reference to their own preferred interpretation of what the referendum vote meant. There are illiberal fascists in 2018 and they ain’t Remainers.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,243
    Scott_P said:
    This is less terrible than the Lords amendment, but still an unconstitutional power grab by Parliament from the executive. If the Tory rebels are so worried about no deal, then they should have the courage to vote no confidence in their own government.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,802

    CD13 said:

    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.

    You accurately describe the mindset of the illiberal, fascist wing of the Remainers.

    But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
    This morning two national newspapers threaten MPs by reference to their own preferred interpretation of what the referendum vote meant. There are illiberal fascists in 2018 and they ain’t Remainers.
    I see on both sides of the debate "no surrender" is very much a la mode.

    bowler hats all round
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,288
    ydoethur said:

    .

    Not sure what your point about the Tsar is, as they never tried to sue for peace and that was why Nicholas' armies collapsed. Are you thinking of the Kadets being forced off the Provisional Government after Milyukov declared the war would go on?

    With regard to the Soviet troops, Nazi atrocities against Slavs were enormously helpful in that regard. As I have said, initially many Soviet citizens were very pleased to see them, especially in those areas the Soviets had conquered and held by force - the Ukraine and the Baltic states. That didn't last. The irony of course is that under Order no. 227 the NKVD were themselves responsible for a vast number of deaths among Soviet soldiers.

    What I meant was that the USSR was too big to be overcome as long as it kept fighting. When you look at his tactics with a cold eye, all Hitler's successes were due to the surrender of confused and demoralised opponents who found the Germans were unexpectedly quick and aggressive. That succeeded in France by the push through Ardennes, and failed in Britain where the natural defences were more formidable and the leader of the government point blank refused to even consider settlement. In Russia, the tactics nearly captured Moscow, but once that had failed there was no real hope of overcoming the Soviets.

    One statistic to chew in. Behind the Volga there were 300 km of defensive emplacements. That's as long as the M1. Imagine trying to fight through that if there was any resistance. Can't be done quickly. And as long as there was no sudden collapse, the sheer size of the USSR was always bound to tell sooner rather than later, especially when coupled to the US and UK.
    I remember studying Barbarossa at School. It was stunningly successful but based on faulty intelligence. Within the first month the Germans had completely destroyed more divisions than they thought the Russians had. And the better equipped forces were just coming west from Siberia.

    Because of the faulty intelligence the Germans were not adequately prepared for a winter campaign. Because Hitler had stupidly not focussed on the middle east there were shortages of oil. Because of the Battle of Britain there was insufficient air support. But their military was formidable. Thankfully they were led by an idiot.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,282

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    It really was. An awful time. The channel dash, the fall of Singapore and serious reverses in North Africa. On top of a string of disappointments in 1941. And the Germans were still advancing deep into the Soviet Union.

    ”In hindsight, do you think the UK was right or wrong to declare war on Germany in September 1930?”
    I think it'd have been premature.
    Bloody iPhone!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,781

    CD13 said:

    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.

    You accurately describe the mindset of the illiberal, fascist wing of the Remainers.

    But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
    This morning two national newspapers threaten MPs by reference to their own preferred interpretation of what the referendum vote meant. There are illiberal fascists in 2018 and they ain’t Remainers.
    I see on both sides of the debate "no surrender" is very much a la mode.

    bowler hats all round
    But that’s not true. There is a large chunk of the population that recognises that Brexit is a bad idea but that it is going to happen anyway, see the polling above. The only question is how much damage is going to be done in the process.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245
    edited June 12
    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    This is less terrible than the Lords amendment, but still an unconstitutional power grab by Parliament from the executive. If the Tory rebels are so worried about no deal, then they should have the courage to vote no confidence in their own government.
    I've no objection to Parliament voting on it, although it is a dramatic break with tradition. What doesn't seem to have occurred to these people is it's not 'this deal or remain,' it's 'this deal or no deal.' We can't unilaterally impose terms on the EU, no matter how many votes there are in Parliament. If we could I'd have voted out without a second thought and my preferred terms would have included putting all drunks who connive at tax evasion on trial. As I thought the EU would seek to punish us causing massive economic damage, I voted remain. So far, nothing has happened to make me think my prediction was wrong.

