NationStates

Thatcher didn't throw the country down the toilet?

That'd be news to people in the mining areas.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Olerand wrote:And Theresa May will be their new ambassador? Is that a tradition in Britain? PMs becoming ambassadors for Weetabix? Or is that a dig at how irrelevant she is?

Oh man its a huge tradition, going all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta.

Well, there's an apocryphal story that it comes from a leading baron spilling milk mid-cereal-chew on an early version that was marginally more favourable to King John, leading to the Archbishop redrafting on a fresh piece of vellum to avoid lingering smells. This is supposedly the root of the common association between cereal and parliamentary democracy.

This is, in my opinion, likely to be a case of history being back-written to explain traditions whose origins have become obscure over time.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Olerand wrote:And Theresa May will be their new ambassador? Is that a tradition in Britain? PMs becoming ambassadors for Weetabix? Or is that a dig at how irrelevant she is?

Oh man its a huge tradition, going all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta.

That's lovely. A very English thing to do.

Hrythingia wrote:

Olerand wrote:Weetabix is... cereal?


Oh Britain...

Though, if one thinks that the only good British PMs of the entire 20th and 21st centuries were Winston Churchill... And Margaret Thatcher then I guess no other opinion should be expected.

But they were. I mean they had faults but at least had a backbone and tried to put our country in the right direction. All the Labour PMs did was chuck the nation down the shitter. Deliberately and consistently. Heath was a treacherous bastard, Eden, MacMillan and Home seemed like decent chaps but didn’t really do much apart from cause greater ruin to our overseas reputation.

My original comment still stands. In fact, it is reinforced.

EDIT: I also notice Attlee is left out. Is that because you recognize that he was good, as most British historians do, or?

Eastfield Lodge wrote:

Olerand wrote:And Theresa May will be their new ambassador? Is that a tradition in Britain? PMs becoming ambassadors for Weetabix? Or is that a dig at how irrelevant she is?

No, it's a jab at how former PMs and cabinet ministers take up well-paid consultancy roles after they leave office. In May's case, Weetabix is a jab at her naughtiest moment as a child being "running through fields of wheat" (which Weetabix are made of).

Ah, yes, I remember that. Still, it's cute.

Them english are weird bais.

Vassenor wrote:Thatcher didn't throw the country down the toilet?

That'd be news to people in the mining areas.

Oh, no one’s denying she didn’t cock up there, merely the ruin imposed on this country was greater under Labour, on many fronts and not just economic.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Them english are weird bais.

Bais: "a yellow mist occurring in eastern China and Japan during the spring and fall, caused by dust from the interior of China."
Ah. Yes, sure.

Britain has many odd little traditions here and there, left over from a time when the Queen's subjects were chattel or something. How am I to know what relationship retired prime ministers maintain with a cereal company.

Do we have a policy on the whole US tariffs once we leave the EU?

Shamhnan Insir wrote:Do we have a policy on the whole US tariffs once we leave the EU?

"pls gib deal, Donald, we need monies"

Olerand wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Them english are weird bais.

Bais: "a yellow mist occurring in eastern China and Japan during the spring and fall, caused by dust from the interior of China."
Ah. Yes, sure.

Britain has many odd little traditions here and there, left over from a time when the Queen's subjects were chattel or something. How am I to know what relationship retired prime ministers maintain with a cereal company.

No, not that kind of bais, bais as in them bais.

Shamhnan Insir wrote:Do we have a policy on the whole US tariffs once we leave the EU?

The current tariffs apply to the EU. When the UK leaves, it is possible, though not likely, that Washington will not impose tariffs on Britain. In that case, no UK tariffs are needed.

Otherwise, if America does impose its own tariffs, the only reasonable thing to do would be for the UK to reciprocate.

Ultimately it comes down to the American administration.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Olerand wrote:Bais: "a yellow mist occurring in eastern China and Japan during the spring and fall, caused by dust from the interior of China."
Ah. Yes, sure.

Britain has many odd little traditions here and there, left over from a time when the Queen's subjects were chattel or something. How am I to know what relationship retired prime ministers maintain with a cereal company.

No, not that kind of bais, bais as in them bais.

...

Olerand wrote:

Shamhnan Insir wrote:Do we have a policy on the whole US tariffs once we leave the EU?

The current tariffs apply to the EU. When the UK leaves, it is possible, though not likely, that Washington will not impose tariffs on Britain. In that case, no UK tariffs are needed.

