Men, women and children housed in slums and sent to work in appalling conditions in factories for almost every hour god sent.

The wealthy in this country will exploit anyone for profit.

But I think the phrase “Anglo-Saxan protestant racket” refers to the cultural heritage rather than the actual physical DNA.

Really? Do you have details? It seems a very strange claim. Certainly France, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Belgium and all the Scandinavian countries were operating large scale interventionist policies along with aiming for a more equitable distribution of wealth and active demand management. The US New Deal was of course the forerunner of all this. All retained capitalism so it wasn’t socialist at all. This leaves the UK’s inept release of its empire and inability to retain its share of trade as the clear reason for its decline relative to the rest.

“… and many were heading in the opposite direction.”

Who was heading in the opposite direction? I can’t think of a single democracy which did that.

” I don’t think anyone other than Trots think that only Trots are “Socialist”,”

I doubt if even Trots think that. Not relevant here so I will resist the temptation to follow up.

Yes. Protectionism is a bit like austerity and Brexit: ideology posing as common sense. But the rise in prosperity was the result of the stimulation of domestic demand , not globalisation.

” If Clause 4 wasn’t an ideological basis for Socialist nationalisations, I don’t know what would be…”

You are really labouring this. The nationalisations which took place after the Second World war were enacted to take strategic industries out of the hands of brain dead idiots who were running them into the ground. Far from causing decline, they ushered in a new age of prosperity. They were nothing whatsoever to do with Clause 4 which has never been applied. That’s why a bunch of tedious Trots infiltrated the Labour Party – or perhaps you never heard of Militant?

This seems to be what you are arguing : British decline was not caused by the decline of its empire and its failure to trade on the same basis that other nations traded but was due to the application of policies which those same competitors also applied. You haven’t explained why these policies did not cause the decline of said competitors.

Globalisation had started at least a century earlier. The new factor in 1945 was the Keynes/Galbraith position that more equitably sharing out wealth not only resulted in more wealth being created but was also more effective at warding off the danger of revolution.

“The UK saw a wave of nationalisations and and a great increase in taxation and regulation….”

So did most countries – including the US. The nationalisations were pragmatic rather than ideological. Strategic industries like energy, transport and communication were in a dreadful state and had to be taken into competent hands. The aim was to save capitalism, not replace it – and it succeeded.

“…what most would call Socialism”

Possibly. But that’s the outcome of underfunded education and overfunded propaganda. The salient point is that, whatever you call it, it wasn’t peculiar to the UK. Loss of empire was.

Yes. I was. The UK went from being number 2 economic power to number 11 over that period.

You brought the 1945 Labour government into the debate. I was just pointing out that it was part of a world wide (including the US) pattern of the adoption of Keynes/Galbraith economic principles which led to the fastest and biggest growth in living standards the world has ever seen. It was a more effective management of capitalism, not Socialism. Because it was a constant which applies to all capitalist countries, it is wrong to suggest that it is the cause of the UK’s decline relatiive to the others.

I suspect you’ve inintentionally produced strong evidence (“proof”?In economics?) here. You point out that they have enjoyed substantial growth without big colonies. As Arthur suggests, this may well be why their economic well being has not declined. By contrast, the UK’s economic standing has declined as it’s empire has been lost.

What does “semi Marxist” mean? By and large, the BBC and all other media have always depicted it as an essentially benign institution – spreading Christianity, civilised values and good governance: The same lie that our generation was brainwashed into believing half a century ago.

But the whole point about this article is that the people whose fond memories of British munificence Liam Fox is banking on had first hand experience of it. They will drive a hard bargain.

I am never uncomfortable with true facts, regardless of their implications. You are confusing my attitude with your own, I suggest. And my view is that the population of the UK needs a good kick up the pants. You are always looking to blame others for your own mistakes and deficiencies, and foreigners are good scapegoats. This is a large part of the powerful movement towards nationalism-fascism that is evident in the UK — not taking responsibility for one’s own errors and faults. The UK population has very little going for it, in terms of educational level, skills and general motivation to do anything. This is what has to be addressed.

The Free Trade Movement was regarded as subversive and disruptive until
well into the 19th century. Even then, it is safe to say that there has
never been any such thing in practice. The British have always erected tariff barriers to protect their own industry and commerce.

“Brexit is one great big vote in favour of free trade against the single
market which erects tariff barriers against goods from outside Europe.”

Actually it was quite a small vote: 37% of the electorate. And nothing of the kind was voted on. It was a simple question about formal membership of the EU. There was no mention of the single market and nothing about tariff barriers. I would venture that the majority who voted Leave would not be capable
of even discussing such notions, let alone voting on them.

“I have always believed that it is geography rather than politics which decides a country’s character.”

It has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with brainwashing. As children, my generation had lies about the empire pumped into us as effectively as Lance Armstrong’s performance enhancing drugs. That’s why they bel;ieve that the EU can be replaced by countries full of fond memories of the empire. Take away the brainwashed generation (everyone over 60 – that would include me) and the result in England and Wales would have been similar to Scotland’s.

Your comment is ad hominem — accusing me of character assassination and discrediting. You damage your own character and discredit yourself by posting racist interpretations, lies and false data. I am merely pointing out what you are doing. If you don’t have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the difference, this is not my fault.

If you persist in posting lies and right wing propaganda I will personally ask oD to ban anyone who does such things when corrected. The number of refugees arriving in the UK is such small numbers that one cannot even be bothered to count them. One million is roughly the TOTAL that arrived during the refugee crisis of 2015 for all of the EU for that year. As the UK is leaving the EU then it has no right to an opinion on the matter anyway. Keep your arrogant gobs shut, and the world will be a better place.

