Scotland to leave the UK?

[iBender]

Really? I just like to remind the French we 'my country' liberated them 'their country' and the Euro is great but Pounds are cool, and are also great. I actually have NO idea at all what would happen to the Euro if the economy of the Pound transfered to the Euro.

 

[Count Zero]

Firstly, {Emilia} isn't French. Secondly, you weren't the only people involved. Without the help of the USA and the Soviet Union things would have looked very differently. Thirdly, ever heard of the Résistance?
You keep spouting all this nonsense about what France is supposedly about despite numerous attempts by various people to educate you on the subject, you're mightily condescending just because you happened to be born in the UK while others weren't. It's pretty unaldutered jingoism if you look at it, then you pretend to be a nice guy. It's very obvious what you're trying to do here, I think.

 

[Trilliam]

Oi, don't forget the rest of the (now) Commonwealth countries who sent their servicemen to fight in at part of the world.

 

[iBender]

Yes, yes they did, that was cool.

Thank you Commonwealth. When our King/Queen calls, you come to defend. - That bond is pretty cool, I think, in London, a place damaged much in WW2. - If it wasn't for the Common Wealth, we'd still be in ruins, so that's always been the lifeline of my country.

 

[{ Emilia }]

And you're suggesting to ignore the rights of the majority. That totally makes sense, too!

/irony

The rights of minorties is a smart thing, the rights of the majority spells trouble.

Now you are lecturing me about minority rights and pluralistic democracies?
I know very well that minority rights should be protected but suggesting to ignore a possible majority (of Scots wanting to leave the UK or whatever) just because the minority happens to be of your opinion is (mildly) amusing.

majority who never forgave GBR for helping liberate France...

Come on, will you stop this already? Are you one of those Brits who are still pissed because it took Germany (and Central Europe in general) only about 15 years to surpass the British economy after WW2 because their economic growth rates were double that of the UK?
Damn those pesky mainland Europeans for actually agreeing to work together and for forming a successful economic community that gave them an advantage in trade among each other and eventually created a common market while the Brits were still living their delusions of grandeur grooming their "Empire" and trading with unprofitable colonies.
So yeah, I guess it sucked (for you) that de Gaulle veto'd the British entry into the EU (twice) but since when do you even recognize that Britain needs the EU? Does de Gaulle still upset you so much?

Oh, and news flash: The Soviets did more to defeat Germany in WW2 than Britain and the US combined I'd say.

 

[Myasishchev]

Depends what you mean by 'obligations' there. It's not like the President of Turkey is the caliph of the Sunni world, but then, secular republic, goes with the territory.

I just meant if they were a successor to the OE in a legal sense. Common sense would dictate they were, but it was a profoundly different regime.

I had to look it up: there is not currently anyone who claims the title of caliph. I figured the Sauds would if no one else.

I don't want that either. There are areas where I would support further integration, but I don't want Europe to become one like the US. Why would I want to become part of an organisation that would attack us if we tried to leave? The EU works by finding consensus between all nations, which is difficult, inefficient and often weak, but it's better than imposing the will of people far away onto people with a different culture.

The cultural difference is, relatively speaking, rather small. We're not talking the 51st state of Iraq or the 28th member state of Russia. And it'll only get smaller--probably. "Our" (by which I mean "other people's, who happen to outvote me") economic values seem to be somewhat inimical to European ones. And obviously I get very hyperbolic when a European nation does something horribly anti-human, like the France thing. But it's like 95% the same values.

 

[iBender]

And you're suggesting to ignore the rights of the majority. That totally makes sense, too!

/irony

The rights of minorties is a smart thing, the rights of the majority spells trouble.

Now you are lecturing me about minority rights and pluralistic democracies?
I know very well that minority rights should be protected but suggesting to ignore a possible majority (of Scots wanting to leave the UK or whatever) just because the minority happens to be of your opinion is (mildly) amusing.

majority who never forgave GBR for helping liberate France...

Come on, will you stop this already? Are you one of those Brits who are still pissed because it took Germany (and Central Europe in general) only about 15 years to surpass the British economy after WW2 because their economic growth rates were double that of the UK?
Damn those pesky mainland Europeans for actually agreeing to work together and for forming a successful economic community that gave them an advantage in trade among each other and eventually created a common market while the Brits were still living their delusions of grandeur grooming their "Empire" and trading with unprofitable colonies.
So yeah, I guess it sucked (for you) that de Gaulle veto'd the British entry into the EU (twice) but since when do you even recognize that Britain needs the EU? Does de Gaulle still upset you so much?

Oh, and news flash: The Soviets did more to defeat Germany in WW2 than Britain and the US combined I'd say.

