Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
Have we though? May has claimed there's no legal agreement to pay anything. I thought we were paying 13.1 billion a year and getting subsidies back of 4billion a year, so around 9billion net. Getting that upto 60 or even 100billion and we're talking 7-12 years of net contributions. And that alongside 'no parallel trade talks' makes zero sense. I can understand continuing to pay 9 billion a year membership fee for a free tade agreement inclusive of financial services. That's ultimately what I think we should be doing after Brexit and could be a deal that could get done.

And I'm a remainer btw.
I wonder if the UK will take the line of 'yes we will pay our international obligations but we disagree with the figure the EU have quoted so it will have to go through the international courts with no payment until a verdict has been reached'.

If so, how long would that take? A complex legal case with traditional stalling tactics etc, 10 years perhaps? The EU would have to make up the shortfall in between. It could give the UK a little grace on what would have been EU outgoings in the event of a hard Brexit too.

At least Tusk is calling for calm. Although him asking May for respect was laughable, respect is a two way street. Although perhaps it was tacitly aimed at some of his more petty colleagues in Brussels too.
 

Untied

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,480
Have we though? May has claimed there's no legal agreement to pay anything. I thought we were paying 13.1 billion a year and getting subsidies back of 4billion a year, so around 9billion net. Getting that upto 60 or even 100billion and we're talking 7-12 years of net contributions. And that alongside 'no parallel trade talks' makes zero sense. I can understand continuing to pay 9 billion a year membership fee for a free tade agreement inclusive of financial services. That's ultimately what I think we should be doing after Brexit and could be a deal that could get done.

And I'm a remainer btw.
That's not going to happen unless you also concede on free movement and ECJ

At which point you haven't really left
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
That's not going to happen unless you also concede on free movement and ECJ

At which point you haven't really left
The EU proposed an Ukraine style associate membership agreement, which, for a fee, (about half of what we pay currently) which would give us a high level of single market access but exemption from FoM and other key issues.

That seems the ideal scenario for us, all things considered.
 

WackyWengerWorld

New Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
1,935
Supports
Arsenal
That's not going to happen unless you also concede on free movement and ECJ

At which point you haven't really left
I don't have a problem with either and invoking a hard brexit was irresponsible because free trade for me is the most important thing for Britain. But I also don't see why a deal couldn't be done for financial reimbursment.

If there is no trade agreement and they legally don't have to, why strategically would the UK pay anything to something it doesn't benefit from whatsoever?
 

Stanley Road

Renaissance Man
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Messages
39,992
Location
Wrong Unstable Leadership
I wonder if the UK will take the line of 'yes we will pay our international obligations but we disagree with the figure the EU have quoted so it will have to go through the international courts with no payment until a verdict has been reached'.

If so, how long would that take? A complex legal case with traditional stalling tactics etc, 10 years perhaps? The EU would have to make up the shortfall in between. It could give the UK a little grace on what would have been EU outgoings in the event of a hard Brexit too.

At least Tusk is calling for calm. Although him asking May for respect was laughable, respect is a two way street. Although perhaps it was tacitly aimed at some of his more petty colleagues in Brussels too.
Tusk is the only decent person in the eu imo. I belive his comment was aimed at Junk who is the worst piece of festering shit in this whole affair.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,714
I wonder if the UK will take the line of 'yes we will pay our international obligations but we disagree with the figure the EU have quoted so it will have to go through the international courts with no payment until a verdict has been reached'.

If so, how long would that take? A complex legal case with traditional stalling tactics etc, 10 years perhaps? The EU would have to make up the shortfall in between. It could give the UK a little grace on what would have been EU outgoings in the event of a hard Brexit too.

