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.

Yet the Remain camp gets away with speculating that had Great Britain not "started" the war with Germany (as repeatedly stated by you and Rufus), the US would have come to liberate Europe directly from across the Atlantic while a presumably neutral and passive Great Britain (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc) looked on from the sidelines.

Well... speculative history is inherently speculative, isn't it? Why are you linking one poster's theory to your idea of a homogeneous 'Remain camp'?

For my money, 'liberation' of Europe would probably largely have come from the same direction as it actually did for half the continent - from the direction of Moscow, assuming that Barbarossa would have happened if all other hostilities had ceased in 1940, and assuming that Germany would still have been so woefully unprepared for the Russian winter. There's also then the question of whether Hitler would have declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour had Britain not been a combatant and an Allied European theatre of the war.

So, balance of probabilities, I reckon the USSR would have 'liberated' much more of Europe and the balance of influence massively different.

Just as well Britain did the right thing, isn't it?

Oh I agree Jessy, declaring war on Germany totally was the right thing to do.

No one has implied otherwise other than the OP.

I know, Danny. Weird, isn't it? OP seems ashamed of the decision to declare war, and keen to deny that it happened.

Operation Torch was agreed and planned by the Allies in London in July 1942. The invasion fleet for Operation Torch was assembled in the Firth of Clyde (that's in Scotland btw). In October 1942, US aircraft carriers joined the invasion task force after first gathering and fuelling in from Bermuda (a British colony).The invasion of North Africa (starting on 10th November, 1942) involved HMS Malcolm and HMS Broke. IN 1942, "HMS" stood for for His Majesty's Ship. This means these ships were part of the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy is the sea defence force Great Britain. Durring Operation Torch, HMS Walney and HMS Hartland were attacked and sunk by the French. In Casablanca, the French battleship Jean Bart attacked the USS Massachusetts until it was put out if action by the Americans. On the 14th November, Operation Torch involved a seaborne landing by Britain's 36 Brigade at Bougie (100 miles east of Algiers). On 15th November, the British No 6 Commando and 3rd Parachute Battalion led a combined amphibious and airborne assault. US forces advancing on Algiers were led by Britain's Lt Gen Kenneth Anderson.

The success of Allied advances in North Africa prompted Churchill to say in November 1942, "This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"

According to you, Danny, a neutral Great Britain would have had zero involvement in Operation Torch. There could well be people reading this who had British loved ones killed in Operation Torch.

You say they were never needed. Have some fucking shame.

Today 00:53 JassyRadlett

"I know, Danny. Weird, isn't it? OP seems ashamed of the decision to declare war, and keen to deny that it happened."

Please use copy/paste to highlight when / where I have been either "ashamed" to declare war and "to deny that it happened"

Awww your implying that I'm smallfox?

Sorry not the case, she was far richer than me for a start, but its nice of you to think that I'm that clever.

Reported for Troll hunting.

Awww your implying that I'm smallfox?

No. It's not all about you Danny, believe it or not.

(*you're)

Ooops, Grammar police.

Its late, there's been wine, I'm not writing to academic standards on a talk board, its hardly the worst crime that goes on here. :)

Anyway, I don't see why YOU'RE siding with the OP here, her claims are really ridiculous, and definitely seem to be connected to the need to prove some kind of so far unidentified point.

Dannythechampion

Your words

"In a previous answer I also said that actually I felt that the Russians would have defeated the Germans, I think that the Russian presence in Europe would have compelled the US to act, along with the fac that Germany declared war on US, thus inviting the US into the European war as well as the Pacific."

You might want to research the October 24, 1940 conference in Berlin (after Germany's defeat in the Battle of Britain) aboard Hitler's armoured train when he desperately attempted to persuade Spain's Fascist General Franco to enter the war by invading Gibraltar. Franco refused. The French collaborator Petain also refused to attack the UK but added that he "hoped England would be defeated as soon as possible".

Hitler might never have turned his attention to the Eastern front had it not been for the Battle of Britain. In which case, we would have a Europe dominated by Germany, a conquered France and largely irrelevant Spain and Italy....
Wait....

