WiganWarriorsFans.com

The reason I guess at a 2nd referndum is that May has surrounded herself with fellow remainers. Davis and Johnson do seem on the outer

When Cameron called the referendum approx over 2m joined the electoral roll. Polls have suggested only a third of them voted.
They won't make that mistake again!
After May called the GE a further 3m joined the register. It is estimated that just over 70% of them voted.
Should a 2nd referendum be called then probably another 1m will join the register. That amounts to around 6m voters who will vote who didn't last time. As the vast majority are U34 then most are likely to vote remain. If 60-70% vote remain that's 3.5=4m voting remain who didn't last time. That's taking into account the over 65 Leave voters who will have died, those who won't vote and a few who may have changed their mind.

I just can't see May taking us out of the EU when we don't have any kind of a deal. It would be an absolute disaster.
She could have a 2nd referendum, win it with remain, get rid of her biggest rivals and rid the Tory party of the anti EU crackpots who have got rid of the last 3 Tory Prime Ministers.

Seems to be heading in that direction to me.

Queens Speech passed last night so is this the end of this thread?

Hopefully yes

Fawdoffshed wrote:These are not my words, but I totally agree with them.

Brexit is not a shameful triumph for xenophobia and reaction. It is a blow for freedom, self-governance and solidarity, the ideals that have inspired mankind throughout history. In challenging the obliteration of democratic nationhood by the globalist juggernaut, Britain can be a beacon of leadership for the rest of the world.

Still not tempt you to a bit of national pride? Or will you Remainers continue to seemingly worship everything that is the EU?

An interesting question, Fawdoffshed. Much of what's said by 2 sides on this thread boils down to your fundamental view of the world. Leave/Remain, Tory/Labour etc - we all make decisions based on something deeper than politics or even logic or reason: our fundamental values, I guess you'd call it.

In answer to your question about national pride: No, reading your quote doesn't conjure up feelings of national pride for me.

I was born in Hindley - something I'm proud of. I'm proud to be a Lancashireman (even though I live in Yorkshire!), proud that my grandad was a pitmon from 1904 to 1955. I support Wigan, England/GB rugby league and England at cricket, but not England RU.

In the 1990s I visited Ghana and met a Ghanaian history professor. In a friendly discussion about the British Empire, he said, tongue-in-cheek, "Your ancestors oppressed my ancestors." I replied "No. The same people who oppressed your ancestors here in Africa were busy oppressing mine in British coal mines and in everyday life."

To me, being proud to be British means being proud of Empire, proud of a history of exploitation at home and abroad, proud of the country that invented concentration camps, that gloried in massacres in India, in inventing weapons to mow down people defending their own country armed only with spears etc.

Yes, there are things to be proud of: I'm not ashamed of being English or British, but believe that being honest about the past is the best way to build a better future: "Patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel."

That's your opinion but the Gold Coast was tribal and Britain took some element of civilisation eg road building railways paid employment etc perhaps little health and safety but at least it provided an alternative to the Ashanti,Bantu and Tuto mslaughtering each other.

It's Lancastrian bye the way. Just saying.

SJ wrote:That's your opinion but the Gold Coast was tribal and Britain took some element of civilisation eg road building railways paid employment etc perhaps little health and safety but at least it provided an alternative to the Ashanti,Bantu and Tuto mslaughtering each other.

It's Lancastrian bye the way. Just saying.

It's by the way, by the way.

yes your correct. Silly me Phnologically they are the same If you are making a speech act so it wouldn't matter but the representation in "writing" the preposition "by" is correct.

SJ wrote:That's your opinion but the Gold Coast was tribal and Britain took some element of civilisation eg road building railways paid employment etc perhaps little health and safety but at least it provided an alternative to the Ashanti,Bantu and Tuto mslaughtering each other.

It's Lancastrian bye the way. Just saying.

Use of Lancashireman quite deliberate, SJ. Lancastrian and Yorkist are terms from the War of the Roses, denoting supporters of the two branches of the (Norman) royal family of Plantagenet. There is hardly any correlation between a Lancastrian and someone born in Lancashire. For example, in the Battle of Towton, the Yorkist armies came from Oxford, Gloucester and Northants, I believe. The Lancastrian defenders were garrisons from York and Tadcaster, presumably with many more Yorkshiremen in their number than the opposition.

Just saying ????

jobo wrote:

SJ wrote:That's your opinion but the Gold Coast was tribal and Britain took some element of civilisation eg road building railways paid employment etc perhaps little health and safety but at least it provided an alternative to the Ashanti,Bantu and Tuto mslaughtering each other.

It's Lancastrian bye the way. Just saying.

It's by the way, by the way.

The "civilising mission" was a bit of a lame excuse, though with elements of truth, to justify the greed of the British. We went to South Africa when we heard there were gold and diamonds there - they already had the Boer farmers if they needed European tutors. The name Gold Coast speaks volumes.

Sure, the Ashanti fought neighbouring tribes - something we wouldn't have dreamt of doing???

Re tribes: as far as I'm aware, Bantu is a general name for people from West Africa right down to South Africa. Bantu language group covers most languages there. Ghanaian tribes I know are Ewe and Fante. The Ashanti are divided into tribes but are a Kingdom or Nation. Their symbol of Kingly authority is/was a golden stool which was stolen by none other than Baden-Powell.

My post re- Gold Coast was meant to balance the scales not to debunk your post. Your aspect was given by one description whilst mine gave a description from a different aspect without denying yours. My rationale is the analog with the Monty Python sketch "What did the Romans ever do for us"?
The objective was the natural minerals etc the civilising came with the "territory so to speak. In my parlance a kind of epiphenominalism,quid pro quo so to speak.
Lancastrian holds for me. By(e)the way