At least Tusk is calling for calm. Although him asking May for respect was laughable, respect is a two way street. Although perhaps it was tacitly aimed at some of his more petty colleagues in Brussels too.
In that case then it would end up in court and the UK will probably end up without a trade deal
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
13,188
Location
Stamford Bridge
Supports
Chelsea
It would require a huge shift in public opinion and the anti-EU propaganda machine is working overtime at the moment.
Why would it need a huge shift? The vote was by 2%, and numerous polls since have showed a revote would give Remain victory. Despite all the bollocks May and the Tories talk about the country coming together behind Brexit, I think Remain would certainly win in a new vote with the situation now clearer, and I'm pretty sure May knows that too which is why its not allowed.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,831
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
Have we though? May has claimed there's no legal agreement to pay anything. I thought we were paying 13.1 billion a year and getting subsidies back of 4billion a year, so around 9billion net. Getting that upto 60 or even 100billion and we're talking 7-12 years of net contributions. And that alongside 'no parallel trade talks' makes zero sense. I can understand continuing to pay 9 billion a year membership fee for a free tade agreement inclusive of financial services. That's ultimately what I think we should be doing after Brexit and could be a deal that could get done.

And I'm a remainer btw.
But nobody yet knows what the amount will be or the details of the amount, so to say the Uk are not paying anything makes no sense until this is known.

Within the figure is probably the next two years fees, the UK were behind with their payments, don't know if they caught up but there could be more there. There are projects the Uk have agreed to participate in, there are pensions etc to be paid and probably numerous other expenses.

These figures are being used by the government to maintain their popularity in the face of "the evil EU"

Should all the UKIP MEP's end up with no pension I would gladly forego any payment from the UK, that'll teach Farage and his cronies to steal a living from the EU
 

Untied

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,480
Why would it need a huge shift? The vote was by 2%, and numerous polls since have showed a revote would give Remain victory. Despite all the bollocks May and the Tories talk about the country coming together behind Brexit, I think Remain would certainly win in a new vote with the situation now clearer, and I'm pretty sure May knows that too which is why its not allowed.
You kind of answer your own question there. A second referendum will only be on the card if there is a clear turn of public opinion against Brexit. At the moment it's still pretty level and yes, Remain might win, but the polling suggests people are still pretty satisfied with their vote.
 

fcbforever

New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
4,077
Location
Merkellandia, the land of silent horrors
Supports
FC Bayern München
The EU proposed an Ukraine style associate membership agreement, which, for a fee, (about half of what we pay currently) which would give us a high level of single market access but exemption from FoM and other key issues.

That seems the ideal scenario for us, all things considered.
In that case, it won't include financial services.
This will be the hardest thing for May anyway, as large parts of the EU would be very happy to kill the moneyjugglers in the city.

And when Ukraine doesn't suffice, I'm rather sure GB will end up like Norway. Which would be a joke, as that is essentially being part of the EU while not having a vote.
 

rcoobc

Not as crap as eferyone thinks
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
41,702
Location
C-137
Why would it need a huge shift? The vote was by 2%, and numerous polls since have showed a revote would give Remain victory. Despite all the bollocks May and the Tories talk about the country coming together behind Brexit, I think Remain would certainly win in a new vote with the situation now clearer, and I'm pretty sure May knows that too which is why its not allowed.
Well, 4%
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,626
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
I'd still say it's very hard to argue for overturning the vote. Making such a huge decision based on such fine and fickle margins seems indeed reckless, but that's an argument that should've been raised long before the vote. Changing the rules because you don't like the outcome of the vote could very likely have dramatic consequences for the political system and it's credibility.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
I'd still say it's very hard to argue for overturning the vote. Making such a huge decision based on such fine and fickle margins seems indeed reckless, but that's an argument that should've been raised long before the vote. Changing the rules because you don't like the outcome of the vote could very likely have dramatic consequences for the political system and it's credibility.
It isn't going to happen.

The only possible chance is a final referendum on if we accept the deal on offer, remain in the EU or hard Brexit. It is the platform that the Liberal Democrats are running on in the election but they have no chance of getting in.

In that case, it won't include financial services.
This will be the hardest thing for May anyway, as large parts of the EU would be very happy to kill the moneyjugglers in the city.

And when Ukraine doesn't suffice, I'm rather sure GB will end up like Norway. Which would be a joke, as that is essentially being part of the EU while not having a vote.
I heard some leading figure in American banking on the Radio the other day and he said that London will remain the most important financial centre in Europe even if we go through a hard Brexit just that JP Morgan etc will relocate a lot of jobs to the continent.

