|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On May 05 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2017 02:14 Ghostcom wrote:On May 05 2017 02:06 KwarK wrote:On May 05 2017 01:51 Ghostcom wrote:
EDIT: Are you aware that you are incredibly annoying to discuss anything with? I'm never quite able to tell whether you consider everyone else an idiot or if you actually do think we are all about 5 years old who need the most obvious shit explained on a step by step basis. I get your argument. I got it from the very first post of yours. What you are arguing (Why London initially rose to importance) is just not really a relevant response to what I posted (Access to single market was one of the important benefits of having a subsidiary in London for third-country firms). When you make claims like that London in 1945 was a shadow of its earlier self, as if World War II wasn't the single greatest exercise in acquisition, coordination and transportation of resources in the history of civilization and as if London wasn't the hub that the majority of that logistical operation was conducted from then I'm somewhat forced to correct you. WWII was London's Swansong. If you feel like sometimes I talk to you like you need simple things explained to you then I'm sorry, sometimes it feels like you need simple things explained to you. But if you hadn't said the thing that was very wrong then I wouldn't be here trying to tell you why it was so wrong. Maybe, if I didn't have to spend 90% of my post on correcting your complete and utter lack of reading comprehension, I could spend more time on expanding what I mean by a secondary sentence in a parenthesis in a way which would satisfy you. I'm sorry, but if you were actually able to read a 10 line post without getting nearly every argument presented in it wrong, then I wouldn't have to spend the next posts explaining to you. EDIT: For example, I never stated anything concerning London in 1945. I stated something about the state of the British Empire in 1945. There is an important difference, but again your reading comprehension barely rivals that of a 2.nd grader so of course you would miss it. Talk about getting the simple things wrong. But I guess nearly going bankrupt in 1946 was an excellent example of the pinnacle of the British dominance? The "bankruptcy" of 1946 was the United States presenting a bill for the material used in the war, to be paid either in dollars or bullion, and Britain agreeing to a financing arrangement due to only having stirling on hand. And for what it's worth, the bill and the interest on the bill, were paid in full. As for the state of the empire in 1946, yes, it was in a pretty solid shape. It was doomed because a commitment had been made at the signing of the first Atlantic charter to end the empire trade agreements that locked the empire in to trade with the United Kingdom. American intervention in the Second World War was conditional on the end of British global trade hegemony through the doctrine of free trade. That had yet to take effect, 1946 still saw all of the benefits of empire, compounded by the necessities of war. You're projecting backwards again.
So in 1946, following the emergence of 2 new superpowers, UK (which was no longer a superpower) yielded more influence than when it was the sole superpower?
|
United States42738 Posts
On May 05 2017 02:36 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:On May 05 2017 02:14 Ghostcom wrote:On May 05 2017 02:06 KwarK wrote:On May 05 2017 01:51 Ghostcom wrote:
EDIT: Are you aware that you are incredibly annoying to discuss anything with? I'm never quite able to tell whether you consider everyone else an idiot or if you actually do think we are all about 5 years old who need the most obvious shit explained on a step by step basis. I get your argument. I got it from the very first post of yours. What you are arguing (Why London initially rose to importance) is just not really a relevant response to what I posted (Access to single market was one of the important benefits of having a subsidiary in London for third-country firms). When you make claims like that London in 1945 was a shadow of its earlier self, as if World War II wasn't the single greatest exercise in acquisition, coordination and transportation of resources in the history of civilization and as if London wasn't the hub that the majority of that logistical operation was conducted from then I'm somewhat forced to correct you. WWII was London's Swansong. If you feel like sometimes I talk to you like you need simple things explained to you then I'm sorry, sometimes it feels like you need simple things explained to you. But if you hadn't said the thing that was very wrong then I wouldn't be here trying to tell you why it was so wrong. Maybe, if I didn't have to spend 90% of my post on correcting your complete and utter lack of reading comprehension, I could spend more time on expanding what I mean by a secondary sentence in a parenthesis in a way which would satisfy you. I'm sorry, but if you were actually able to read a 10 line post without getting nearly every argument presented in it wrong, then I wouldn't have to spend the next posts explaining to you. EDIT: For example, I never stated anything concerning London in 1945. I stated something about the state of the British Empire in 1945. There is an important difference, but again your reading comprehension barely rivals that of a 2.nd grader so of course you would miss it. Talk about getting the simple things wrong. But I guess nearly going bankrupt in 1946 was an excellent example of the pinnacle of the British dominance? The "bankruptcy" of 1946 was the United States presenting a bill for the material used in the war, to be paid either in dollars or bullion, and Britain agreeing to a financing arrangement due to only having stirling on hand. And for what it's worth, the bill and the interest on the bill, were paid in full. As for the state of the empire in 1946, yes, it was in a pretty solid shape. It was doomed because a commitment had been made at the signing of the first Atlantic charter to end the empire trade agreements that locked the empire in to trade with the United Kingdom. American intervention in the Second World War was conditional on the end of British global trade hegemony through the doctrine of free trade. That had yet to take effect, 1946 still saw all of the benefits of empire, compounded by the necessities of war. You're projecting backwards again. So in 1946, following the emergence of 2 new superpowers, UK (which was no longer a superpower) yielded more influence than when it was the sole superpower?
