[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Ivanstone]

You mean the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea aren't actually Democratic or Republics? You're shattering my world view ;__;

Sorry. We're also getting a little off topic. This thread is now about how Nigel Farage wanted to separate Britain from the EU because it would help the poor huddled British masses but in reality he just wanted to cause chaos so him and his cronies could short the Pound and make millions of dollars. I do not specifically know if he wants to commit genocide against Poles, Muslims, Socialists, Welsh, Irish and Scots. I'll just assume he does because I'm an asshole.

What are the odds of a far right politician saying he wants to do something and then totally doing something different. Its probably only happened a couple times in the past 100 years or so.

[zealo]

Technically Britain & France declared war on Germany, but anyway...


I think there's a difference between "no interest in X" and "Y takes priority over X".

Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland, furthermore hostilities in the west didn't begin in any serious capacity until Germany attacked the benelux some 8 months later, and moved into France afterwards.

Trying to pin the war on anyone but Germany & co is just far right propaganda.

[Slant]

It's amazing really, he's actually, legit a full blown nazi... from England, no less. Now, that is funny...

[Bakis]

Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland, furthermore hostilities in the west didn't begin in any serious capacity until Germany attacked the benelux some 8 months later, and moved into France afterwards.

Trying to pin the war on anyone but Germany & co is just far right propaganda.

Depends, if the French didnt insist on the stupid peace treaty after WW1 Germany would have had options.
The peace treaty made it possible for Hitler's arguments to get to power to a very large extent.

[Jastall]

Depends, if the French didnt insist on the stupid peace treaty after WW1 Germany would have had options.
The peace treaty made it possible for Hitler's arguments to get to power to a very large extent.

It was half that and half the Germans not being able to deal with the fact that there are consequences to losing a war, and that compared to their own Brest-Livstock treaty Versailles was close to a handout, especially considering how it basically wasn't enforced at all.

Regardless, why are we discussing nazism in a thread about Brexit? Ignore the guy trying to derail the thread and move on.

[Kallisto]

Depends, if the French didnt insist on the stupid peace treaty after WW1 Germany would have had options.
The peace treaty made it possible for Hitler's arguments to get to power to a very large extent.

Versaille wasn't actually a French idea. What France wanted was far far far far worse. Basically look at a map of areas of Germany about 1500 (But without the Holy Roman empire overlay bit.). 100s of little kingdoms, city states, dutchies. Maybe some large enough to be considered a proper country but not really able to do anything. That's what France wanted, with them being puppet masters of states in the western border lands.

[zealo]

Depends, if the French didnt insist on the stupid peace treaty after WW1 Germany would have had options.
The peace treaty made it possible for Hitler's arguments to get to power to a very large extent.

Rather than Versailles, Id go closer to how the Entente never took the war into the heartlands of Germany proper, occupying Berlin by force before accepting any armistice. The myth that Germany wasn't defeated militarily but by social unrest caused by jews etc was at the core of the rise of nazism, and was a major driver of events in the interwar period.

[Muzjhath]

Frankly I know less about Bismarck than WW2 stuff, but from what I understand, he went the welfare state route in order to, as you put it, crack down on revolutionary fervour. He's been known as a master of realpolitik for a reason .

Yeah... That right there.
That's why the Nazi party of the Weimar Republic in Germany promised what they did and called themselves what they did. They pulled that trick out of the conservatives playbook from German history (used by Conservatives and right wing Reactionaries Europe over after 1848).
They used it to steal the thunder from the socialists and the communists, get the "everyman" support, and kill the liberals by having workers voting for them.
/Gross over simplification

[Deleted]

Depends, if the French didnt insist on the stupid peace treaty after WW1 Germany would have had options.
The peace treaty made it possible for Hitler's arguments to get to power to a very large extent.

And if the Americans hadn't wanted a lenient peace treaty and let Le Tigre have his way, there wouldn't have been a Germany to declare a WW2, but we're getting into alt history at this point.

[Breccia]

Okay so I haven't been following this thread, and that's my fault. But, this Reuters article probably belongs here.

The British government and the Bank of England are set to step up their warnings on Wednesday of a big hit to the economy from a no-deal Brexit, potentially helping Prime Minister Theresa May tackle deep opposition to her plan.

Barely four months before Britain is due to leave the European Union, May has failed to get much of her own Conservative Party behind the agreement sealed with EU leaders on Sunday, leaving open the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.

BoE Governor Mark Carney and finance minister Philip Hammond have both previously stressed the importance of a transition period, as included in May’s plan, to ease Britain out of its four-decade membership of the EU.

Carney said last week that the impact of leaving the bloc without a transition could be akin to the 1970s oil crisis for the world’s fifth-biggest economy.