I think that might be a worthwhile sacrifice for the Tories rather than keeping FoM which would be much more difficult politically. A lot of voters are not happy with the wealth of the City either and wouldn't be concerned if a lot of bankers lost their job.
 
Last edited:

vidic blood & sand

New Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
4,134
The EU is a union of 27 truly independent countries. Its not some bogus group with 1 big country and some minor regions tagged to it which simply moan and obey. Its very difficult to bring forward a reform although things are indeed changing (ex CETA)

That's not concern anymore isn't it? You voted out of Europe and you made it quite clear you won't be paying those 250m something a week (it was far less but oh well) who will now go to the NHS or something of the kind.
Obviously the importance of the the point made, is that the pre-brexit government believed that Britain could prosper in a reformed EU, and this is how they sold it before the referendum. And so, if reform is impossible, where would that have left Cameron and his gang? And us?

Listen to Cameron's words very carefully. He told us that our choice was to vote to either remain in a reformed EU, or to leave. And so if there is no reform, which even you accept is very difficult, an unreformed EU is no longer an attractive proposition.


Exactly. The UK sells 47% of its products and services to Europe. Now imagine if that is slapped with tariffs. Sure there's a trade deficit in favour of the UK when compared to the EU as a whole. However thats a wrong way to see it. As said its a union of 27 truly independent countries all armed with a veto. Why would (lets say) Austria care if Italy had a trade deficit with the UK? You'll have to appease 27 nations mate.
We have a government trade department ready to begin trade negotiations with the rest of the world. This opens up new possibilities to branch out to customers globally.


It depends which war. In WW1 it was the US. In WW2 the war was won by the Russians on Russian soil. The US helped the UK (and us, other countries under British colonial rule) to peek out of our blankets and try and hit back. Prior to operation Barbarossa Europe was getting a hammering. The UK is lucky that its troops fled from Dunkirk in an orderly fashion (and Hitler was an idiot) else things would be way more humiliating for us (and I repeat us as Europe ie including the UK).
The point I'm making is that a nation that has given everything it has to fight against an evil regime, should not be considered to have been bailed out when helped. Hitler's strategic mistakes aside, he suffered his first defeats from allied conflicts spearheaded by us. We gave everything, and lost much.

and I am certain they will do the same. Trade deals are a different matter altogether.
Yes, but the cooperation between our governments will be enhanced if we are allowed to prosper together with mutual benefits.

Both Obama and Trump reached the same conclusion. The UK was useful as a bridge between Europe and the US. Once out of the EU you lost your influence in Europe and became, well, not as important anymore
This depends.
I'm sure that trade between the UK and US will not by at the top of congress's list of important issues, and we will certainly continue to trade with them as a WTO member for a while. However, if it was possible to secure a free trade agreement with the US, the benefits of this would be very significant. China and India as well.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
What a troll. He just love to see TM worked up and panicking.
I don't think she is worked up. He is helping her election campaign.

I don't think that is really his intention anyway, he is just trying to warn the UK of the reduced role of global influence when we leave the UK.

He has a point of course but he gets his delivery all wrong, as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, he is like a caricature of everything the British people hate about the EU and Brussels.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,626
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
How do you get from Brexit to my nation was better than yours during WW2? :houllier:

I'd like to see someone bring that up in the press.
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
13,188
Location
Stamford Bridge
Supports
Chelsea
The point I'm making is that a nation that has given everything it has to fight against an evil regime, should not be considered to have been bailed out when helped. Hitler's strategic mistakes aside, he suffered his first defeats from allied conflicts spearheaded by us. We gave everything, and lost much.
So did everyone else, from the French to the Italians and all the other countries we like to sneer at while we preen ourselves about the bravery of Brits who largely died before we were born. You didn't give a single thing, and neither did I.

Britain just had the unique European position of being both a major colonial power and simultaneously being an island. That prevented us from being overrun, and gave an opportunity to achieve some success. You think British people gave more or lost more than the Poles, or the Dutch, or the Czechs? All our countries were bailed out by a combination of American money and resources and Soviet manpower. Without either Germany would have won the war.
 

