biggusdickusgb:
america, canada, australia don’t seem to be doing to bad
Cant really compare those countries against the UK but thier immigation rules are a tadge stricter than ours
Cant really compare those countries against the UK but thier immigation rules are a tadge stricter than ours
I can vouch for that, for sure.
i cant understand your answer suedehead
orys:
did anybody seen rich ex-colonial country?)
i answered america, canada,australia don’t seem to be doing to bad
i’m answering orys’s question, how do you get to comparing them to the uk ?
biggusdickusgb:
america, canada, australia don’t seem to be doing to bad
America, Canada, Australia weren’t freed 50 years ago and let alone…
orys:
biggusdickusgb:
america, canada, australia don’t seem to be doing to badAmerica, Canada, Australia weren’t freed 50 years ago and let alone…
that isn’t what you asked young man 
biggusdickusgb:
orys:
biggusdickusgb:
america, canada, australia don’t seem to be doing to badAmerica, Canada, Australia weren’t freed 50 years ago and let alone…
that isn’t what you asked young man
Ok, Old ■■■■ 
So England is part of the Roman Empire then? :>
What I was talking about was in some resonable period of time, say 100 years.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Imperialism2.png
USA is colonial imperium itself. Canada and Australia is a part of British Empire (and AFAIK this is still valid today to some extent).
ok forget america is 1982 for canada, 1986 for australia and also new zealand within your timescale
biggusdickusgb:
ok forget america is 1982 for canada, 1986 for australia and also new zealand within your timescale
You don’t really see the difference between, let say, colonial African countries and New Zeland or Canada?
I’ll give you a hint: In Africa are living native Africans. New Zeland or Canada were took over, and vast majority of population is white. This countries were never returned to its original owners, they just simply becomed part of Britain and then they splitted away from the “main core” of Britain.
What I am talking about is a countries which were working for Britain wealth and then returned to it’s original owners like, say, India, Pakistan, Somalnia, Ethiopia, Erythrea, Angola, Palestina etc etc etc.
orys:
biggusdickusgb:
ok forget america is 1982 for canada, 1986 for australia and also new zealand within your timescaleYou don’t really see the difference between, let say, colonial African countries and New Zeland or Canada?
I’ll give you a hint: In Africa are living native Africans. New Zeland or Canada were took over, and vast majority of population is white. This countries were never returned to its original owners, they just simply becomed part of Britain and then they splitted away from the “main core” of Britain.
What I am talking about is a countries which were working for Britain wealth and then returned to it’s original owners like, say, India, Pakistan, Somalnia, Ethiopia, Erythrea, Angola, Palestina etc etc etc.
orys stop trying to be clever, or at least read up on your subject before you comment.
your last reply to me makes you look silly.
angola was a portugese colony, ethiopia and eritrea were italian colonies, yes we had a presence in somalia along with italy.
in india we most definately had a presence, but pakistan?
pakistan didn’t even exist, it was created in 1947 for india’s muslims concerned about poor represention in india when the british pulled out
palestine wasn’t even a colony, we were there for less than 30 years while the israel issue was sorted.
biggusdickusgb:
orys:
biggusdickusgb:
ok forget america is 1982 for canada, 1986 for australia and also new zealand within your timescaleorys stop trying to be clever, or at least read up on your subject before you comment.
your last reply to me makes you look silly.
Only if you still thinking that I am talking about what you are thinking that I am talking about instead of just reading what I am talking about.
I gave just SOME examples of SOME post-colonial countries (never wrote that it were British colonies) to compare it’s situations to situation of New Zeland and Canada (which were part of British empire, but it’s not relevant at this moment).
New Zeland and Canada are included in set of countries which were part of Britain but what I meant few posts ago were the other countries who apart of being part of Britain in the past are also included in set of countries of kind I am talking about, thats mean some countries who were conquered, then exploited and then left alone (often with some artifical borders, which not reflects real population distribution, but old colonial order (see Africa)). Vast majority of this countries are now poor and struggling to cope with modern economy. Some of this countries were conquered and exploited by Britain, some by other nations. New Zeland, Australia, Canada wasn’t really returned to it’s native people, most population in such countries are still of European Descent - USA is another example of this type of countries. Therefore they aren’t good ilustration to my example of countries who were exploitet then returned to their native people.
