Does Britain suck?

[MrTAToad]

England was relatively unscathed and it was possible to get away from the conflict whilst most Europeans had to live in it

Unscathed - as in the continual air raids, sunk convoys etc etc ?

I can't believe you're involved in a debate about the EU and come out with stuff like that

Yes, it was a bit wrong. However, Greenland is certainly isn't - and they're doing okay.

Just a thought. United Europe. Why not

Too corrupt; too totalitarian. The member states are too different from each other.

[Rhisiart]

Originally Posted by rubaiyat

England had only to contend with air raids which lightened considerably towards the end of the war during which time most of the rest of Europe was being turned into rubble........England was relatively unscathed .....none of them have forgotten as much as the English have, what it all meant.

I though the whole of Britain fought in WWII. I am surprised to discover it was only England. So my Welsh uncle who spent two years in captivity in Belsen didn't exist.

[bbloke]

I'm feeling this thread is more and more about someone's personal prejudices, rather than the original idea of the thread.

Originally Posted by rhisiart

I though the whole of Britain fought in WWII. I am surprised to discover it was only England. So my Welsh uncle who spent two years in captivity in Belsen didn't exist.

Well said, rhisiart.

Originally Posted by rubaiyat

England had only to contend with air raids which lightened considerably towards the end of the war...

England was relatively unscathed and it was possible to get away from the conflict whilst most Europeans had to live in it...

None of them have forgotten as much as the English have, what it all meant.

England (are we talking only about England or the whole of the UK this time...?) only had to contend with air raids? Relatively unscathed? I'm sure those who lived through the war would be interested to hear your views. Coventry, for instance, was virtually destroyed. And I'm there are those in more recent times (eg. living in Iraq) who might find your attitude about air raids curious too.

True, the UK did not have to suffer occupation (although the Channel Islands were invaded) as many European nations did, and we should be thankful for that. The Soviet Union really bore the brunt of a lot of the conflict, with far higher losses than anyone else. But I also think you really do British people, servicemen and civilian alike, a massive disservice. The RAF was virtually destroyed early on. You might also remember the U-boats put the UK in serious danger. Rationing was in place until the 1950s.

Have a look at World War II deaths by country. The UK's military deaths (as a percentage) are on a par Poland and the USA, and more than France (which was indeed invaded), as far as Allies go. For total deaths (including civilians), the UK lost 0.94% of its population, which was more than Denmark, Malta, Norway, and Spain (also more than Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA, if including non-European countries), while being at a similar level to those suffered by Belgium, France, and Italy.

[rubaiyat]

Greenland has a population of under 60,000. Industries: Polar Bear & Seal flavored ice cubes. What are they exactly doing okay in? Danish welfare checks?

I think in your confusion you are actually thinking of Norway which is knee deep in North Sea oil.

You keep harping on about how corrupt and totalitarian Europe is. Based on what? and compared to what in Britain?

The same with comparisons of damage in WWII. Have you not seen what happened to virtually every city in Italy, Poland, Germany and Austria as well as the many French and Benelux cities and towns that were fought over in the close of the war. Even distant Belgrade was razed to the ground in air raids.

The Poms astonished me, when I was there, with their ignorance of anything to do with Europe. A sister of a friend of mine in Horsham politely asked me after I visited her the second time, where I had just been. I said Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm. She thought for a while and then said "Where are they?"

When the Germans laughingly refer to "Kleine Britannia" I think they must be referring to the thinking of the inhabitants. Didn't the Poms vote Rolf Harris as the most famous painter of all time?

Getting back to the future of the EU, I certainly hope they don't trap themselves into letting Turkey in. I like the Turks but there is just too much of a cultural and religious divide for Europe to be able to accomodate them. They are still bumping people off for talking about the Armenian holocaust.

By the way the Armenian holocaust gave Hitler the idea he could get away with killing all the Jews.