Full bodied red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Location
The Var, France
I'm sure that trade between the UK and US will not by at the top of congress's list of important issues, and we will certainly continue to trade with them as a WTO member for a while. However, if it was possible to secure a free trade agreement with the US, the benefits of this would be very significant. China and India as well.
I'm fairly sure that the UK will do Trade Deals with USA, Japan, China and ( perhaps ) India long before the EU are able to do the same. And in a much shorter negotiating span than the EU if the seven years negotiation with Canada is anything to go by. One-to-one, not one-to-twentyseven.

And at which point, companies from countries still inside the EU will be looking to set-up subsidiaries in the UK to take advantage of these. in much the same way that UK companies are talking about setting up subsidiaries inside current EU countries to keep a foot inside Europe.

WTO rules between the UK and EU will be a bummer, and some jobs moving to the EU from the UK are inevitable but it works both ways, you know.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,831
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
I'm fairly sure that the UK will do Trade Deals with USA, Japan, China and ( perhaps ) India long before the EU are able to do the same. And in a much shorter negotiating span than the EU if the seven years negotiation with Canada is anything to go by. One-to-one, not one-to-twentyseven.

And at which point, companies from countries still inside the EU will be looking to set-up subsidiaries in the UK to take advantage of these. in much the same way that UK companies are talking about setting up subsidiaries inside current EU countries to keep a foot inside Europe.

WTO rules between the UK and EU will be a bummer, and some jobs moving to the EU from the UK are inevitable but it works both ways, you know.
I hope you do realise that WTO rules will apply to all deals not just with the EU. All current agreements the UK have are as a member of the EU, thus start all over again, hope the Uk have a very large negotiating team, which are currently working in the EU
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,714
Obviously the importance of the the point made, is that the pre-brexit government believed that Britain could prosper in a reformed EU, and this is how they sold it before the referendum. And so, if reform is impossible, where would that have left Cameron and his gang? And us?

Listen to Cameron's words very carefully. He told us that our choice was to vote to either remain in a reformed EU, or to leave. And so if there is no reform, which even you accept is very difficult, an unreformed EU is no longer an attractive proposition.
I never said that it was difficult (or if I said it, apologies since its the wrong term). I only said that its lengthy. It take time for 27 countries to come out with a consensus. I mean look at the UK. There's arguments everyday and TM is having to face a new issue from Scotland, gibraltar or Northern Ireland every fortnight. That despite these regions has as much administrative power as Napoleon had when he was in St Helens.

However change does happen and its happening in front of our eyes. I remember when Malta first argued about the problem of immigration. Jeez we had Malmstorm coming to Malta calling everyone a racist, simply because we dared saying that the Dublin 2 treaty is crap. These days everyone agrees with it and countries barely enforce the Dublin 2 treaty anymore (apart from the Brits of course, who love immigrants as long as they are far away from Blighty). Hopefully in the next few years this treaty will be thrown in the very bin it belongs too.

We have a government trade department ready to begin trade negotiations with the rest of the world. This opens up new possibilities to branch out to customers globally.
And I hope its a massive success. However any country will consider the strategy of closing the door (or cover it with redtape and tariffs) to the continent that very country belongs to as madness. Trump toyed with the idea when he threatened to scrap the NAFTA deal and he backtracked from that furiously.

The deal the UK has with the EU is unprecedented and allow all sort of business to prosper that wont be able to do so if the UK wasn't part of the EU. For example car parts from all over Europe can move freely in and out of the UK to be used to manufacture cars in UK plants and then sold the EU. That can only be achieved because

a- the UK is in close proximity of Europe. Its not worth for a UK company to buy parts from lets say Australia
b- the EU allows unrestricted access to its markets.

Not to forget that EU membership allows access to non EU markets (ie trade deals signed by the EU) which were signed from a position of strength. That will soon be gone (for the UK).

Surely the UK can try to sign trade deals and I bet it will be able to sign quite a few of them. However I am a bit sceptical whether they will be as effective as EU membership in terms of access and geography. Please bear in mind that the 3 biggest markets in the world (India, China and the US) happen to be way more protective then the EU.