Influence is a relative game. I addressed the difference between the relative and absolute regarding London already. You can scroll up to see my response on that.
I would also argue that the use of the word superpower is misleading. At no point was the UK a superpower. It was the premier imperial power but that doesn't imply superpower status.
|
On May 05 2017 02:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2017 02:36 Ghostcom wrote:On May 05 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:On May 05 2017 02:14 Ghostcom wrote:On May 05 2017 02:06 KwarK wrote:On May 05 2017 01:51 Ghostcom wrote:
EDIT: Are you aware that you are incredibly annoying to discuss anything with? I'm never quite able to tell whether you consider everyone else an idiot or if you actually do think we are all about 5 years old who need the most obvious shit explained on a step by step basis. I get your argument. I got it from the very first post of yours. What you are arguing (Why London initially rose to importance) is just not really a relevant response to what I posted (Access to single market was one of the important benefits of having a subsidiary in London for third-country firms). When you make claims like that London in 1945 was a shadow of its earlier self, as if World War II wasn't the single greatest exercise in acquisition, coordination and transportation of resources in the history of civilization and as if London wasn't the hub that the majority of that logistical operation was conducted from then I'm somewhat forced to correct you. WWII was London's Swansong. If you feel like sometimes I talk to you like you need simple things explained to you then I'm sorry, sometimes it feels like you need simple things explained to you. But if you hadn't said the thing that was very wrong then I wouldn't be here trying to tell you why it was so wrong. Maybe, if I didn't have to spend 90% of my post on correcting your complete and utter lack of reading comprehension, I could spend more time on expanding what I mean by a secondary sentence in a parenthesis in a way which would satisfy you. I'm sorry, but if you were actually able to read a 10 line post without getting nearly every argument presented in it wrong, then I wouldn't have to spend the next posts explaining to you. EDIT: For example, I never stated anything concerning London in 1945. I stated something about the state of the British Empire in 1945. There is an important difference, but again your reading comprehension barely rivals that of a 2.nd grader so of course you would miss it. Talk about getting the simple things wrong. But I guess nearly going bankrupt in 1946 was an excellent example of the pinnacle of the British dominance? The "bankruptcy" of 1946 was the United States presenting a bill for the material used in the war, to be paid either in dollars or bullion, and Britain agreeing to a financing arrangement due to only having stirling on hand. And for what it's worth, the bill and the interest on the bill, were paid in full. As for the state of the empire in 1946, yes, it was in a pretty solid shape. It was doomed because a commitment had been made at the signing of the first Atlantic charter to end the empire trade agreements that locked the empire in to trade with the United Kingdom. American intervention in the Second World War was conditional on the end of British global trade hegemony through the doctrine of free trade. That had yet to take effect, 1946 still saw all of the benefits of empire, compounded by the necessities of war. You're projecting backwards again. So in 1946, following the emergence of 2 new superpowers, UK (which was no longer a superpower) yielded more influence than when it was the sole superpower? Influence is a relative game. I addressed the difference between the relative and absolute regarding London already. You can scroll up to see my response on that. I would also argue that the use of the word superpower is misleading. At no point was the UK a superpower. It was the premier imperial power but that doesn't imply superpower status.