As has so frequently been quoted, he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. History is not multiple choice, nor will claiming you were asleep when they taught it going to let you off the hook when you stuff your lives up based on made up "facts".

[bbloke]

Hmm, this thread seems to me to have deviated a little! I think my reply is going to be a bit all over the place, as so many issues have been raised.

I think that no one is really in a position to lecture another country about the right way of doing things. Every nation has its faults and its strong points. I think it is one thing to criticize a particular government or particular policy, but I would never want to cross the boundaries and start labelling a nation's people. That, to me, just displays prejudices...

"The English" (just the English, not the whole UK?) have been criticized for being "true to form" and not managed to switch to the metric system (the USA has not switched either, though...). At the same time, Australia is one of the few countries to drive on the left still (just like the UK), so perhaps they are quite slow really and need to "get with the program" to catch up with the majority of the world too.

Although the current British government receives a fair amount of criticism for aligning itself too closely with Bush in recent years (fair enough), some Australian politicians seem very similar to Bush too. The possibility of preemptive strikes against neighboring countries and John Howard basically using a scare-mongering tactic of saying an Obama victory in the US would be a victory for terrorists all seem rather familiar...

I think we'd struggle to find a nation that has a clean past! Australia knew in advance about Indonesia's plan to invade East Timor, an invasion which effectively led to genocide (deaths on a large scale, attempts to wipe out a language, forced sterilization, and more). Australian politicians effectively helped Indonesia and Australian troops even went as far as to train Indonesian squads in less conventional matters (eg. "hostile interrogation," as they called it...)...

Until the 1980s (between 1973 and 1982, depending on one's criteria), Australia had the White Australia policy, where non-white immigration was restricted. It is quite shocking, in my view, for an allegedly modern Western democracy to be actively discriminating against people on the grounds of race until relatively recently. Then there is the "Stolen Generation," where (allegedly up to 1969) Aboriginal children were removed from their families in order to bring them up in institutions, seemingly due to ideals originating in racial prejudice. Quite probably linked in with such concerns of racism, there is also a lot of scare mongering about immigration in Australia. The Children Overboard Affair was one such case, where politicians invented claims that refugees were throwing children overboard from a ship to try to force the Australian authorities to collect them. The Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, designed to detain immigrants, caused a lot of controversy in recent years and now has been closed down. I can remember hearing stories of riots and hunger strikes, with people complaining about conditions. There have been allegations of human rights abuses, including cover ups of child abuse.

I'm certainly not slagging off Australia or Australians. I'm just saying that, yes, the UK does have its negative side, but so does anywhere else. I'm also concerned about where the boundaries lie between singing-a-nation's-praises and jingoism.

So I think we'd be hard pressed to find a model that a nation should follow or aspire to. Back to the question: Does Britain suck? Well, there are things I like about the country and things I don't like about it. The UK used to be a much safer place than, say, the USA, but, if my memory is correct, the statistics now show that people are more likely to be the victim of all sorts of crimes in the UK, including (non-fatal) violent crimes, than people are in the USA. The exceptions are things like rape and gun-related crime, where things are far worse in the USA. I believe the UK is in some ways a bit of a hot spot for crime within Europe. So, I would say crime is becoming more and more of a problem and people are really feeling it.

For more information, see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...006747,00.html

or

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0304.html

Regarding the Union, personally, I would like it if the UK were to stay united and we could maintain the diversity, but I don't think anyone should be "forced" into that position. If Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland wanted to leave, I think that would be a decision for the particular population, rather than the rest of the UK trying to force them to stay. I would prefer to see a UK that (fairly and properly) included the diversity of the different countries, but that's just my opinion.

The EU, like anything, has its pros and cons and I think it is a very good thing overall. The UK is dependent upon trade with the EU. As with anything, there are occasional problems that need dealing with honestly. It is not the case that either the UK or the EU is perfect. I've met people in the UK with quite anti-European prejudices, but then I've also met Continental Europeans with some quite irksome prejudices about the UK too. Also, I don't think it is as simple as saying both sets of prejudices are caused by people in the UK alone, either.