    I am bewildered that Grieve, who is a very able lawyer and vastly experienced Parliamentarian doesn't grasp this simple fact. Adonis, who is a stupider and more ignorant version of Michael Gove, it's less surprising.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,931
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    And if the government's position is not endorsed by the House of Commons or, in the latter case by the Lords, what happens then? Genuine question, I am not really sure I know what Grieve is hoping to achieve and he is a clever chap. If the House then directed the government to, say, suspend Article 50(2) and get more time the government would presumably have to try to comply but it would not be in their gift.
    Any competent Speaker (so we're talking hypothetically here), would rule out that kind of motion. But replace 'get' with 'request' and you have a valid motion.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,282

    ydoethur said:

    1942 looks like the turning of the tide now (because it was), and to some extent it could be foreseen then, given the vast potential power of the enlarged Allies - but at the time, no-one knew whether Alamein and Stalingrad (and Midway) were critical turning points or just a blip on the trend that had seen the Axis sweep all before it since 1937.

    After all, for all the Allied potential, had the Soviet Union collapsed politically, socially or economically - and that was certainly possible - the future for the Western Allies would have looked extremely bleak with 100+ German divisions freed up to attack into the Middle East, India or Britain directly, and unlimited raw materials supplied to Germany for next to nothing with which to do so. Sure, in the end, the atom bomb would have been decisive, even if Britain had to ask for terms, but no-one - not even Roosevelt or Churchill - knew that in 1942.

    I think you somewhat exaggerate the threat to the Soviet Union. By mid-1942 there was no risk of collapse. The risk had come earlier at Moscow, and had gone again. True, that's far from saying all was rosy. The Soviet Economy had been severely disorganised, but it was still capable of outproducing Germany and in particular its tank production was cranked up very rapidly. Perhaps Roosevelt and Churchill thought that was more Soviet propaganda, but it wasn't. Moreover, the brutality of the Nazis had turned much of the initially pro-German Ukraine against them, leaving their supply lines vulnerable.

    Embarrassing though the loss of Singapore was for the British, it wasn't fatal. Australia was the more important prize and the Japanese were never strong enough to attack it. By summer 1943 things looked distinctly better.

    If you'll tell me that Brexit is now at its Singapore phase and will soon move on to Alamein, I'll be delighted, but colour me sceptical.
    I'm not sure I agree about the USSR. Yes, there were no illusions in the Kremlin about what suing for peace would mean but that had been true (more or less) for the tsar too: it hadn't stopped Imperial Russian troops from stopping fighting. It is remarkable that the Soviet troops did carry on to the degree that they did (and there is a limit on what you can do through compulsion, when people think they're going to die anyway). I don't think it's unfeasible to imagine that a bottom-up mutiny might have snowballed through the ranks.

    I agree re Singapore. All the same, it was a disastrous loss.
    Singapore has repercussions to this day. It basically killed off Britain’s leading role in the Far East, and we were an afterthought forever after.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,288
    Scott_P said:
    They let Oliver Letwin speak in public? I sometimes wonder if some of the government are genuinely schizophrenic about this.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,441
    ydoethur said:

    I am bewildered that Grieve, who is a very able lawyer and vastly experienced Parliamentarian doesn't grasp this simple fact.

    It's not a simple fact.

    We can withdraw Article 50.

    (Yes, I know, that's not a fact. It's an untested legal hypothesis, but it's more factual than "German car makers will beg us for a deal")
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,473
    Nigelb said:

    felix said:

    Ouch - CNN in sour grapes shocker.
    Hardly. In the absence of a substantive document, some skepticism is entirely justified. It’s not as though the US has not previously had agreements with North Korea.

    How "substantive" do you expect this kind of communique to be? Peninsula to be denuclearised by next Wednesday and free owls in perpetuity for everybody?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,748

    CD13 said:

    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.

    You accurately describe the mindset of the illiberal, fascist wing of the Remainers.

    But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
    This morning two national newspapers threaten MPs by reference to their own preferred interpretation of what the referendum vote meant. There are illiberal fascists in 2018 and they ain’t Remainers.
    There are illiberal fascists on both sides.

    I purposefully used the phrase following on from your oft-posted claims regarding the newspapers (Mail & Express).
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,802

    CD13 said:

    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.

    You accurately describe the mindset of the illiberal, fascist wing of the Remainers.

    But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
    This morning two national newspapers threaten MPs by reference to their own preferred interpretation of what the referendum vote meant. There are illiberal fascists in 2018 and they ain’t Remainers.
    I see on both sides of the debate "no surrender" is very much a la mode.

    bowler hats all round
    But that’s not true. There is a large chunk of the population that recognises that Brexit is a bad idea but that it is going to happen anyway, see the polling above. The only question is how much damage is going to be done in the process.
    the issue isn't the bulk of the population - who have accepted the result- the issue is the remoaners who cant accept the result and the brexiteers a l'outrance who want to leave no matter what.