Otherwise, if America does impose its own tariffs, the only reasonable thing to do would be for the UK to reciprocate.

Ultimately it comes down to the American administration.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:No, not that kind of bais, bais as in them bais.

...

You know the bais


Alright, ill stop yanking your chain, im poking fun at how western irish culchies say boy

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Olerand wrote:The current tariffs apply to the EU. When the UK leaves, it is possible, though not likely, that Washington will not impose tariffs on Britain. In that case, no UK tariffs are needed.

Otherwise, if America does impose its own tariffs, the only reasonable thing to do would be for the UK to reciprocate.

Ultimately it comes down to the American administration.


...

You know the bais

Go home Huskar, you're drunk.

Ifreann wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:You know the bais

Go home Huskar, you're drunk.

HEY BAI

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Olerand wrote:The current tariffs apply to the EU. When the UK leaves, it is possible, though not likely, that Washington will not impose tariffs on Britain. In that case, no UK tariffs are needed.

Otherwise, if America does impose its own tariffs, the only reasonable thing to do would be for the UK to reciprocate.

Ultimately it comes down to the American administration.


...

You know the bais


Alright, ill stop yanking your chain, im poking fun at how western irish culchies say boy

Ah I see. Sure.

Hrythingia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Thatcher didn't throw the country down the toilet?

That'd be news to people in the mining areas.

Oh, no one’s denying she didn’t cock up there, merely the ruin imposed on this country was greater under Labour, on many fronts and not just economic.

Explain.

Vassenor wrote:

Hrythingia wrote:Oh, no one’s denying she didn’t cock up there, merely the ruin imposed on this country was greater under Labour, on many fronts and not just economic.

Explain.

The social ‘reforms’ of labour, the decapitation our military and the premature destruction of the British family of nations. Also allowing in the huge quantities of overseas workers and then their families not to mention the foolish nationalisation of most of Britain. Their inability to deal with Ireland effectively and of course most recently a Labour Party which has betrayed its grassroots. I have no love for Labour but I’m not unsympathetic to the economic conditions that created it either. But now Labour isn’t about the patriotic working man in Stoke on Trent or Welsh Valleys where my ancestors hail from but they are now for the metropolitan creatures of the night who read the Guardian and only the good lord knows what else. They’re more interested in liberating all sorts of social depravities and becoming a European colony than stopping our jobs go abroad or addressing the issues which young lads in industrial wastelands face. And I’m not saying the Tories are much better, but at least they’re not entirely removed from their support base and generally don’t peddle out streams of sociological tripe.

Hrythingia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Explain.

The social ‘reforms’ of labour, the decapitation our military and the premature destruction of the British family of nations. Also allowing in the huge quantities of overseas workers and then their families not to mention the foolish nationalisation of most of Britain. Their inability to deal with Ireland effectively and of course most recently a Labour Party which has betrayed its grassroots. I have no love for Labour but I’m not unsympathetic to the economic conditions that created it either. But now Labour isn’t about the patriotic working man in Stoke on Trent or Welsh Valleys where my ancestors hail from but they are now for the metropolitan creatures of the night who read the Guardian and only the good lord knows what else. They’re more interested in liberating all sorts of social depravities and becoming a European colony than stopping our jobs go abroad or addressing the issues which young lads in industrial wastelands face. And I’m not saying the Tories are much better, but at least they’re not entirely removed from their support base and generally don’t peddle out streams of sociological tripe.

So the massive defence cuts in SDSR2010 were Labours fault?

Hrythingia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Explain.

The social ‘reforms’ of labour, the decapitation our military and the premature destruction of the British family of nations. Also allowing in the huge quantities of overseas workers and then their families not to mention the foolish nationalisation of most of Britain. Their inability to deal with Ireland effectively and of course most recently a Labour Party which has betrayed its grassroots. I have no love for Labour but I’m not unsympathetic to the economic conditions that created it either. But now Labour isn’t about the patriotic working man in Stoke on Trent or Welsh Valleys where my ancestors hail from but they are now for the metropolitan creatures of the night who read the Guardian and only the good lord knows what else. They’re more interested in liberating all sorts of social depravities and becoming a European colony than stopping our jobs go abroad or addressing the issues which young lads in industrial wastelands face. And I’m not saying the Tories are much better, but at least they’re not entirely removed from their support base and generally don’t peddle out streams of sociological tripe.