As for Palestina it’s my mistake, I have to admit, I just remembered British presence there before 1948, sorry.
Britain withdrew from the African colonies at the request of the native population. The original plans were for local population to start voting for local representatives and build up to a national parliament, creating a parliamentary democracy system like the one in Britain and like the ones that exist to this day in the former Dominions. Unfortunately the local populations were unprepared for democracy (having not known it under their previous native rulers or the colonial system) and the process would have needed to be longer, ideally the African colonies would have only become independant in the 1980s-1990s. Sadly the process was interrupted by the Cold War and the threat of Communist subversion. [see the Malayan Emergency for an example] this led to the leaders in London and Washington being afraid of the colonies becoming Communist vassel states, and they just put in power whoever would oppose the Communists and propped them up. The mistakes of that era haunt us to this day [see Robert Mugabe for an example], the withdrawl from Empire may not have hurt Britain much but mistakes made then have caused a lot of pain and loss of life for Africa in the last fifty years. As for withdrawing from the EU Britain would not last five minutes without it, the trade barriers make that certain.
As for withdrawing from the EU Britain would not last five minutes without it, the trade barriers make that certain.
Sorry, Tofer, that is a load of rubbish.
Do you honestly think that the EU, without us in it, would operate trade barriers, when currently the trade is viurtually one way in their favour. They need us more than we have needed them.
I think they would, just to spite us. And I honestly don’t think they need us that much, what are Britain’s key exports to the EU? What can’t they replace from other places within the EU? I’m not that hot on economics to be honest I’ve got a History degree not a business one, but thats how it looks to me.
It is not just a question of exchange of trade, even though at the moment that is well in their favour. You are forgetting that we are, I believe, the second largest contributor, after Germany, to the EU mismanagement fund, that gets swallowed up with all the crooks that are running Brussels.
We are the only country within this group that actually implements every directive from Brussels. None of the other countries do, if they feel it harms their country. The French are notorious for this and do you honestly think that the Greeks follow any of the directives.
Just cast your mind back to the days when, even though we were supposed to have won the war and then find that we cannot travel through Germany, France or Italy without a permit. 2500 permits were issued to British Hauliers per annum in those days, yet if you had stood at the Mont Blanc Tunnel you will have counted 2500 trucks from Britain by the end of February. So everyone was running on forged permits or paying the Italians not to stamp them. The same for France. The Gendarmes were always corrupt in those days, hanging on the mirrors as you came off the boat in Calais after coffeee money.
Germany insisted that one put his truck on a train for which the reward was an overland permit. Austrian pemits were like gold dust, every driver was expected to be able to get a truck through this bottleneck, and if you couldn’t, then you were no good for the job.
tofer:
Britain withdrew from the African colonies at the request of the native population. The original plans were for local population to start voting for local representatives and build up to a national parliament, creating a parliamentary democracy system like the one in Britain (…) Unfortunately the local populations were unprepared for democracy (having not known it under their previous native rulers or the colonial system)
But why do you think that “parliamentary democracy system like the one in Britain” is good for African countries? AFAIK they were doing well BEFORE white men came to them…
And one more thing: How do you think, where is that Mugabe and his pals coming from? Becouse I think that he cames from resistance against British (or other) colonial occupiers. There would be no such situation while Africa would be left alone, as nations and countries would evolve naturally.
Note, that probles arisen when they gained indenpendence, but they were forced to keep the borders which are not relevant to natural nation distribution. Therefore you have one nation which is separated between two countries, say 30% of Mgulu is making minority in country A and are opressed by majority of Zagulu nation. Shortly the neighbour country B attack country A becouse in country B Mgulu is a majority… Do you think that it would be any better in Europe if someone will occupy it for couple of hundreds years and then just draw the borders using ruler?
Well it depends on how you look at it Orys, I personally feel that they would be better off living in a modern democratic state rather than in the bush in a tribal society ruled by the witchdoctor and local chief. They would also have been better off if we had left them well alone to be honest. But don’t be fooled into the belief that all Britain did was plunder the colonies, millions of pounds of investment was poured into the colonies over the years. And think what you will, Britain’s Imperial rule was far more benevolent than the French, Belgian or Germans. Well when we weren’t bombing villagers from the air anyway. 
tofer:
Well it depends on how you look at it Orys, I personally feel that they would be better off living in a modern democratic state rather than in the bush in a tribal society ruled by the witchdoctor and local chief.