So, the UK strongly benefits from the EU, and that should not be quietly forgotten, but then the sceptics should not be ignored either. De Gaulle vetoed the UK's entry into the EEC in 1963, which seemed a fairly hostile act. If I remember rightly, he also held the UK largely responsible for France being invaded during World War II, which I found amazing. My point is that politics can be complex and involve human frailties, it is not as simple as the idea that everyone gets fed up with the UK somehow being anti-European or the like. There are times when the UK drags its feet a bit, sure, but other nations do too, including core nations such as France. There are also times in which the UK's treatment does not always appear even-handed (perhaps many populations will feel this about their own nations too). Remember Chirac making comments at a summit?

Taken from the BBC:

Originally Posted by BBC

"French President Jacques Chirac is reported to have cracked jokes about British food at a meeting with the German and Russian leaders."

"French newspaper Liberation says Gerhard Schroeder and Vladimir Putin laughed and joined in the banter."

"One cannot trust people whose cuisine is so bad," it quotes Mr Chirac saying.

"The only thing they have ever done for European agriculture is mad cow disease," Mr Chirac said, according to the newspaper's report.

Mr Chirac is also reported to have reminisced about an occasion when former Nato secretary general Lord George Robertson - who is Scottish - had made him try a local dish. "That is where our difficulties with Nato come from," he said, apparently speaking before the meeting was properly underway.

How exactly will this sort of behavior convince Euro-sceptics in the UK that the EU is welcoming?

Insulting one group is not a mature way of dealing with differences. Like it or not, we share the world with people who do not share our views, and mocking one group will not encourage communication and cooperation. That is: there are two sides, we shouldn't just ride roughshod over one group's concerns. We will not end up with amicable solutions if either the pro-Europeans or Euro-sceptics feel marginalized. I'm not saying that the UK should keep out of a biased Europe or something (as that is not my view), my point is that it is not as simple as "Europe: good, UK: bad."

We talk of the British right. On the other hand, the rise of the far right has become more of a concern on Continental European soil than on UK soil, although there is concern in the UK too. Remember Le Pen doing alarmingly well in the elections a few years ago? Or the rise of the right even in the very liberal country of The Netherlands? Anti-Semitism, while still a problem in the UK, tends to be higher in other countries in Europe. This is despite the UK being so "unscathed" by the war...

As for democracy, I really don't think any one country has the right to lecture another on the matter. All democratic systems seem to have their pros and cons and it is genuinely difficult to know which systems work best. As an example of one gray area, compulsory voting will increase voter turnout, but it also turns a citizen's right into a demand from the State. Which is ultimately better will become a matter of opinion. The thing that does concern me is how the current British government has been clamping down on civil liberties all over the place (eg. RIP Act), but, then again, that seems to be happening in many countries across the Western world...

With regards to the monarchy, I think people should be a bit cautious about making statements about the monarchy leeching off of the public. If my memory is correct, we receive far more from the monarchy than they receive from the public purse.

Civil List:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

...in 1760 the new King, George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, funded by taxation....

...In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have by far exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch. For example, surplus from the Crown Estate produced approximately £184.8 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2003/04, whereas parliamentary funding for the Monarchy was approximately £36.8 million during the same period. These funds include the Civil List, Annuities, Grants in Aid, and funding paid directly by government departments....

If you want a breakdown of the figures, see: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4971.asp Perhaps the Queen should be asking that the tax level be reduced and set inline with the rest of the population's top tax rates... in the interests of fairness, after all.

In short, there are things that bother me about the state of things in the UK. There are also things that bother me about the state of affairs in other countries. No country is perfect, far from it. Do I hold up one country as a model we should aspire to? No. Do I hold up one country as a model we should avoid? No. I think there are aspects from different countries which I admire, and, likewise, there are things about the UK I admire; no one country "has everything sorted out." I think any people/countries sweepingly pronouncing they are better than another group basically leaves themselves very vulnerable indeed...

