Remainers - What do you want? When do you want it?

[optionalrationale]

We had the referendum, we had the legal challenge, we had the Supreme Court ruling, Article 50 has been triggered. The United Kingdom will no longer be part of the European Union.

So my questions to Remainers are
What do you want? When do you want it?

Here's what I want..

I want the negotiations to go well. I want future relations with our neighbours to be cordial. I want a good deal for UK and the EU. I want us to walk away if their demands are unacceptable (and stem from vindictiveness and to deter other members from following our lead). I want the UK to be free to make good trade deals with any country it wants. I want the UK to lead in creating a new model of trade without excessive interference in each partner's social and political arena.

"Britain had 420,000 military personnel killed in WW2 (I am not including the numbers from India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand in this figure).

France had 245,000 military killed."

Incorrect.

UK military personell deaths 383,600

Total civilian and military deaths: 450,700

French military Deaths: 217,600

Total civilian and military deaths: 567,600

I think you've attempted to add the civilian deaths to your total for the UK. Misuse of figures again, tut tut, seems to be a recurring habit amongst those that are pro leave.

It needs to be remembered that the French only fought in France and its invasion and the defeat of the Germans where as the UK fought in both the European war, the Pacific War, in which it lost 82,000 soldiers.

Then we need to include causalities lost in the North and East African campaigns.

I think overall we'd find that in the European war the UK lost about the same number of people as the French.

Misuse of facts and statistics does appear to be a recurring theme .

Danny This makes the 6 million murdered in the Holocaust, an even more startling figure. And the Russian losses of 20 million
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
It makes Russia's hatred of the EU even more understandable, if like extreme Brexiteers', mis conceived.

What is striking is the adherence to the "this Island Story" version of history and in particular the narrative of WW2 as the British as brave defenders of the cheese eating surrender monkey French. If you do not concur you are labelled an extremist and given a nice label to go with it. Who knew it was so easy to get into the extremist RMNW club? Given that both AJP Taylor and Niall Ferguson, so beloved of the Telegraph and Daily Fail, subscribe to the much more nuanced and mainstream analysis of the start of the war, characterised by, surprise, surprise, "muddled thinking" on the part of British politicians.

Presumably Ferguson will be joining us for these words?

For obvious reasons, we tend to think of the years from 1933 to 1939 in terms of the origins of the Second World War. The question we customarily ask is whether or not the Western powers could have done more to avert the war – whether or not the policy of appeasement towards Germany and Japan was a disastrous blunder. Yet this may be to reverse the order of events. Appeasement did not lead to war. It was war that led to appeasement. For the war did not begin, as we tend to think, in Poland in 1939. It began in Asia in 1937, if not in 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria. It began in Africa in 1935, when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia. It began in Western Europe in 1936, when Germany and Italy began helping Franco win the Spanish Civil War. It began in Eastern Europe in April 1939, with the Italian invasion of Albania. Contrary to the myth propagated by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg that he and his confederates were its only begetter, Hitler was a latecomer to the war. He achieved his foreign policy objectives prior to September 1939 without firing a shot. Nor was it his intention to start a world war at that date. The war that broke out then between Germany, France and Britain was nearly as much the fault of the Western powers, and indeed of Poland, as of Hitler, as A. J. P. Taylor contended forty-five years ago in The Origins of the Second World War.

That by the way was an extract from this www.amazon.co.uk/War-World-Historys-Age-Hatred/dp/0141013826?tag=mumsnetforum-21

In his book Empire he also makes the point that the dithering and failure to contain the rise of the Facists during the Second World war was the signal to Empire that the UK was a spent force and a boost to independence movements across the globe with the final signal of imperial impotence being Suez.

I do not necessarily agree with Ferguson, he is a bit of an attention seeker, but my point is that these viewpoints are very much mainstream currents in the thinking of historians trying to understand what really happened not some sign of hating your own country.

I do agree with Ferguson in that the 2nd world war is often defined by British and American viewers within a very narrow viewpoint. This allows both groups to over egg the role of each nation in the victories in Europe and the Pacific ( Although the US was the driving force in this, events in Europe greatly aided the victory, as well as events on the Manturian front).

Actually I think this viewpoint is one of the things which has clouded the judgement of many UK nationals toward the EU, and the media presentation of how the EU operates.

A poster on another thread, and some other leavers, have always denied that the EU or its predecessors have had any impact on maintaining peace in Europe, and always portray any decisions as "diktats" or the EU being undemocratic, both of which are incorrect. Yet it is this kind of language which links back to the British viewpoint of how the 2nd world war.

