I think that it goes back a little further that that. It was what "gave us the right" to open fire on a football crowd at Croke Park, massacre Indian civilians in their own country or to capture native Africans, put them in chains before shipping them halfway around the world to sell on as if we owned them. Sure, it can be argued that such atrocities are not unique to the British and that would be true but during the days of empire we did become rather adept at them.
I understand, Anthony. But, due to my rebel soul and lack of respect for the protocol of the Politicians, I just don't regard the public gesturing, ceremonies, banquets, and other "dancing" for the Media and the Man in the Street as being that important. The real negotiations are being carried out now, behind the scenes, and will continue on after Article 50 is negotiated. As Shiney pointed out we needn't have used Article 50 but could have repealed the 1972 European Communities Act. But to have done so, while being perfectly legal, would have probably meant a complete break from the EU and all trade agreements which would not have been beneficial to either parties.
We, as a country, went abroad in our ships, invaded, stole, raped, other countries gold, food supplies, economies etc, and we built an Empire over the centuries from it, controlling Nations until it became militarily, politically and more importantly uneconomical to do so. We can blame it on whatever we wish, longk, I guess. We could stand in front of a mrror and throw mud pies at our reflection and say "look what you've over the centuries, it's all your fault." In truth, there isn't a country in the world that hasn't committed atrocities, injustices, etc within it's own borders and beyond, and a lot of countries as we know are still doing so. We have been a major player, more so than the USA or European countries, where we have drawn, redrawn countries borders, created new countries, backed Dictators, broken agreements with friendly countries when it benefited us particularly in the last century, having an effect on the entire world both good and bad that really no other country has equalled. Personally, I blame the very first Caveman that crawled out of his cave in a bad mood and tried to leave his tribe due to being fed up of being told he had to bow to the Tribal Chiefs.
Having studied African history when I was working out there it's interesting to find out that the slave trading in African people was endemic within the continent before explorers got there. The continent was a mass of tribal groups that were always at war. The victors of each war and skirmish took slaves and those in the northern half of central Africa (and, later, from all over Africa) sold their slaves to Arab trading ships. The Arab traders sold those slaves on, and it became their biggest income earner. It was the trade in slaves that further promoted more local wars. With the expansion of European exploratory missions the European traders and countries saw that it was a lucrative market and started their incursion into it. As the world markets opened up so did the market in slaves. It was a factor of the times. All European countries (and countries around the world) saw this as a simple fact of life and didn't see or understand that it was wrong. This country had its own version of slavery with its dependence on thralls, serfs, vassals, bondsmen, liegemen, servants etc. The situation has been extant throughout history, through the Middle Ages in particular, and through the Victorian period to the current time. All it has done is change its face and the way it happens. Servants were still quite common in the first part of the 1900's and whilst some were 'in service' and treated well others were still harshly treated. In a different form it could be argued that industrialists carried this on through factory workers and miners etc. who were really tied to their employers as there was no other way of earning a living. We, ourselves, have continued to promulgate (Oh, how I like using long and obscure words - @Zigs ?) the situation by, sometimes, putting ourselves into thrall with the banks and financial institutions through allowing ourselves to be lured by the entreaties of the manufacturers into 'wanting' their newest and 'much better' products. Here endeth today's sermon!
Just to add to shiney's excellent post is my view on slavery. Whilst some of our British fore-fathers were responsible for terrible acts of greed during the building of the Empire there was always a large proportion of people who were opposed to slavery. Even before the height of the British Empire, William Wilberforce successfully campaigned to get slavery abolished. It took many years to persuade our less enlightened neighbours on the continent to follow suit.
And on a lighter note. Here are Flanders and Swann taking the pee out of ourselves - from a recording from 60 years ago.
" promulgate ˈprɒm(ə)lɡeɪt/ verbpromote or make widely known (an idea or cause). "these objectives have to be promulgated within the organization" synonyms: make known, make public, publicize, spread, communicate, propagate, disseminate, circulate, broadcast, promote, announce, proclaim; literarybruit about "ideas which Ruskin had been the first to promulgate"put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation. "in January 1852 the new Constitution was promulgated" synonyms: put into effect, enact, implement, enforce, pass "the new law was promulgated on December 1" The RAF promulgated weekly orders on Stations to keep everyone informed.
Government facing Brexit defeat in Lords over EU nationals - Government facing Brexit defeat in Lords over EU nationals - BBC News Think this is Sabre rattling from the duffers but if we can't get our single vision working, how much laughing must there be in Brussels?! So much infighting on our side that I can't see a good deal being possible at this point
Basically what you have is May being a strong battle axe as we need right now, and some unelected fools trying to take away all her bargaining chips. Personally I'd like to see a guarantee for eu citizens already here, but not at the expense of British citizens in the eu. May didn't want to make that promise because she wanted to secure the rights of Britons in the eu as part of negotiations. Now I guess brits abroad will be shafted by their own government, and the unelected portion of it at that.
@clueeless1 Theres no need to guess at that, some of us already are being shafted by the government....and the elected one at that! I have a suspicion it will be the turn of those UK citizens that actually still live in the UK in a few years time.
I now have a non UK EU passport thanks to one of my grandparents so quite right too I say Anyway, it'll just go back to the commons where any amendment may or may not be overturned. No biggie. Was a good deal ever possible. You've been involved in business consultancy etc. for long enough to know that if a rival reveals a weakness you exploit it. Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris have had an envious eye on Londons status in the financial services world for a long time and now the British people have just handed it over to them to scrap over. I agree. Upon leaving the EU most of their laws will be automatically adopted by the new UK statute book. In time they will be rewritten (and it will take a long time) but my money says that one of the first to be rewritten will be employment laws and all the employee protection that goes with it.
How so? And in asking that, I'm not disputing what you say, it is a genuine question out of curiosity.
Well, the House of Lords voting will not have any real effect as Theresa May is pretty confident that the House of Commons can, and will, override it. There will be some Conservative rebels who will vote in support of the House of Lords but it appears to be doubtful if they will get their way as the rest of the Conservative MP's, and some Labour MP's, while wanting to protect EU workers in the UK also know it has to be......
I thought the Lords could block stuff? Otherwise, and I almost think this is likely, it would surely mean that the lords vote on the output from the commons, then the commons vote on whether you accept the lords vote on the commons. Thus forming one big, time and money wasting circle.
