Jump to content

Is This the Britain the D-Day Generation Fought to Save?


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You have read the first and the fifth amendments?

To be fair, they're not really applicable to the UK 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

Is it more special than other war graves?

No it is not.

 

It’s just like all the other British Forces War Graves, a monument to a man’s sacrifice that should be honored.

 

An example of a man who died for the freedoms everyone in the UK enjoys today.

 

Have a word with Proton about that.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

you forgot to say it rains more since we left the EU....🙄

It does metaphorically speaking, the national psyche is cold and wet, warmed only by football and 'big brother' or 'love island'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

It does metaphorically speaking, the national psyche is cold and wet, warmed only by football and 'big brother' or 'love island'

 

Don't forget Farage in hot and steamy Queensland.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parliament is sovereign. 

 

That's what the soldiers fought for above all. The freedom of British citizens to elect their own representatives and not serve a dictator. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, nauseus said:

treble post.

 

God I wish the soccer season would come back.

 

It hasn't gone away. Euros start next week. Then a month's break from actual matches but we'll have blanket coverage of the transfer window gossip and wheelings and dealings to ease the pain.

 

Anyway, what's wrong with watching the cricket?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

The way in which Heath treated the dominions and former colonies when we entered the EEC was a disgrace. They were ignored. We should have encouraged a better, closer working relationship with them rather than joining with Europe. 

Because those ex-colonies and the UK parted on such good terms? And the very fact that those colonies were mostly far from the UK geographically and economically underdeveloped, meant that they wouldn't have been all that useful as trading partners.

Edited by placeholder
  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Brexit was about controlling the borders in regards to legal immigration.

The U.K  allowing who it wants to enter in, rather than Brussels telling us who to let in . 

 

I (largely) agree, although I would point out that Brussels didn't tell us who we could let in, just who we couldn't exclude. When we were an EU member, the UK could have denied entry to all non-EU immigrants if it had wished.

 

The evidence to date suggests that the UK's new found total independence wrt immigration policy has been an abject failure.

 

The contrast between the UK government's approach to immigration since Brexit with the free movement of labour within the EU Single Market is stark. The former depends on a 'planned' approach, whereby numbers of immigrants are set - seemingly arbitrarily - in advance and is, paradoxically, reactive and always trying to play 'catch-up' with the demands of the economy. In contrast, the free movement of labour afforded by EU Single Market rules is dynamic and is able to adjust to the market's demands much more quickly.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Ohh look at how clever comrade Chomper is finding a gravestone of a muslim fighting on our side. The UK has been turned into a mutli cultural dustbin with so many millions pouring in since Blair opened the floodgates. Now houses and rents are unaffordable, NHS is on it's knees and some schools have to cope with 20 languages. Mr Din did not fight for the mess the Britain is in now. Vote reform.

 

Whatever the reasons, a significant number of Muslims fought and died for the Allies during WW2 (also in WW1) as did significant numbers of other non-Caucasians of various colours and/or faiths. Today, individuals of all faiths serve in the UK's armed forces.

 

I realise that these facts don't sit easily with the notion that all the UK's problems are due to immigration.

 

  • Sad 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

The 1975 referendum was allowed by Wilson, after the UK had already been ramrodded into the EEC by Heath. You are right, at the time this was still commonly sold in the UK as The Common Market, a ploy which largely successfully duped most of the people into thinking that this was essentially an economic alliance. But it weren't. were it? 

 

It is written into the Treaty of Rome that the EC/EEC/EU should seek "ever closer union". What form, and to what extent, that union is forged is obviously open to debate.

 

However, why should it be a surprise that the 'European entity' has evolved? In 1975, the EEC consisted of 9 countries. By 2013, the EU had grown to 28 members. The scope and rules governing the EEC in 1975 would not be fit for purpose for the EU in 2013 (2024).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, transam said:

Because they can't be shot, they cannot be turned around, the UK's hands are tied, sadly not the spongers in boats...:ermm:

They could be if it weren't for these stupid agreements with the EU!!!

As I said above "In this instance "gunboat diplomacy" would have been spot on!"

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

It is written into the Treaty of Rome that the EC/EEC/EU should seek "ever closer union". What form, and to what extent, that union is forged is obviously open to debate.

 

However, why should it be a surprise that the 'European entity' has evolved? In 1975, the EEC consisted of 9 countries. By 2013, the EU had grown to 28 members. The scope and rules governing the EEC in 1975 would not be fit for purpose for the EU in 2013 (2024).

 

The Treaty of Rome remains the primary reference of the EEC/EU and susequent treaties.

 

How many people do you think bothered to read all that before Heath signed us in?

 

 

England Prime Minister Edward Heath (C) signs the UK accession Treaty to the European Economic Community in Brussels on January 22, 1972.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, soalbundy said:

I understand that it's the UN charter to which the UK is a signatory which stipulates humanitarian help to refugees, the ECHR is merely upholding international law.

The UK has no trouble ignoring a heap of UN laws in a certain situation, so they should have no worries about ignoring that one as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The UK has no trouble ignoring a heap of UN laws in a certain situation, so they should have no worries about ignoring that one as well.

Yes they could do, they would be the first European country to do so and may set the ball rolling. In an ideal world there would be no need to flee ones own country but here we are. Eventually I can see lethal force being used when the effects of global warming accelerate and a human tide crashes on to northern shores around the world. Our planet needs an escape. Still when all is said and done we should be the last people complaining about foreigners coming to live in someone else's country, we too are a different colour from a different culture and religion and a different language and who show, for the most part, a lack of interest in integrating with the local population.

  • Love It 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...