... A European colony. As if someone in Europe wants that, let alone that it is part of Labour, particularly Jeremy Corbyn's Labour's platform...

This phobia of the Continent in Britain is as funny but also... illogical as the American phobia of their own democratic State. It boggles the mind. We're not trying to colonize you. In fact, we don't want to.

Hrythingia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Explain.

The social ‘reforms’ of labour, the decapitation our military and the premature destruction of the British family of nations. Also allowing in the huge quantities of overseas workers and then their families not to mention the foolish nationalisation of most of Britain. Their inability to deal with Ireland effectively and of course most recently a Labour Party which has betrayed its grassroots. I have no love for Labour but I’m not unsympathetic to the economic conditions that created it either. But now Labour isn’t about the patriotic working man in Stoke on Trent or Welsh Valleys where my ancestors hail from but they are now for the metropolitan creatures of the night who read the Guardian and only the good lord knows what else. They’re more interested in liberating all sorts of social depravities and becoming a European colony than stopping our jobs go abroad or addressing the issues which young lads in industrial wastelands face. And I’m not saying the Tories are much better, but at least they’re not entirely removed from their support base and generally don’t peddle out streams of sociological tripe.

Indeed, the Labour leadership is steadfastly pro-Europe and has never been more at odds with its grassroots than it is now.

Vassenor wrote:

Hrythingia wrote:The social ‘reforms’ of labour, the decapitation our military and the premature destruction of the British family of nations. Also allowing in the huge quantities of overseas workers and then their families not to mention the foolish nationalisation of most of Britain. Their inability to deal with Ireland effectively and of course most recently a Labour Party which has betrayed its grassroots. I have no love for Labour but I’m not unsympathetic to the economic conditions that created it either. But now Labour isn’t about the patriotic working man in Stoke on Trent or Welsh Valleys where my ancestors hail from but they are now for the metropolitan creatures of the night who read the Guardian and only the good lord knows what else. They’re more interested in liberating all sorts of social depravities and becoming a European colony than stopping our jobs go abroad or addressing the issues which young lads in industrial wastelands face. And I’m not saying the Tories are much better, but at least they’re not entirely removed from their support base and generally don’t peddle out streams of sociological tripe.

So the massive defence cuts in SDSR2010 were Labours fault?

No, but previous acts of destruction were. ‘Twas the reason why the Falklands War was so embarrassing for Argentina as our military was almost on skeleton standing. Again, not that Maggie had done much to improve this but there was no money thanks to labour. I’m not a military nut who thinks we need 7 carriers and 11 tank divisions but we should have a reasonably sized military with the capability to independently carry out actions in our interests. This at the moment is not possible and the carrier gap that’s only recently been plugged (sort of) was all Labour’s doing.

Olerand wrote:

Hrythingia wrote:The social ‘reforms’ of labour, the decapitation our military and the premature destruction of the British family of nations. Also allowing in the huge quantities of overseas workers and then their families not to mention the foolish nationalisation of most of Britain. Their inability to deal with Ireland effectively and of course most recently a Labour Party which has betrayed its grassroots. I have no love for Labour but I’m not unsympathetic to the economic conditions that created it either. But now Labour isn’t about the patriotic working man in Stoke on Trent or Welsh Valleys where my ancestors hail from but they are now for the metropolitan creatures of the night who read the Guardian and only the good lord knows what else. They’re more interested in liberating all sorts of social depravities and becoming a European colony than stopping our jobs go abroad or addressing the issues which young lads in industrial wastelands face. And I’m not saying the Tories are much better, but at least they’re not entirely removed from their support base and generally don’t peddle out streams of sociological tripe.

... A European colony. As if someone in Europe wants that, let alone that it is part of Labour, particularly Jeremy Corbyn's Labour's platform...

This phobia of the Continent in Britain is as funny but also... illogical as the American phobia of their own democratic State. It boggles the mind. We're not trying to colonize you. In fact, we don't want to.

Corbyn is refreshingly less Europhile than most of his party, though he still sold out in the Referendum. It’s not a phobia and it’s not illogical. Centuries of attempted and thankfully mostly failed invasions by European hegemonies are testament to this. As for the modern age, we’ve made our mark elsewhere. Why get into bed with people whom you share little culturally or constitutionally with when there’s a whole family of nations with varying degrees of direct British influence on their daily lives and legal/governmental establishment?