[rubaiyat]

Yes I was referring to England. Wales and Scotland were mostly out of range and/or not primary targets. Isn't this whole notion of bloody mindedly dumb nationalism an English one anyway?

Fascinating that you refer to that chart to "prove" your point and pick out the under 1% fatalities of Britain as significant. Compared to the over 16% for the Poles, and the double figures for Germany, the Baltic countries, Russia etc. Plenty of the other countries also had much more significant casualties than Britain.

Put on top of that the privation and mass destruction of Europe.

I don't think the British were eating horsemeat mixed with sawdust or their women selling themselves for food after the war.

[bbloke]

Originally Posted by rubaiyat

Isn't this whole notion of bloody mindedly dumb nationalism an English one anyway?

Evidently not........

Fascinating that you refer to that chart to "prove" your point and pick out the under 1% fatalities of Britain as significant. Compared to the over 16% for the Poles, and the double figures for Germany, the Baltic countries, Russia etc. Plenty of the other countries also had much more significant casualties than Britain.

If you actually listened to what other people say every once in awhile, rather than just assuming you are always right and mocking others who disagree with you, you'd see what I and others were actually saying. I'll be off now, I think this "discussion" is far too intellectual for me...

[rubaiyat]

You won't get me defending our PM or some of his nasty tactics to stay in power. I wish people were less polite and just called the lies for waht they are. But I know from being on these forums that people will "prove" the lie is fact because "everyone knows them to be true".

Nor will you get me taking the side of the White Australia Policy except to note that similar policies were in place in many other countries at the time. Also unfairly. Didn't the British have "No dogs and Chinese" signs in their colonies?

Interesting to note what broke the policy though. It was the tour of the West Indies cricket team in the 60's, when many questioned why the Windies had to get a special "exemption".

The same with Aboriginal voting rights. We have an excellent record on universal sufferage and votes for women. Hardly anyone knew most Aborigines weren't on the census which is why they didn't have the vote and it was overwhelmingly corrected in a referendum soon after it came up.

A fair go is what most Australians demand and mostly give. Interesting to note about the abduction of Aboriginal children is what became of them. Most of the prominent and successful aborigines today were taken from their parents. Not that that justifies what the welfare organisations did, but it wasn't all bad. Now the policy has been completely reversed it turns out that child abuse is rampant in the aboriginal camps in Central Australia.

Over 25% of Australians are born overseas and we have done an excellent job of welcoming and accomodating the migrants into Australian society.

May I say when I see the usual indignant objector to Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Afghanis etc I am struck by how often they are an English migrant or ex NZ English migrant squatting up in Surfers Paradise as part of the white shoe brigade.

This was the mob our PM was pandering to to keep valuable Queensland seats. Looks like he will get his come uppance this coming election. Aussies have had jack of his lies and "patriotism".

Curious how the compulsory civic duty of voting is "wrong" but forceably being sent to kill others in the name of your country is "right". Or how the Russian, French and German skinheads are guilty of not paying their British franchise fees.

De Gaulle vetoed British entry into the EEC because he could see what a curmudgeonly bunch of spoilers they were. After all Britain had turned down membership before, only becoming interested when it saw how it was missing out on the European miracle. England even refused initially to play official international soccer because they were too good for everyone else (despite losing to South American teams).

Metrication is an obvious practical measure. Britain's recalcitrance on this issue is just symptomatic of its anti-European prejudices.

I agree that within the EU framework it may be sensible for Wales and Scotland to revert to their own nationalities and government if they so wish.

I agree that English cooking is no laughing matter. Although Margaret Thatcher being the only PM to have a disease (Mad Cow) named after her, is!

As for the Monarchy leeching off the public? Never! They stole all that wealth fair and square! Having to pay taxes on it is just adding insult to injury.