The point I'm making is that a nation that has given everything it has to fight against an evil regime, should not be considered to have been bailed out when helped. Hitler's strategic mistakes aside, he suffered his first defeats from allied conflicts spearheaded by us. We gave everything, and lost much.
Malta was the most bombed country during WW2. One of my grandparents died during the war and the rest nearly starved to death. All Maltese citizens who survived the mess were granted the George Cross for Valour. However it would be crazy to say that Malta or the UK were able to defeat the Nazis. The Nazis were hammering us until the US entered war and were defeated in Russia by Russians. We're lucky that Mr Mad man decided to invade them instead of us or else we would be defeated in a spectacularly humiliated way

The same will happen if Mr Putin decided to invade Europe (UK included) and Mr Trump decides to close an eye to it.

Yes, but the cooperation between our governments will be enhanced if we are allowed to prosper together with mutual benefits.
That's the thing. Trade and defense are two totally different matters altogether. One can agree on one and disagree on the other. The US had been Europe's biggest ally for most of last century. Europe trade deal with the US is not close to EU membership. Now if you mix the two then you're risking ending up isolated further. It would also mean that Europe will have no choice but to proceed to a common EU army which would make the UK even less important

This depends.
I'm sure that trade between the UK and US will not by at the top of congress's list of important issues, and we will certainly continue to trade with them as a WTO member for a while. However, if it was possible to secure a free trade agreement with the US, the benefits of this would be very significant. China and India as well.
There's no doubt that the US (or any other country for all that matter) will sit down with the UK (or any other country for all that matter) to discuss trade deals. The EU itself had committed itself to that. However the devil is in the detail. What will be offered? Under such circumstances the big fish tend to eat the small fish. For example Switzerland had to commit itself to open its market to China immediately. However China reserved the right to delay the Swiss entrance to certain market for years and sometimes decades.

The UK was extremely important for the US because through the UK, the US had a meaningful vote (+ a veto) in Europe. Now that is gone.
 
Last edited:

vidic blood & sand

New Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
4,134
How do you get from Brexit to my nation was better than yours during WW2? :houllier:

I'd like to see someone bring that up in the press.
Nobody came to this conclusion.
The guy I was talking to was implying that the consequences of brexit could be so disastrous that america might have to bail us out like in the past. If WW2 was supposed to be one of the bail outs, that would be disrespectful to those who gave everything in the fight against evil.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
I don't think anyone in Europe is in any doubt that May will win the election and that the Tories will have a bigger majority, as I've said before it makes little difference to the EU
Everyone knows that, including the Tories. They are using that line to win over voters from Brexit voters of other parties, namely the Labour party. It is working too.

The problem with Junker's tactics, in my opinion, is that he is making a hard Brexit a political possibility for the Tories i.e something they can get away with. Since his strategic leak the Brexiteers have been energised by May's strong stance and the perception, narrative even, that the EU is a pernicious entity that wishes to punish and dominate us is becoming more widespread.

If we crash out of the EU with no deal and hit some seriously tough economic times the Tories could be given a pass by enough of the electorate to stay in power on the basis of the EU being perceived as a bunch of..........
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,831
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
Everyone knows that, including the Tories. They are using that line to win over voters from Brexit voters of other parties, namely the Labour party. It is working too.

The problem with Junker's tactics, in my opinion, is that he is making a hard Brexit a political possibility for the Tories i.e something they can get away with. Since his strategic leak the Brexiteers have been energised by May's strong stance and the perception, narrative even, that the EU is a pernicious entity that wishes to punish nad dominate us is becoming more widespread.