Finance minister Philip Hammond told BBC television on Wednesday that no Brexit option would be as good for the economy as staying in the EU, but May’s plan “delivers an outcome that is very close to the economic benefits of remaining in”.

The Daily Telegraph said Wednesday’s report from the government would show that in a scenario resembling May’s plan, Britain’s economy would be 1-2 percent smaller in 15 years’ time than if the country remained in the EU. But it would be 7.6 percent smaller if there is no deal.

The forecasts are likely to revive the protests from supporters of a more definitive break from the EU who accused the government of trying to scare voters into remaining in the EU ahead of the 2016 Brexit referendum.

[Noradin]

Yup pretty much, the French wanted to carve Germany into a multitude of states. They wanted the exact same after WW2 as well.

The carving it into a multitude of states was just the first step though.
It was always the first step with the second being annexation of those states.

[Teleros]

Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland

Thus turning what was a local war into a global one. Poland vs Germany + USSR isn't a world war, neither is Japan vs China for that matter.

Trying to pin the war on anyone but Germany & co is just far right propaganda.

Oh the war came about because of what Germany was doing, no question. But what turned it from "local war" to "global war" were the Brits & French. They could both have continued appeasing and let Hitler get away with it if they'd wanted. Should they have done so? No, and frankly it's a pity they hadn't intervened earlier (eg Czechoslovakia, Austria, the Rhineland, etc).

[Mormolyce]

Nazis were left wing and the communists right wing.

Nazis are left wing my dude, the right wing neo-Nazis told me so.

- - - Updated - - -

Frankly I know less about Bismarck than WW2 stuff

That would be quite an accomplishment.

[caervek]

Oh the war came about because of what Germany was doing, no question. But what turned it from "local war" to "global war" were the Brits & French. They could both have continued appeasing and let Hitler get away with it if they'd wanted.

1: Hitler/Germany knew before invading Poland that Poland/Britain/France had a defense pact and that doing so would start a world war, Hitler/Germany did it anyway. You can't claim it wasn't Hitler/Germany that started it (well you can and have, it's just silly).

2: Britain appeased Hitler in order to trick him into letting it buy time to build up it's military/defenses, it was never going to continue to do so indefinitely.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be quite an accomplishment.

Why? WW2 is taught in (most) schools, it makes sense people would know more about it that random history of other countries.

[Teleros]

1: Hitler/Germany knew before invading Poland that Poland/Britain/France had a defense pact and that doing so would start a world war, Hitler/Germany did it anyway.

Depends on if Hitler thought the threat was credible. Britain & France abandoned Czechoslovakia (with whom they had a military alliance), first by letting Nazi Germany gobble up the Sudetenland, and second by letting Nazi Germany take over most of what was left. Obviously we've got 20:20 hindsight, but given Anglo-French behaviour to date etc, I really don't think it was as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

2: Britain appeased Hitler in order to trick him into letting it buy time to build up it's military/defenses, it was never going to continue to do so indefinitely.

To an extent, yes - though again, I think the best policy would have been to hit the Nazis earlier rather than later. The later we left it, the more time Nazi Germany had to rearm too, and their industrial base was frankly better suited to this than the Anglo-French one.

[AeneasBK]

That would be quite an accomplishment.

Don't get me wrong the last few pages of the thread have been a barrel of laughs; but this comment particularly tickled me

- - - Updated - - -

Why? WW2 is taught in (most) schools, it makes sense people would know more about it that random history of other countries.

Wooosh

[caervek]

Wooosh

He's referring to the 19th century German politician Bismark, not the WW2 battleship. The joke that you can't know less about a WW2 battleship than you do about WW2 doesn't work.

[Noradin]

He's referring to the 19th century German politician Bismark, not the WW2 battleship. The joke that you can't know less about a WW2 battleship than you do about WW2 doesn't work.

This is about Teleros personally, not about some statistical average, unless you want to imply that Teleros does not know how to use the word "I" in English sentences and whom it refers to? If so, my compliments

[AeneasBK]

He's referring to the 19th century German politician Bismark, not the WW2 battleship. The joke that you can't know less about a WW2 battleship than you do about WW2 doesn't work.

Really? Have you not had a coffee or did you jump into the thread on that post?

[caervek]

This is about Teleros personally, not about some statistical average, unless you want to imply that Teleros does not know how to use the word "I" in English sentences and whom it refers to? If so, my compliments

Wut?

Teleros said he knew less about Bismarck (the 19th century politician) than WW2 stuff, then Mormolyce assumed he meant the WW2 battleship Bismark and mocked him for claiming to know less about WW2 than he does about WW2. Like I said it doesn't work as that's not what he meant (and it's clear that's not what he meant as a previous post references Bismark the chancellor in full).

I understand some posters don't like other posters, but trying to roast the guy for a perceived mistake he never made doesn't work in this instance.

Really?

Yes, as above, read the thread.