France upset me, they talk to Germany and the Brits saved them, sure, it was great that France and Germany could work together but Charles de Gaulle was rude, and French, to veto someone because he hates them because they saved France when asked not to is just stupid. Also, the only reason I can think of for any Anti-Angloness in Europe is the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that the UK imposed on France and Spain for peace in the wars for the colonies.

 

[Kegg]

I just meant if they were a successor to the OE in a legal sense. Common sense would dictate they were, but it was a profoundly different regime.

They are, per the treaty of Lausanne in '24, which was amending the less-favourable treaty agreed to by the Ottomans a few years prior.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Anti-Angloness in Europe

I'm pretty sure there's more Anti-Europeanism in Britain than there is "Anti-Angloness in Europe".

In fact, actually I don't know anybody who's seriously "anti-english".
I like to joke about your crappy food, shitty weather and horrible taste of fashion (well, I state facts ofc) but in the end you Brits are probably just as cute and fluffy as we are.

 

[iBender]

Not really, I'm just opionated, I'm not even Anti-European, infact, I am European... I just know anti-Anglo when I see it.

 

[iguana_tonante]

It's very obvious what you're trying to do here, I think.

Yeah. It was amusing at first, but now it's getting stale. He should get newer material, or at least change his shtich a little. He's not even trying anymore.

 

[Count Zero]

The French veto against the UK had nothing to do with de Gaulle hating the UK. That's a view point almost stupefying in its naiveté. They did it because they feared undue US influence due to Britain's 'special relationship' and because they wanted to maintain their hegemony in Western Europe. Had they known that the UK would actually leave the field to them and Germany anyway, they probably would have said yes at once.

 

[Myasishchev]

I just meant if they were a successor to the OE in a legal sense. Common sense would dictate they were, but it was a profoundly different regime.

They are, per the treaty of Lausanne in '24, which was amending the less-favourable treaty agreed to by the rump Ottoman Empire a few years prior.

Neat.

Oh, and news flash: The Soviets did more to defeat Germany in WW2 than Britain and the US combined I'd say.

True. The Western Allies helped, but the USSR would have won on its own. Our main contribution was keeping Soviet lives lost down, ending the war a bit earlier, and keeping Soviet domination from extending to the Channel, although it's difficult to say if they could have held on to France in 1945. Probably not.

We can still feel good about shouldering nearly the entire burden of the Pacific War, with assistance from the Commonwealth. Although to be fair, the French contributed the Richelieu and the beginnings of American involvement in Vietnam. Thanks, France!

 

[iBender]

The French veto against the UK had nothing to do with de Gaulle hating the UK. That's a view point almost stupefying in its naiveté. They did it because they feared undue US influence due to Britain's 'special relationship' and because they wanted to maintain their hegemony in Western Europe. Had they known that the UK would actually leave the field to them and Germany anyway, they probably would have said yes at once.

Yes, I remember hearing about that, his reason was something like
'The UK isn't Europe enough for Europe.' - if he would have said that in 2011, he would have been labeled a racist.

He thought we were Washington's puppet, or something, there was a reason to his anti UK logic.

 

[{ Emilia }]

He thought we were Washington's puppet,

Oh, that's just asking for it.

It's poodle, not puppet.

 

[iBender]

Racist! Hehe!

Although I could see why someone would make that.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Racist! Hehe!

What's racist about depicting Tony Blair as a poodle?

 

[iBender]

No, for depicting Bush as the master... True or whatever, that's racist! You may aswell call us the Monkey and them the Organ Grinder.

 

[RJDiogenes]

And in your world ignoring the Rights of the minority is making sense? Yeah, sure, let's just write off a few thousand or million US citizens. No problem.

And you're suggesting to ignore the rights of the majority. That totally makes sense, too!

/irony

Not even close. Here's a thought: read the posts that you're responding to.

And in your world ignoring the Rights of the minority is making sense? Yeah, sure, let's just write off a few thousand or million US citizens. No problem.

But that's what being out-voted means. Happens every election. The candidates with the MOST votes, wins.

Indeed. I think I discussed this above thread, dual citizenship with the option of repatriation - or, if the minority are concentrated in a given geographic area, containing those in that area on the American side.

Actually, it's what I said about five pages ago. That's what addressing the Rights of the minority means.

In either case, the violation of one's human rights isn't really at issue. Not winning in the polls isn't the same thing as having one's personal dress regulated

I would say that having one's country voted out from under you is a Human Rights issue all by itself-- not even taking into consideration what the laws may be like in the new country.

 

[Shaytan]

They said it offended them, to see women oppressed by their faith

How silly of us

France upset me, they talk to Germany

How rude of us
So, "you"'re not our friend anymore ?

and the Brits saved them,

Especially when you ran away from Dunkerque, that was glorious.

but Charles de Gaulle was rude,

He ate with his fingers at official dinners, the little sagouin.

(this thread is silly)