If we crash out of the EU with no deal and hit some seriously tough economic times the Tories could be given a pass by enough of the electorate to stay in power on the basis of the EU being perceived as a bunch of..........
I don't disagree with you, but that's what is happening now, regardless and what will happen in the end. All the problems the Tories have caused have been and will be blamed on the EU, nothing will change.
I think the EU can see that there is little alternative to a hard brexit and just want to get on with it, they have other things to occupy them and they're not going to change the UK's decision to leave.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,831
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
Nobody came to this conclusion.
The guy I was talking to was implying that the consequences of brexit could be so disastrous that america might have to bail us out like in the past. If WW2 was supposed to be one of the bail outs, that would be disrespectful to those who gave everything in the fight against evil.
No-one is questioning the valiant battle the UK fought but without the ships and supplies the USA sent to the UK even before they entered the war, the UK would have been in an even more serious state. I don't want to derail the thread but history seems to have been tweaked a little bit here.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
I don't disagree with you, but that's what is happening now, regardless and what will happen in the end. All the problems the Tories have caused have been and will be blamed on the EU, nothing will change.
I think the EU can see that there is little alternative to a hard brexit and just want to get on with it, they have other things to occupy them and they're not going to change the UK's decision to leave.
I'm not sure. I heard the ex Finnish Prime Minister on Radio 4 this morning. He seemed unperturbed and said that negotiations will be difficult and with further flare ups.

There is a lot of grandstanding and hysteria but I still think a deal is likely to be done. I would say that the chance of a hard Brexit has gone higher though.
 

Will Absolute

New Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
7,982
Location
Southern Ireland
So did everyone else, from the French to the Italians and all the other countries we like to sneer at while we preen ourselves about the bravery of Brits who largely died before we were born. You didn't give a single thing, and neither did I.

Britain just had the unique European position of being both a major colonial power and simultaneously being an island. That prevented us from being overrun, and gave an opportunity to achieve some success. You think British people gave more or lost more than the Poles, or the Dutch, or the Czechs? All our countries were bailed out by a combination of American money and resources and Soviet manpower. Without either Germany would have won the war.
This is an odd interpretation of WW2. The Italians were allies of Germany, for God's sake! The other countries you mention were involved because they were invaded! Britain could have chosen to make a separate peace and sit it out. It didn't.
 

Full bodied red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Location
The Var, France
I hope you do realise that WTO rules will apply to all deals not just with the EU. All current agreements the UK have are as a member of the EU, thus start all over again, hope the Uk have a very large negotiating team, which are currently working in the EU
Yes....Well ( too, even ) aware that it'll need new deals with those currently covered by EU membership.

But can't believe that the UK isn't already 'talking' to some of the more important countries already ( despite the EU forbidding this !! ) and that once out of the EU, a new deal can be agreed and signed ( based on the existing EU deal - copy / paste / change names ) within a couple of weeks.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,714
Nobody came to this conclusion.
The guy I was talking to was implying that the consequences of brexit could be so disastrous that america might have to bail us out like in the past. If WW2 was supposed to be one of the bail outs, that would be disrespectful to those who gave everything in the fight against evil.
I'm sure Britain fully compensated its colonies who helped with soldiers and huge revenue during their masters' fight against evil, twice? Oh wait, here is what happened:

As war broke out in 1939, the trade surpluses run up by India, Egypt, Brazil and others trading primarily in sterling, were withheld by Britain. Total debt to all such creditors (excluding the US, which obtained British businesses and naval and aircraft bases in return for cash) amounted to £3.48 billion. In addition, two and an half million Indian soldiers fighting in Italy, North Africa, the Middle East and the Far East were paid salaries; when any died, their widows were to be paid pensions by the government of India, which remained uncompensated even as the war ended. All this made India (which included the future state of Pakistan) the largest Allied creditor after the US. Britain owed her £1.335 billion ($5.23 billion, which is about $59 billion today). Britain owed the next largest creditor, Egypt, £450 million. At a conservative estimate, the debt to India amounted to about a fifth of the UK gross national product, or seventeen times the annual government of India revenue at highly depressed prices.

There seemed, at first, to be a way to get such convertible currency. Harry Dexter White, the chief adviser to US treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau, framed a scheme for the purchase of these balances, in stages, by the new fund to be set up after the war, the subsequent injection of liquidity, and re-purchase.

But, as White was aware, if Britain honoured her enormous debts in this way, that might have meant a more rapid disbanding of the British occupation of Aden, Greece, Malaya and many African countries. The Royal Navy would not have had the resources to play a role of any significance, nor would Britain become a nuclear weapons state. India, Egypt, Brazil and others might have fared far better than Britain did. And, as will be become clear, London would not have become the new hub of international finance.