Hitler always intended to turn his attention to the Eastern Front, he sets it out in Mein Kampf, the Lebensraum objective was always to have conquered the Western Half of Russia and the Caucuses.

Anyway, I don't see why YOU'RE siding with the OP here, her claims are really ridiculous, and definitely seem to be connected to the need to prove some kind of so far unidentified point.

I'm not 'siding' with anyone. It's not school. I'm not 12.

CopperRose
I am rather surprised by some of the Remain views here. But Rufus and Danny have amazed me...
*Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around, officially Britain started the war

Germany and Japan would have been defeated without us...by Russia and the US*

So we "officially / technically" started the war, but the deaths of 450,000 Britons were not needed anyway.

Again, that's you playing with the posts to fit an agenda, not what has actually been said.

Danny
Please quote a ridiculous claim I have made. Please cut and paste as I have done with actual words (not interpretations)

I have directly copied and pasted your own words.

" but the deaths of 450,000 Britons were not needed anyway."

This is a ridiculous claim.

You asked what would have happened had the UK not been in the war, and I said I thought that the Russians and Americans would have defeated the Japanese and Germans.

You have then gone on to make the claim above, which I didn't actually say or imply.

The whole "who started the war" thing is ridiculous, because the PPs are correct. The UK and France did declare war on Germany, not the other way around, the same PPs have said that Germany incited this by invading Poland, but you are clinging to little bits in order to suit some agenda you have.

You have repeatedly stated that Germany and Japan could have been defeated without Great Britain "starting" the war.

Many (perhaps especially those who lost loved ones) might find that crass, disrespectful and disrespectful.

My only agenda (now, not at the start of this thread), is further expose your true views and opinions (and of others who think this way).

Earlier up this thread, several Remainers called bullshit on the following:
*1. "Technically and factually" we started the war because the only (technical and factual) way to start war is by formal declaration.

1. British cities were not reduced to rubble in WW2
2. Great Britain (and I am guessing Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and all the Commonwealth troops that served alongside) were not needed anyway*

You seem hellbent on defending these "points" in the belief they support and will win support for the Remain position.

Danny you are wasting your time, the OP is not interested in remainers' views, just in picking a fight.

Trump esque distraction from the uncertainty of Brexit.

Speaking of foreign policy did Leavers see how much attention was made to Johnson's proposals on Syria.
None whatsoever because we have made ourselves insignificant.

We are the new Billy No Mates.

But it will be fine.

Figment, thank you for posting this link. Im posting it again as it should be read by both leavers and remainers and is a great insight into not only one view from Poland/UK, but also how damaging the EU model has been ...... even to those who 'appear' to have benefited.

Woman12345, you asked.."I want to know how Brexit Britain is going to work as a functioning solvent egalitarian democracy."

Clearly it isnt, whilst its within the EU. Indeed, its impossible, whilst its in the EU. Read this.

www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n08/james-meek/somerdale-to-skarbimierz

It's a big read and will require further attention to fully digest but a couple of initial observations...

Cadbury were the bad guys (not the EU) as they exploited the system heartlessly.

The EU 'realised the error of their ways' and closed the loophole. Too late for Somerdale unfortunately, but averting further abuse.

Thank goodness we've stopped talking about WW2.

Cupoftea, you need to read it. This isnt the red top rag inflaming well worn 'look what Cadburys did', its why didnt the beneficiaries, benefit? Why is Poland, having seemingly benefitted so much from flawed EU policy, instead of embracing left liberal politics, is following Orban and the Hungarians?

... and that is why some contend that the US were responsible for WW2 because of the Wall Street Crash and their subsequent policy failures domestically and internationally.

The positive for today is that the US pursued a debt fuelled expansionary policy post 2008 even in the face of UK and EU austerity policy. It continues to look to build on reflationary policies. The UK and the EU would be wise to follow suit but so far there is little sign that the politicians have got the message from the voters or the economic indicators.