There is a lot of this viewpoint displayed in the arguments for leaving, as well as fundamental misunderstandings of how the EU works, and blaming it for national government decisions.

historians trying to understand what really happened
really interesting stuff ron, thanks, especially on the long burn that led to 1939 that you an Peregrina have referred to.

A bit of topic but, have you any thoughts on how China and Japan are really regarding US and NK military dick dangling atm? (As May's allegedly gone for a long walk and Trump is having another tax payer funded game of golf)

It's not totally off topic woman since the fact that up to 20m Chinese died in WW2, at least 4m soldiers and 11m civilians, along with levels of atrocity beyond the capability, possibly even the imaginations of the facists in Europe, does have a bearing on the way in which the current regime appear to be responding to the dick swinging. Do not google the Nanking massacre where up to 300,000 civilians were brutally raped and murdered unless you have a strong stomach.

Obviously it is opaque from the Chinese side but the level of enthusiasm on Trumps part for the encounter seems to suggests that Xi played him very cleverly.

www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2087518/10-minutes-xi-jinping-changed-donald-trumps-mind-north

Perhaps it was that Trump recognised that their approach to government has more in common than you might think, he is seeking to make America great with the same model of capitalism untrammelled by concerns about human rights and equality as Xi in his pursuit of the Chinese dream. www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2087354/trumps-america-first-and-xi-jinpings-china-first-how

The issue for the regime on the war mongering is that they are claiming the mandate not of Mao but of the Confucian sage emperors and that means that they have to be seen to pursue the course of stability which gains them the support of a people who saw so much war, death and trauma in the twentieth century and within living memory of anyone over 40. Any sort of war is going to have massive repercussions for neighbouring Chinese states and their regional leaders are apparently heavily involved in shaping policy. I suspect that is what is beneath this rhetoric for the home audience. They have to be seen to oppose war.

www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2087726/conflict-could-break-out-any-moment-over-north-korea

Social media in China is apparently broadly criticising Trump and the US for not leaving the issue to China to settle the issue by other means, that it is dangerous to goad a paranoid man. Today the Chinese government halted direct flights to North Korea which may well be a manifestation of more concerted pressure.

Trouble is it is actually two paranoid men facing off......

Thank you so much ron, fascinating. Trouble is it is actually two paranoid men facing off. I agree fools with military tools. And May's put us on one dangerous fool's team. Unbelievable.

I so wish right now Confucian wisdom was being delivered on twitter directly to those who need it the most.

^But there are few good diplomatic or economic options for the Trump administration.
The North is already under multiple sets of United Nations sanctions over its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, and appears to see these programmes as insurance against regime change.
Rattled by Trump’s behaviour, Beijing – Pyongyang’s sole major ally and economic lifeline – has adopted a tougher line against its neighbour, including suspending coal imports from the country for the remainder of the year^

In looking for hope, I found the above..... but goodness me, what times.

It's quite interesting how these "I voted remain but..." types are emerging just now. Perhaps for some the evidence of harm from Brexit is starting to make it a lot more uncomfortable to admit actually voting leave

This. In a year or two, polls on how people (claim to have) voted will show a majority for remain. Just like nearly three quarters of the population were initially in favour of the war in Iraq but nowadays no one will admit to it.

"Just like nearly three quarters of the population were initially in favour of the war in Iraq but nowadays no one will admit to it."

Oh god yes, no one ever admits to being in favour of Iraq or Afghanistan, being in opposition to them at the time drew the same points about not backing your country as not backing brexit does now.

OP is just trying to get a rise out of everyone. Best to ignore the goady fucker.
She lost the plot around about here: Wed 12-Apr-17 22:44:36 - with her despicable, xenophobic, oh-so-hilarious 'parody' of a french speaker and has gone from bad to jingoistic worse since then. Her insistence that Peregrina asserted that Britain started WW2 is particularly goady - she is clearly spoiling for an online spat.

Danny that we lost almost twice as many military as the French in World War 2

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#

Mistigri
I would have been an Extremely Reluctant Remainer and would have had to have a very big peg on my nose to vote that way (I know the EU is flawed by design but hey ho).

In the end I voted Leave becauss of people like Gisela Stuart who gave voice to many of my own concerns about the EU experiment. You CAN be left of centre, internationalist, progressive and still say "No thanks" to the institution of the EU.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-vote-leave-gisela-stuart-european-union-a6927761.html

I was also hugely put off by Project Fear, His Holiness Saint Sir Bob Geldof (Peace Be Upon Him), and the reality that the way Junkers had treated Cameron in 2015 would mean that the UK would have zero influence to change anything in the EU had we voted to Remain.