The celebrated economist John Maynard Keynes had been appointed by the UK government to negotiate post-war arrangements with the United States and other countries. He fiercely resisted this White Plan. He set out to make sure that the sterling balances could somehow be conjured away.


Yet after these creditor countries lost out at Bretton Woods, they drew hope from a key provision of the Anglo-American Loan Agreement. Under that treaty, the US provided a credit of $3.75 billion repayable over 50 years at 2% on the specific condition that Britain made the pound sterling convertible into any other currency for current transactions. Accordingly, the pound sterling was made convertible the July 17, 1947.

So as India negotiated the terms of these sterling balances in London over the course of August 1947, her team expected to convert their assets into dollars.
...
So, as India’s representative, B.K. Nehru wound up India’s negotiations in London for the transfer of the balances he was mystified by what his British counterpart murmured to him.

“Wilfred Eady ..said to me (August 15, 1947), ‘Watch your dollars’,” Nehru has written. Nehru did not understand.

“Why should he talk about dollars when the pound had become convertible? All the sterling would become available for purchases in the dollar area, so why did he want me to watch my dollars?”

He was to find out when Britain renounced the convertibility of the pound sterling on the current account within five days of signing the agreement with India.
Britain then devalued the pound in 1949, diminishing the value of the claims of the creditor countries by thirty per cent.

...
Had Britain not defaulted on convertibility, many countries would have switched to the US dollar in order to finance their imports. Thereafter the central banks of the world would have cut back on their holdings, effectively exiting from the pound sterling.

So default on convertibility was the absolute precondition in order to ensure a gradual drawdown on sterling.

This gave London the time to re-invent itself. Since so many central banks around the world were compelled to hold sterling and therefore trade as much as they could with the UK, Britain survived as an important financial centre.

The UK had found a captive export market for goods that could be exported nowhere else. India’s imports of the Ford Prefect, the Standard Vanguard, the Morris Oxford, the Indian Naval Ships Delhi and Mysore, all date from the golden age of sterling balances.

But as independent India faced acute food shortages, her stock of sterling could buy her none. She had to turn to the World Bank and IMF to make up the convertible currency she needed, and pay for imports of food courtesy the Aid India Consortium, composed of the World Bank and a group of countries that included, ironically, the UK.
https://thewire.in/125810/how-india-paid-to-create-the-london-of-today/


The good terms from the US to the UK and the Marshall plan was about anti-Soviet geopolitics, not about honour.



*And wiki has the extent of Indian involvement in the world wars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_I and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_II
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,831
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
I'm not sure. I heard the ex Finnish Prime Minister on Radio 4 this morning. He seemed unperturbed and said that negotiations will be difficult and with further flare ups.

There is a lot of grandstanding and hysteria but I still think a deal is likely to be done. I would say that the chance of a hard Brexit has gone higher though.
But if a deal is to be done, May has to accept at least some if not all the requirements of getting that deal, she doesn't want anyone to find out what's happening in the negotiations although obviously they will but we'll all get a good idea of what that will be sometime this year. Either Leavers or Remainers won't be happy and possibly both, I don't see how everyone is going to be happy at the end which I believe is why she is holding the election now.

I could feel sorry for her as she has a difficult task ahead. She is in a win-win situation at the moment but probably in a lose-lose situation in a couple of years. However, I have no sympathy for her whatsoever as she's now one of the main causes of this mess.
 

MoskvaRed

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
5,233
Location
Not Moskva
So did everyone else, from the French to the Italians and all the other countries we like to sneer at while we preen ourselves about the bravery of Brits who largely died before we were born. You didn't give a single thing, and neither did I.

Britain just had the unique European position of being both a major colonial power and simultaneously being an island. That prevented us from being overrun, and gave an opportunity to achieve some success. You think British people gave more or lost more than the Poles, or the Dutch, or the Czechs? All our countries were bailed out by a combination of American money and resources and Soviet manpower. Without either Germany would have won the war.
True but the English Channel did not miraculously appear in 1940, and Britain had always planned accordingly with an emphasis on a huge navy and a much smaller army. As mentioned elsewhere, it could have sat out WWII and preserved at least the illusion of global power for longer.