That what George W Bush believes in and you can see results.
Even if that’s true (I think it is, but I am not sure) I am certainly on the position that you can’t speed things up and you just have to let them rich that level on their own speed.
They would also have been better off if we had left them well alone to be honest. But don’t be fooled into the belief that all Britain did was plunder the colonies, millions of pounds of investment was poured into the colonies over the years. And think what you will, Britain’s Imperial rule was far more benevolent than the French, Belgian or Germans. Well when we weren’t bombing villagers from the air anyway.
Tell me: so what kind of business was for Britain to pump millions of pounds in colonies? Is that some charity activity, or some national sport? Or it was just a good investition and you got something in exchange?
Good investment oppurtunites really, it wasn’t for any altruistic reasons, but mainly for personal gain. Most colonial acquistions were funded and driven by private enterprise, ie the Honourable East India Company. The potential for trade was immense, exotic goods, spices, tea, fabrics etc were shipped to Britain to be sold or re-exported to Europe and the colonies provided a trade bloc and ready market for British manufactured goods. Colonies such as Australia were Crown run affairs from the off, and mainly built using prisoners and or indentured servants. Many people in Britain at the time expressed the notion of the “White Man’s Burden”, that we ruled the “inferior races” for their own good and that we were nurturing children in the family of nations. The main reason was markets, Britain only kept such colonies that were worth something to her, either for monetary gain eg Quebec, or military advantage, eg Malta, Gibraltar. The willingness to trade captured enemy colonies back to the enemy at the negotiating table is proof of this.
orys:
Only if you still thinking that I am talking about what you are thinking that I am talking about instead of just reading what I am talking about.
I gave just SOME examples of SOME post-colonial countries (never wrote that it were British colonies) to compare it’s situations to situation of New Zeland and Canada (which were part of British empire, but it’s not relevant at this moment).
As for Palestina it’s my mistake, I have to admit, I just remembered British presence there before 1948, sorry.
the hole is getting deeper orys, stop digging.
orys:
What I am talking about is a countries which were working for Britain wealth and then returned to it’s original owners like, say, India, Pakistan, Somalnia, Ethiopia, Erythrea, Angola, Palestina etc etc etc.
that line alone means you were on about british colonies, but due to your lack of knowledge on the subject half of the countries you quoted have never had any british influence.
orys:
Canada and Australia is a part of British Empire (and AFAIK this is still valid today to some extent).
again you use british, just for your information there’s no british empire anymore, britain has no constitutional influence on canada or australia.
one thing that puzzles me, if we were as bad as you say and just raped the countries, why are there 50+ countries in the commonwealth still, there are 14 or 15 realms who prefer to keep our monarch as theirs, how many countries are in polands commonwealth, how many realms have poland got.
i won’t come on here and argue polish history because i’ve not studied it properly, but don’t let britains former glories make you jealous of us, it’s our history (good and bad) and we can’t change it.
maybe poland could team up with the lithuanians and become strong again, because they appear to have been ■■■■ on by everyone else since the middle to late 18th century.
Orys is rapidly becoming a bit of a bore. He seems to have taken on the mantle of Arse-whipper- in- Chief of all things British. A few weeks back, he was extolling the virtues of the employment prospects for unemployed British Truckers in his homeland of Poland. This from a guy who has, for the last few months, if my memory serves me correctly, been unable to find gainful employment in the Glasgow area, since he, for some reason, lost his previous driving job.It appears that he is not prepared to apply for one of those Polish vacancies himself. We are now being castigated for our Colonial past. One thing which he seems to have overlooked, insofar as Zimbabwe is concerned, is that the British developed Rhodesia, after it colonised whatever it was called before Cecil Rhodes set foot in the place, into the Breadbasket of Africa. Mr. Mugabe has turned it into the Starvation , and Cholera capital of Africa.So we have not got a lot to be ashamed of on that particular score.The initial thread was about “English Work”. It now seems to have become an intellectual discussion about Britain,s Post Colonial decline, which I feel would be better suited to an Open University Forum. 