I am glad we will be out. If the EU wants to play hardball in the negotiations (to deter other potential leavers), we should be prepared to go for the Hardest of Hard Brexits (if that is what they push to).

We have what it takes to stand up to tyrants unlike France

I think the Euro is on the verge of collapse. When it does, I think there will be a lot more people in the camp of "Thank God, we're out of that mess. Let's make Brexit work and let's get on with it."

Quoting optionalrationale

You know I am actually really really glad that the thread has allowed the RMNW crowd to reveal their true colours. I actually started out as Reluctant Remainer but your attitudes here absolutely convince me I was right to change my mind.

I voted leave

Only one of these can be true. The rewriting of history has begun. Expect more of this as people realise how difficult brexit is going to be. I confidently predict that in two years it will be much harder to find people who admit to voting leave.

The EU won't play hardball. The EU will simply look out for itself. As it should. The British media will claim victim hood as it always does.

And Gisela Stuart is a turncoat coward. She claimed late last year that protecting EU citizens living in the U.K. should be protected. This year, did she vote to protect them? My arse.

Brexit is a shower of unworkeable shit enabled by opportunistic or cowardly politicians like good old Gisela.

And tyrants - what exactly do you mean by tyrants?

I suspect you have no idea of what a tyrant actually is. It means a cruel and oppressive ruler.

Could you tell us all about what cruelty and oppression you have suffered as a direct result of the UK being a member state of the EU?

If not, then stop talking rubbish and choose your vocabulary very carefully instead of opting for Express type nonsense.

Brexit is a shower of unworkeable shit enabled by opportunistic or cowardly politicians

This is actually the best definition of brexit that I have ever read .

"Danny that we lost almost twice as many military as the French in World War 2"

We fought on two fronts, as pointed out, they didn't. You're use of data earlier was still incorrect. They lost far many more civilians ( in which the resistance would have been counted) and combined deaths are far higher.

"The way Junkers had treated Cameron in 2015"

This is utter revisionism, the only thing Cameron didn't get when he went to renegotiate was an emergency break on immigration. He got changes to the benefits that EU immigrants can use, he got an exemption from even closer union ( although that doesn't mean what leavers want it to), the ability for national parliaments to challenge EU laws, protection for non EU countries ( which we already had anyway) and a few others.

Cameron got everything he wanted apart from being able to stop EU immigration, again painting this as poor treatment of Cameron, as many leavers do, is dishonest.

"I think the Euro is on the verge of collapse. When it does, I think there will be a lot more people in the camp of "Thank God, we're out of that mess. Let's make Brexit work and let's get on with it.""

The Euro won't collapse, but if it did the fall out from it, which we would not have been responsible for helping out for, would be catastrophic for the UK.

All of the above shows dramatically how much you really know what you are talking about.

At the risk of entering Le Pen territory, according to wiki the French war dead numbers include those fighting on both sides. You could of course look at German casualty numbers ....

Also worth comparing actual troop numbers who didn't end up dead. Some 18 m UK citizens served including 4 of my Uncles who all came back alive.

The whole conversation played out from a France / British perspective starts to look pretty tasteless pretty quickly in the context of Poland losing over 25% of its population.

No idea how this relates to a thread about what former Remainers want.

It came from a discussion regarding the UK attitude to Europe and the fact that it might have been shaped by the fact that it wasn't occupied.

The OP then started to spout false facts, to which others pulled her up on.

Not to mention the manifestation of an attitude towards the French that appears to derive from watching too many episodes of 'allo 'allo not the best foundation for diplomatic and trade relations with our neighbour

I fully believe that most leavers are as intelligent as most remainers and both voted in what they thought was the best way for the country

I have never called a remainer or leaver stupid

But even my 13 year old knows that we 'started' the war

We declared war on germany...thats how it works the country that declares war 'starts' it

Under extreme provocation? Perhaps.
Because it was the right thing to do? Perhaps.
Cos they wouldnt have stopped with Europe mainland? Perhaps.

But we 'started' it

And yes i love my country

No i dont despise it

Agree with misti at 07.22

Its going to look like fucking woodstock on here in a year

Everyone will have voted remain

I do like that fawlty towers episode

Fawlty : you started it

German : not we didnt

Fawlty : yes you did, you invaded poland

Everyone will have voted remain

I disagree. We have already seen, and will continue to see, that there is not one single occurrence of an even vaguely negative nature that will be laid at Brexit's door - anything that cannot somehow be construed in a positive light will a priori be made up or would have happened anyway or the fault of somebody else...

By definition, there is not and will never be any reason to regret Brexit because only positive outcomes, which can be redefined at will, are allowable.