    PB has its unfair share of both and the country would be better served by all putting the national interest first rather than what they wanted yesterday.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,217
    ydoethur said:

    What I meant was that the USSR was too big to be overcome as long as it kept fighting. When you look at his tactics with a cold eye, all Hitler's successes were due to the surrender of confused and demoralised opponents who found the Germans were unexpectedly quick and aggressive. That succeeded in France by the push through Ardennes, and failed in Britain where the natural defences were more formidable and the leader of the government point blank refused to even consider settlement. In Russia, the tactics nearly captured Moscow, but once that had failed there was no real hope of overcoming the Soviets.

    One statistic to chew in. Behind the Volga there were 300 km of defensive emplacements. That's as long as the M1. Imagine trying to fight through that if there was any resistance. Can't be done quickly. And as long as there was no sudden collapse, the sheer size of the USSR was always bound to tell sooner rather than later, especially when coupled to the US and UK.

    Yes, Russia was too big to conquer, by two measures. It's large population meant Stalin could trade men for time, eventually winning any war of attrition. It's large size meant Stalin could trade land for time, continually falling back. Even if the Nazis had captured Moscow, so what, if government, production and the army have moved east?

    Hitler had entered an unwinnable war against two opponents, America and the Soviet Union, whose sheer size and resources meant Germany was bound to lose. Perhaps if Hitler had stopped after the Battle of Britain, with the Soviet Union still an ally and an isolationist United States, things might look different now. Even then, as with the First World War, historians might have been left wondering what was the point.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245
    DavidL said:

    I remember studying Barbarossa at School. It was stunningly successful but based on faulty intelligence. Within the first month the Germans had completely destroyed more divisions than they thought the Russians had. And the better equipped forces were just coming west from Siberia.

    Because of the faulty intelligence the Germans were not adequately prepared for a winter campaign. Because Hitler had stupidly not focussed on the middle east there were shortages of oil. Because of the Battle of Britain there was insufficient air support. But their military was formidable. Thankfully they were led by an idiot.

    It is just possible to imagine the Wehrmacht getting to the Urals. Very difficult, but possible.

    There would still have been a vast chunk of land, larger than Germany albeit not necessarily with a larger population, left to the Soviets, and they would have kept fighting.

    It is impossible to imagine under those circumstances the Germans would have held the area conquered for long.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,441

    the country would be better served by all putting the national interest first rather than what they wanted yesterday.

    I agree

    And the national interest is best served by cancelling Brexit, right?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,931
    ydoethur said:

    Not sure what your point about the Tsar is, as they never tried to sue for peace and that was why Nicholas' armies collapsed. Are you thinking of the Kadets being forced off the Provisional Government after Milyukov declared the war would go on?

    With regard to the Soviet troops, Nazi atrocities against Slavs were enormously helpful in that regard. As I have said, initially many Soviet citizens were very pleased to see them, especially in those areas the Soviets had conquered and held by force - the Ukraine and the Baltic states. That didn't last. The irony of course is that under Order no. 227 the NKVD were themselves responsible for a vast number of deaths among Soviet soldiers.

    What I meant was that the USSR was too big to be overcome as long as it kept fighting. When you look at his tactics with a cold eye, all Hitler's successes were due to the surrender of confused and demoralised opponents who found the Germans were unexpectedly quick and aggressive. That succeeded in France by the push through Ardennes, and failed in Britain where the natural defences were more formidable and the leader of the government point blank refused to even consider settlement. In Russia, the tactics nearly captured Moscow, but once that had failed there was no real hope of overcoming the Soviets.

    One statistic to chew in. Behind the Volga there were 300 km of defensive emplacements. That's as long as the M1. Imagine trying to fight through that if there was any resistance. Can't be done quickly. And as long as there was no sudden collapse, the sheer size of the USSR was always bound to tell sooner rather than later, especially when coupled to the US and UK.

    I'd agree with a lot of that. But my point was that the ability of the Soviet army to have continued to fight couldn't have been assured in 1942, especially early 1942. Other armies had collapsed having taken far fewer losses. After all, the story from July 1941 on had been that of almost total retreat and defeat, barring the halt brought about by General Winter.

    The reference to 1917 was that the governments (you rightly include the provisional govt too) wanted the war to go on but were incapable of enforcing that policy. That could have been an outcome in 1942 too had Stalin pushed either too hard or too soft.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 825

    CD13 said:

    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.