I never talked about London when I was discussing influence though - I always talked UK. Further, I was always talking on the relative scale which to me seems fairly obvious from my posting. I'll concede I could have spelled it our slightly clearer, but at the same time - it was a secondary sentence inside a parenthesis which was only tangentially related to the argument - maybe you could have cut me some slack for not including a minor thesis on the exact state of post-WWII UK when it was unimportant for the actual argument being made to avoid cluttering up the post?
Superpower here was obviously used colloquially as UK was indeed never a superpower. The term was after all invented to describe USA/USSR and had not seen use earlier.
|
Why is most peoples favourite topic to bring up in this thread British imperialism?
|
On May 05 2017 03:13 Zaros wrote:
Why is most peoples favourite topic to bring up in this thread British imperialism?
Ask Kwark. He is the one that usually brings it up. To be fair though: it is integral to the influence and politics of modern day UK. Similarly, you can't really understand France + Show Spoiler +I almost ended the sentence here 
|
|
|
On May 04 2017 15:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 14:33 RvB wrote:On May 04 2017 07:22 LegalLord wrote:On May 04 2017 04:00 RvB wrote:
Anyway you guys are reading way too much into this. The tough language from both the EU and May is posturing before the negotiations. At the end of the day it's Barnier and his British counterpart doing the actual negotiations. I thought so 2-3 phases of the negotiations ago. At this point it's clear that the consensus favors a hardliner position from the EU so we might just get a "buy-in to negotiations" deal after all. There's nothing hardline about a Brexit bill. Settling assets and liabilities is how every divorce works. Or do you think that in the case of Scotland leaving the UK they wouldn't be taking part of the national debt with them? The marriage contract in this case is very much different than the EU treaty. Both sides don't just divide their stuff and leave, the island/continent stays and the trade profit motive remains. I'm a little surprised you think Scotland would get stuck with any kind of bill amounting to "a part of the national debt," for that matter.
I don't really see any difference between another divorce except for complexity. They were together with other countries in the EU, the EU has assets and liabilities and now that they're leaving they're going to divide them. How the division will go is up for negotiation. Whether there's a trade profit is irrelevant.
So you don't think Scotland would take over part of the national debt of the UK? You think Scotland would start with a clean sheet of 0% debt and the rest of the UK would just take it all over? Whether you do it in the form of a bill like now or simply taking over a part of the liabilities is semantics.
On May 04 2017 22:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 21:37 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2017 21:03 Reaps wrote:
Yea was wondering same thing.. what relevance does "needing American help in ww2" have to do with what Kwark said. It's the kind of comment i expect from Mythical, "England sucks, where i come from is better so take that!". If I am to guess based on reading rather heavily between the lines the WW2 comment likely stems from a "if you truly were as dominant as you think, then why did you need the Americans to defeat Germany?" thought-process. However, disregard all that, the post still has a point in that London wouldn't have been this prosperous today without EU making it the de facto entry into EU (firms have to have a branch within the single market to conduct business) and allocating it important regulatory institutes such as EMA and EBA. You have to be a special kind of delusional to think that London did not hugely benefit from EU and would've turned out the same because of some kind of special British dominance (which after WW2 was frankly only a shadow of it former self if not downright non-existent by comparison). Following Brexit London is no longer within the single market and thus all the third-country firms have to establish a new subsidiary within the single-market (likely Frankfurt or Paris) if they still want access (which they do). There is obviously no direct cost for the UK involved in this. However, the question is whether or not the London affiliation is going to hold the same power as it used to (having a European HQ in London is nonsensical if London can't give access to the EU market). The opinions seem to be divided on this topic based on what I can read - mostly because no one is certain what the negotiations will lead to. The United States is part of the Anglosphere. In this case the child has vastly outgrown the parent but you can't deny that London benefits from the economic, cultural and social ties with the United States and that being the European Nexus of trade with the New World greatly boosted the importance of London. Who would win in a fight between the US and UK isn't at all relevant to whether London only exists as a trade hub because of the EU. Surely you can all see the irony of a collection of people from around the world arguing on the forum of a Dutch clan about whether the English dominated the modern world in English. It's not just a favour the EU granted us to be friendly, it's the historical reality that the Anglosphere currently dominates the world and has for some time. Financial hubs aren't created, they grow in a positive feedback loop. Clients bring banks, banks bring clients, clients bring more banks. Businesses need access to accounting firms and accounting firms need business and nowhere was this feedback loop stronger than in London, the hub of the global economy from before there was a global economy. The days of Empire are over but one cannot simply declare an alternate hub and make it so. Given enough time London will probably fade and others will grow but the EU certainly did not make London a financial centre. London made London and defined the very concept of a financial centre around itself.