Hrythingia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So the massive defence cuts in SDSR2010 were Labours fault?

No, but previous acts of destruction were. ‘Twas the reason why the Falklands War was so embarrassing for Argentina as our military was almost on skeleton standing. Again, not that Maggie had done much to improve this but there was no money thanks to labour. I’m not a military nut who thinks we need 7 carriers and 11 tank divisions but we should have a reasonably sized military with the capability to independently carry out actions in our interests. This at the moment is not possible and the carrier gap that’s only recently been plugged (sort of) was all Labour’s doing.

Olerand wrote:... A European colony. As if someone in Europe wants that, let alone that it is part of Labour, particularly Jeremy Corbyn's Labour's platform...

This phobia of the Continent in Britain is as funny but also... illogical as the American phobia of their own democratic State. It boggles the mind. We're not trying to colonize you. In fact, we don't want to.

Corbyn is refreshingly less Europhile than most of his party, though he still sold out in the Referendum. It’s not a phobia and it’s not illogical. Centuries of attempted and thankfully mostly failed invasions by European hegemonies are testament to this. As for the modern age, we’ve made our mark elsewhere. Why get into bed with people whom you share little culturally or constitutionally with when there’s a whole family of nations with varying degrees of direct British influence on their daily lives and legal/governmental establishment?

Napoléon is dead. This illogical phobia of dead men is... illogical.

This is the first case in history of colonization undertaken against the colonizer's wishes.

EDIT: Though to be clear, I could not be more supportive of Brexit. Britain's place has always been as an American Trojan horse, and it is finally time its bluff is called. Let America have you now.

Hrythingia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So the massive defence cuts in SDSR2010 were Labours fault?

No, but previous acts of destruction were. ‘Twas the reason why the Falklands War was so embarrassing for Argentina as our military was almost on skeleton standing. Again, not that Maggie had done much to improve this but there was no money thanks to labour. I’m not a military nut who thinks we need 7 carriers and 11 tank divisions but we should have a reasonably sized military with the capability to independently carry out actions in our interests. This at the moment is not possible and the carrier gap that’s only recently been plugged (sort of) was all Labour’s doing.

Olerand wrote:... A European colony. As if someone in Europe wants that, let alone that it is part of Labour, particularly Jeremy Corbyn's Labour's platform...

This phobia of the Continent in Britain is as funny but also... illogical as the American phobia of their own democratic State. It boggles the mind. We're not trying to colonize you. In fact, we don't want to.

Corbyn is refreshingly less Europhile than most of his party, though he still sold out in the Referendum. It’s not a phobia and it’s not illogical. Centuries of attempted and thankfully mostly failed invasions by European hegemonies are testament to this. As for the modern age, we’ve made our mark elsewhere. Why get into bed with people whom you share little culturally or constitutionally with when there’s a whole family of nations with varying degrees of direct British influence on their daily lives and legal/governmental establishment?

The Carrier Gap that was caused when the 2010 review accelerated the retirement of the Invincible class and the Harrier fleet?

Also haven't a load of the Commonwealth nations already told us we're not getting special treatment post-Brexit?

Hrythingia wrote:

Olerand wrote:... A European colony. As if someone in Europe wants that, let alone that it is part of Labour, particularly Jeremy Corbyn's Labour's platform...

This phobia of the Continent in Britain is as funny but also... illogical as the American phobia of their own democratic State. It boggles the mind. We're not trying to colonize you. In fact, we don't want to.

Corbyn is refreshingly less Europhile than most of his party, though he still sold out in the Referendum. It’s not a phobia and it’s not illogical. Centuries of attempted and thankfully mostly failed invasions by European hegemonies are testament to this. As for the modern age, we’ve made our mark elsewhere. Why get into bed with people whom you share little culturally or constitutionally with when there’s a whole family of nations with varying degrees of direct British influence on their daily lives and legal/governmental establishment?

Come now. Not counting tiddly little islands, there are, what, four nations that are maybe culturally closer to Britain than Western Europe? And one of them's the USA, which gets more scary and mental every day.