    You accurately describe the mindset of the illiberal, fascist wing of the Remainers.

    But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
    This morning two national newspapers threaten MPs by reference to their own preferred interpretation of what the referendum vote meant. There are illiberal fascists in 2018 and they ain’t Remainers.
    How can you try to interpret what the referendum vote meant? We voted to leave, we will leave.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,802
    Scott_P said:

    the country would be better served by all putting the national interest first rather than what they wanted yesterday.

    I agree

    And the national interest is best served by cancelling Brexit, right?
    stop remoaning and accept the result
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,288
    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    This is less terrible than the Lords amendment, but still an unconstitutional power grab by Parliament from the executive. If the Tory rebels are so worried about no deal, then they should have the courage to vote no confidence in their own government.
    I've no objection to Parliament voting on it, although it is a dramatic break with tradition. What doesn't seem to have occurred to these people is it's not 'this deal or remain,' it's 'this deal or no deal.' We can't unilaterally impose terms on the EU, no matter how many votes there are in Parliament. If we could I'd have voted out without a second thought and my preferred terms would have included putting all drunks who connive at tax evasion on trial. As I thought the EU would seek to punish us causing massive economic damage, I voted remain. So far, nothing has happened to make me think my prediction was wrong.

    I am bewildered that Grieve, who is a very able lawyer and vastly experienced Parliamentarian doesn't grasp this simple fact. Adonis, who is a stupider and more ignorant version of Michael Gove, it's less surprising.
    That is the point I was making earlier. What is Grieve hoping to achieve? We get to 15th February 2019 and we still don't have a deal. No surprise there, when did the EU ever agree any deal before the last minute (and sometimes an artificially extended last minute at that)? The Minister comes before the Commons and the Lords. He is still trying to argue for his deal with the EU, not Parliament. The Commons then directs him to do something else such as seek a continuation of the process. This is going to make our position with the EU better? I rather think not. It simply undermines the position we have been trying to achieve, a not uncommon scenario in this process.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,781
    currystar said:

    CD13 said:

    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.

    You accurately describe the mindset of the illiberal, fascist wing of the Remainers.

    But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
    This morning two national newspapers threaten MPs by reference to their own preferred interpretation of what the referendum vote meant. There are illiberal fascists in 2018 and they ain’t Remainers.
    How can you try to interpret what the referendum vote meant? We voted to leave, we will leave.
    I suggest you ask the Express and the Sun that question. They’re the ones who seem to think Brexit has parameters that weren’t on the voting slip.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,465

    OK, leaders only sign something after a couple of hours if (one or more of):

    - It doesn't really say anything important;
    - One side is dictating terms;
    - One side isn't paying attention;
    - It was all agreed beforehand

    Guesses?

    The meeting was all about symbolism, so your point 1 applies, and up to a point so does point 4. But that doesn't make it a waste of time. If there's one thing we know about Trump, it's that he's driven by personal instinct. He seems to have satisfied himself that Kim is on the level, and Kim can reasonably hope that he will impulsively order some concessions on sanctions. We've just seen at the G8 that Trump doesn't go along with vague agreements unless he essentially likes the people he's dealing with.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,607
    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    It really was. An awful time. The channel dash, the fall of Singapore and serious reverses in North Africa. On top of a string of disappointments in 1941. And the Germans were still advancing deep into the Soviet Union.

    ”In hindsight, do you think the UK was right or wrong to declare war on Germany in September 1930?”
    I think it'd have been premature.
    Stopping Hitler before he had even started would have been awesomely far-sighted of Macdonald.
    My mother learnt an important lesson about cheating in the 1960s

    She had to write an essay for Hitler for her history class. She put it off safe in knowledge she could just copy out her fathers copy of the Encylopaedia Britannica and no one would ever know.

    The night before it was due she crept into his office and took down the right volume. She opened the entry to read “Hitler, Adolf : Recently elected Chancellor of Germany”
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245
    edited June 12
    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    I am bewildered that Grieve, who is a very able lawyer and vastly experienced Parliamentarian doesn't grasp this simple fact.

    It's not a simple fact.

    We can withdraw Article 50.

    (Yes, I know, that's not a fact. It's an untested legal hypothesis, but it's more factual than "German car makers will beg us for a deal")
    We can withdraw Article 50 if all other European states agree. We cannot do it unilaterally. The latter is an untested and manifestly nonsensical legal hypothesis put forward by the idiot who wrote it who appears not to grasp the further basic fact that laws are what's written not what's intended.