While you're right that London did benefit from being an economic cluster your historical argument misses a lot of important factors which made London one of the biggest financial centres in the world. The BoEs relatively light regulation in the 60s and 70s and more importantly Thatchers reforms (deregulation) in the 80s (the big bang) is what made the City the primary financial center in Europe and the world. Especially the securities market blew up after the big bang. Being a member of the EU is of course an added benefit.
If history was so important we wouldn't be seeing Hong Kong and Singapore having such prominent places in Finance.
I agree with you though that the role of the EU is overrated. Access to the EU didn't make London a financial centre.
|
When you consider that Hong Kong and Singapore were British ports you get the impression that history is actually rather important after all.
I'm curious - if Greece leaves the EU are the EU going to demand that Greece continue to take their money for the next decade?
|
History has a role but there are other more important factors. The development of Singapore came after they gained independence of Britain and Hong Kong gained a lot of its promininence as a financial centre due to the close links to China. Anyway I could've used other examples like Shenzen.
I think the principle of settling assets and liabilities in the case of a country leaving should be applied to every country equally yes.
|
On your first point: I can think of somewhere with closer links to China. It's called China :D. I don't think there is any coincidence in the top four financial centres all being influenced by British culture.
As for the second, fair enough, but I can't see that happening. You seem to genuinely believe that the EU is acting in good faith at the moment and not just trying to get whatever money they can, which is what I see. That is to be expected in fairness, but couching their 'demands' in threat is just silly.
|
General election aside because it's obvious May talks tough for that reason, I think May was never a supporter of staying in the EU anyway. She was a silent one during referendum.
It's funny to see May act like the UK has nothing to lose from Brexit. Unfortunately, the UK has a lot to lose (free trade with a large number of European countries), while the EU can replace the UK as a trading partner quite easily. On the other hand, being on either side (the EU and the UK) at the moment is a stupid position. If I were British, I'd ask May and the EU to tone it down because there are no winners if they keep up. If they don't do so now, hopefully they do it after general election.
|
On May 05 2017 06:37 Shield wrote:
General election aside because it's obvious May talks tough for that reason, I think May was never a supporter of staying in the EU anyway. She was a silent one during referendum.
It's funny to see May act like the UK has nothing to lose from Brexit. Unfortunately, the UK has a lot to lose (free trade with a large number of European countries), while the EU can replace the UK as a trading partner quite easily. On the other hand, being on either side (the EU and the UK) at the moment is a stupid position. If I were British, I'd ask May and the EU to tone it down because there are no winners if they keep up. If they don't do so now, hopefully they do it after general election.
You say it can replace the UK quickly but it cant. The EU spends years even decades trying to sign trade deals to no avail, yet tiny iceland and switzerland can sign them quickly with a giant like China. UK will have signed a dozen trade deals probably before the EU can sign one new one.
|
On May 05 2017 06:48 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2017 06:37 Shield wrote:
General election aside because it's obvious May talks tough for that reason, I think May was never a supporter of staying in the EU anyway. She was a silent one during referendum.