Olerand wrote:

Hrythingia wrote:No, but previous acts of destruction were. ‘Twas the reason why the Falklands War was so embarrassing for Argentina as our military was almost on skeleton standing. Again, not that Maggie had done much to improve this but there was no money thanks to labour. I’m not a military nut who thinks we need 7 carriers and 11 tank divisions but we should have a reasonably sized military with the capability to independently carry out actions in our interests. This at the moment is not possible and the carrier gap that’s only recently been plugged (sort of) was all Labour’s doing.
Corbyn is refreshingly less Europhile than most of his party, though he still sold out in the Referendum. It’s not a phobia and it’s not illogical. Centuries of attempted and thankfully mostly failed invasions by European hegemonies are testament to this. As for the modern age, we’ve made our mark elsewhere. Why get into bed with people whom you share little culturally or constitutionally with when there’s a whole family of nations with varying degrees of direct British influence on their daily lives and legal/governmental establishment?

Napoléon is dead. This illogical phobia of dead men is... illogical.

This is the first case in history of colonization undertaken against the colonizer's wishes.

EDIT: Though to be clear, I could not be more supportive of Brexit. Britain's place has always been as an American Trojan horse, and it is finally time its bluff is called. Let America have you now.

Not just Mr. Bonaparte, but King Phillip of Spain, Mr Hitler, and of course the less obvious threats of Bonaparte III and Soviet Russia. Britain is God’s own country and as such is well desired by all. We are not a Yankee Trojan horse, it’s called been the gateway to Europe.

Vassenor wrote:

Hrythingia wrote:No, but previous acts of destruction were. ‘Twas the reason why the Falklands War was so embarrassing for Argentina as our military was almost on skeleton standing. Again, not that Maggie had done much to improve this but there was no money thanks to labour. I’m not a military nut who thinks we need 7 carriers and 11 tank divisions but we should have a reasonably sized military with the capability to independently carry out actions in our interests. This at the moment is not possible and the carrier gap that’s only recently been plugged (sort of) was all Labour’s doing.
Corbyn is refreshingly less Europhile than most of his party, though he still sold out in the Referendum. It’s not a phobia and it’s not illogical. Centuries of attempted and thankfully mostly failed invasions by European hegemonies are testament to this. As for the modern age, we’ve made our mark elsewhere. Why get into bed with people whom you share little culturally or constitutionally with when there’s a whole family of nations with varying degrees of direct British influence on their daily lives and legal/governmental establishment?

The Carrier Gap that was caused when the 2010 review accelerated the retirement of the Invincible class and the Harrier fleet?

Also haven't a load of the Commonwealth nations already told us we're not getting special treatment post-Brexit?

No. The carriers were already obsolete by that time. Early retirement was immensely daft aye, but they had the harriers weren’t really fit for purpose. Labour should have replaced them but didn’t or didn’t even lay out any proper plans to the silly twits.

As for the commonwealth my understanding is that they are champing at the bit for a deal. Even non commonwealth nations like Japan have said that their relationship with Europe is mainly through Britain and have no intention of changing that post Brexit.

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:

Hrythingia wrote:Corbyn is refreshingly less Europhile than most of his party, though he still sold out in the Referendum. It’s not a phobia and it’s not illogical. Centuries of attempted and thankfully mostly failed invasions by European hegemonies are testament to this. As for the modern age, we’ve made our mark elsewhere. Why get into bed with people whom you share little culturally or constitutionally with when there’s a whole family of nations with varying degrees of direct British influence on their daily lives and legal/governmental establishment?

Come now. Not counting tiddly little islands, there are, what, four nations that are maybe culturally closer to Britain than Western Europe? And one of them's the USA, which gets more scary and mental every day.

Culturally:
USA (sort of)
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Falklands
Gibraltar

Sort of in this category go places like the Bahamas and much of the Caribbean. I for one also felt not entirely out of place in Hong Kong and not just because of the string expat community. Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, Kenya, parts of India and Nigeria are very british both in physical vestiges and other factors such as understanding law and free trade.

Hrythingia wrote:

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:Come now. Not counting tiddly little islands, there are, what, four nations that are maybe culturally closer to Britain than Western Europe? And one of them's the USA, which gets more scary and mental every day.

Culturally:
USA (sort of)
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Falklands
Gibraltar

Sort of in this category go places like the Bahamas and much of the Caribbean. I for one also felt not entirely out of place in Hong Kong and not just because of the string expat community. Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, Kenya, parts of India and Nigeria are very british both in physical vestiges and other factors such as understanding law and free trade.

I know Gibraltar isn't an island, but I think it falls very much within the spirit of "tiddly little island". As, obviously, do the Falklands.

"Felt not entirely out of place". Goodness, we are applying a lofty standard here.

Edit: 500 pages! New thread time!