    In practice I imagine the EU probably would play ball, with a huge sigh of relief, but if Spain had a hissy fit or Italy was without a government, what then?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,232
    Just had a wine tasting weekend away, courtesy of a (to me anyway) substantial birthday present. After an interesting and sensibly supplied tasting session we got talking to another couple and for some reason the talk turned to Braxit. Our new acquaintances, a bit younger than us, ...... still working ........ were totally against us. One was a director of a medium size shipping company, the other worked for a motor parts firm, and both could see nothing but trouble ahead for their respective companies. The ‘shipper’ was aghast at the prospect of having to have similar documention to that required for Asia for his European destinations.

    No I didn’t start that part of the conversation!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,441

    accept the result

    I fully accept the result.

    I don't accept it is in the National interest, and it never will be
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,441

    OK, leaders only sign something after a couple of hours if (one or more of):

    - It doesn't really say anything important;
    - One side is dictating terms;
    - One side isn't paying attention;
    - It was all agreed beforehand

    Guesses?

    The meeting was all about symbolism, so your point 1 applies, and up to a point so does point 4. But that doesn't make it a waste of time. If there's one thing we know about Trump, it's that he's driven by personal instinct. He seems to have satisfied himself that Kim is on the level, and Kim can reasonably hope that he will impulsively order some concessions on sanctions. We've just seen at the G8 that Trump doesn't go along with vague agreements unless he essentially likes the people he's dealing with.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,254
    CD13 said:

    I was on holiday last week and my telly viewing was restricted to CNN for news. Wow! They don't like Trump, do they? Is it a personal thing?

    There’s no requirement on the US media to show any form of balance or prevent bias, and it really shows. Thank goodness for the BBC, which for all its flaws does a decent job of balancing opinion (a good sign is that both left and right wingers accuse it of bias)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,802
    Scott_P said:

    accept the result

    I fully accept the result.

    I don't accept it is in the National interest, and it never will be
    well if it was that bad why did the conservatives call the referendum ?

    if you chose national meltdown ( in your eyes ) over the inconvenience of managing a few fruitcakes then you had your priorities wrong.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,245
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    At the risk of getting hired as a columnist for the Daily Express, World War 2 was going badly for the British in 1942, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to keep trying.

    It really was. An awful time. The channel dash, the fall of Singapore and serious reverses in North Africa. On top of a string of disappointments in 1941. And the Germans were still advancing deep into the Soviet Union.

    ”In hindsight, do you think the UK was right or wrong to declare war on Germany in September 1930?”
    I think it'd have been premature.
    Stopping Hitler before he had even started would have been awesomely far-sighted of Macdonald.
    My mother learnt an important lesson about cheating in the 1960s

    She had to write an essay for Hitler for her history class. She put it off safe in knowledge she could just copy out her fathers copy of the Encylopaedia Britannica and no one would ever know.

    The night before it was due she crept into his office and took down the right volume. She opened the entry to read “Hitler, Adolf : Recently elected Chancellor of Germany”
    I would have paid good money to mark that one...

    Anyway, I'm off. Have a good morning.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,781

    CD13 said:

    All democratic votes seem flawed in some ways when you lose. The other side had more air-time, more media attention and the right arguments weren't publicised. Most people are used to that but accept that's democracy. I've seldom seen the party I vote for win a GE.

    Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.

    They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.

    You accurately describe the mindset of the illiberal, fascist wing of the Remainers.

    But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
    This morning two national newspapers threaten MPs by reference to their own preferred interpretation of what the referendum vote meant. There are illiberal fascists in 2018 and they ain’t Remainers.
    I see on both sides of the debate "no surrender" is very much a la mode.

    bowler hats all round
    But that’s not true. There is a large chunk of the population that recognises that Brexit is a bad idea but that it is going to happen anyway, see the polling above. The only question is how much damage is going to be done in the process.
    the issue isn't the bulk of the population - who have accepted the result- the issue is the remoaners who cant accept the result and the brexiteers a l'outrance who want to leave no matter what.

    PB has its unfair share of both and the country would be better served by all putting the national interest first rather than what they wanted yesterday.
    It depends what you mean by accepted. Roughly a third of the population are putting on their Union Jack cufflinks and polishing their jackboots in anticipation of the great day of liberation. Roughly a third are going with the flow whatever their private feelings. And roughly a third are watching events with the same mounting sense of horror that you get when watching a multi-car pile-up on the other carriageway that you’re helpless to prevent.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,441


    This is great news, apparently. So say the Brexiteers...
This discussion has been closed.