It's funny to see May act like the UK has nothing to lose from Brexit. Unfortunately, the UK has a lot to lose (free trade with a large number of European countries), while the EU can replace the UK as a trading partner quite easily. On the other hand, being on either side (the EU and the UK) at the moment is a stupid position. If I were British, I'd ask May and the EU to tone it down because there are no winners if they keep up. If they don't do so now, hopefully they do it after general election. You say it can replace the UK quickly but it cant. The EU spends years even decades trying to sign trade deals to no avail, yet tiny iceland and switzerland can sign them quickly with a giant like China. UK will have signed a dozen trade deals probably before the EU can sign one new one.
The question is how favourable deals the UK can sign outside the EU. At the moment, it's just pure fantasy. Only time can tell. Anyone else claiming otherwise talks bullshit in my opinion.
|
On May 05 2017 06:48 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2017 06:37 Shield wrote:
General election aside because it's obvious May talks tough for that reason, I think May was never a supporter of staying in the EU anyway. She was a silent one during referendum.
It's funny to see May act like the UK has nothing to lose from Brexit. Unfortunately, the UK has a lot to lose (free trade with a large number of European countries), while the EU can replace the UK as a trading partner quite easily. On the other hand, being on either side (the EU and the UK) at the moment is a stupid position. If I were British, I'd ask May and the EU to tone it down because there are no winners if they keep up. If they don't do so now, hopefully they do it after general election. You say it can replace the UK quickly but it cant. The EU spends years even decades trying to sign trade deals to no avail, yet tiny iceland and switzerland can sign them quickly with a giant like China. UK will have signed a dozen trade deals probably before the EU can sign one new one.
This is false. EU is in fact one of the quickest (and arguably best) institutions to negotiate trade deals. The Swiss trade deal you are referencing gave China immediate access as the Swiss agreed to remove tariffs on all things covered instantly while the Swiss had to wait years - up to 15 in some cases for the reverse to be true. Below is a quick link on EU trade deals and their importance for UK:
http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/uk-and-the-european-union/eu-business-facts/10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf/
EDIT: It seems fairly certain that UK in fact lacks skilled labour for such negotiations. Just take the words of Sir Ivan Rogers (former UK diplomat in EU)
Implying that civil servants or politicians in London were trying to take over the Brexit talks, and the structure of the UK negotiating team needs “rapid resolution”, he said “multilateral negotiating experience is in short supply in Whitehall, and that is not the case in the [European] Commission or in the Council”.
Source
Or the fact that UK is currently trying to recruit negotiators from the rest of the commonwealth:
www.telegraph.co.uk
|
|
|
I find it hilarious that May calls for an election to influence the Brexit negotiations, and then she claims that the European Commission is influencing her election.
On May 05 2017 03:13 Zaros wrote:
Why is most peoples favourite topic to bring up in this thread British imperialism?
It is a disease that is still affecting the well-being of the common people in the UK. The quicker it gets cured, the better for everyone. But it seems to be really persistent, this dream of empire.
|
United States42738 Posts
On May 05 2017 07:44 Othryoneus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2017 03:13 Zaros wrote:
Why is most peoples favourite topic to bring up in this thread British imperialism? It is a disease that is still affecting the well-being of the common people in the UK. The quicker it gets cured, the better for everyone. But it seems to be really persistent, this dream of empire.
Nobody thinks that Britain still has an empire and nobody (not even Farage) is about to try and retake India. But when an angry Irishman decides to demonstrate his total ignorance of history and insist that London was nothing before the EU it's sometimes necessary to point out that it's not a coincidence that the language he's ranting in is called English. The cure for imperialism is not cutting all of those pages out of the history books.
|
|
|
Biggest thing for me is that the Lib Dems lost seats. Would be nice to finally see an end of the Remain campaign soon.
|
On May 05 2017 22:37 bardtown wrote:
Biggest thing for me is that the Lib Dems lost seats. Would be nice to finally see an end of the Remain campaign soon.
I take it they've moved onto the softer versions of Soft Brexit to comply with the state of affairs after Article 50 and the lack of popular support from people who've moved on. I've heard some of them talk who support 90% of EU membership obligations and benefits, with increased layouts because their countrymen were dumb enough to vote out in the first place and there has to be a consequence for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