My point about immigrant or refugee attacks is this:

If I went and stood in the middle of a motorway I would most likely get run over, if I didn’t go and stand in the middle of a motorway I wouldn’t, my getting run over is thus totally avoidable When applying this metaphor to the refugee crisis, it is the same. If you let a million people into your country unchecked from volatile countries sharing a culture with homicidal maniacs beheading people in the Middle East, expect trouble, if you don’t do that….. It is avoidable. There, get it Mart?

As for white thugs and criminal etc. unfortunately we are stuck with them, the comparison you make is a complete straw man of an argument.

Indeed? Then why have we we just voted to leave a trade agreement which is favourable to us? Sentiment plays a part.

If you want to believe that the British Empire was anything but a nasty and sordid kleptocracy, go ahead. But don’t expect the descendants of its victims to enter into trade agreements based on fond memories of it – as Liam Fox appears to be doing.

Typical of you, Mr thin skin, you can dish it out but as soon as anything is said to you, you go off crying to mama!

You are trolling with far right propaganda. Kindly stop your personal attacks on me.

The reasons why they sought to control the market for rice and other staples are not remotely obscure. It gave them power and and allowed them to increase their profits.

The bottom line is that this was a massive extortion racket and these were gangsters. After the First War of Independence in the 1850s, the Crown took direct control but even then the administration was largely corrupt and incompetent and as you have already indicated, it took another 50 years to stop the regular occurence of famine.

“Bloodthirsty tyrant” is your expression and I would make no such claim. I would be quite happy to settle for evil and callous racist with a particular hatred of Indians. The evidence for that includes his own statements and is overwhelming.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/34832512

The authorities believe the Syrian passport was a fake. It was that passport that had stuck in my mind, so in this attack, the killers were not refugees, my mistake there.

However, the Afghan who attacked the train was a refugee.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/18/german-train-axe-attack-many-injured/amp/

As for you, you are the worst debater on this forum, worse then all the trolls Martin, and a disgrace to academia!

If I tell you that your head is on upside-down, would you believe that? It seems that you are prepared to believe anything, regardless of how stupid or wrong it is.

What about the Afghan thug who attacked people on a train? There is another example, I could go on and on but it is pointless, and Merkel inflicted this harm on her people, she has blood on her hands, all for her ego.

The East India Company was in control of the whole area. They had complete control over both trade and land use. The idea that these areas were truly independent is not tenable. The rulers simply administered their areas on behalf of the East India Company. The high death toll was the result of the change of land use which the East India Company had ordered.

“Your link disguises the fact that the British attempted to conquer
famine in the late Victorian period with a series of commissions
enquiries and famine relief – even Florence Nightingale had her say .”

My link does nothing of the sort. Famine continued because of British policy. That it took so long to put an end to it is nothing to be proud of.

“The link also contains what is little more than tittle tattle about Churchill.”

It is not “tittle tattle”. He deliberately allowed Indians to starve. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7991820/Winston-Churchill-blamed-for-1m-deaths-in-India-famine.html

“He could be accused of failing to divert a ship to the area but at least understandable in the circumstances.”

No. He’s accused of deliberately and spitefully thwarting every effort to help. He hated Indians because they dared to defy this evil empire. It’s as simple as that.

And no, the UK never had any success when it relied on free trade. Even when it made high quality unique goods — like Rolls Royce — the companies went bankrupt. And what it is this garbage that you have written about “supply chains have been hollowed out” by being in the EU? Where did you read this trash? Kindly cite the source.

And the reason that the UK shifted to financial services is that the ruling elite after 1980 — elected repeatedly by the UK working class — decided to abandon manufacturing in favour of banking. They chose this option in order to destroy the unions. Thatcher was happy to destroy the UK economy and people voted for it. That’s where it is now, and that’s where it will stay. Trying to blame the EU for the stupidity of the British working class in voting for Tories over decades is just pathetic.

The pink areas were the areas under direct British rule – Bengal – which the British could control and expect to gain the land revenues. The remainder were under independent rule . The 1771 famine was in Bengal but the famines of the 1780s onward were largely in other areas Delhi, Western Oudh, Eastern Punjab region, Rajputana, and Kashmir Madras Hyderabad, Southern Maratha country, Deccan, Gujarat, and Marwar so the idea that the British were responsible is not tenable nor is the idea that the British could control the supply of rice through these areas.
Your link disguises the fact that the British attempted to conquer famine in the late Victorian period with a series of commissions enquiries and famine relief – even Florence Nightingale had her say . They did not come to the conclusion that the problem was shortage of food. Rather it was one of improved land use and transportation which was very successful in that major famines had largely become a thing of the past by 1900.
The link also contains what is little more than tittle tattle about Churchill. The famine had been overcome in ’41 and ’42 but the immediate cause of the ’43 famine was the Japanese cutting off the main source of supply in Burma. Britain was wholly dependent on supplies across the Atlantic not only of of food but the means to continue the war and in early ’43 was on occasion within 10 days of starvation. He could be accused of failing to divert a ship to the area but at least understandable in the circumstances.

No. I am pointing out that these were economies which had been geared to monsoons and periodic monsoon failure for millenia. The crops grown and the storage of staples prevented serious famine. Shortages would have occured from time to time but series of famines which killed more than 30 million people over a twenty year period and actually resulted in vasts amount of land falling into disuse because there was no one left to farm it would not have been sustainable. It is no random coincidence that this series of famines occured as the British took over.

“Yet here we have one at the same time under an area under an independent ruler on whom British influence was purely nominal.”

No. Brtiish CONTROL (not “influence”) was very real and their independence was purely nominal. All these potentates knew that the British allowed them to continue for convenience and could invade and destroy them whenever they wanted to.

“Growing cash crops does not cause famine for the reasons I have given.”

You have not given any coherent reason. If land is given over to growing cah crops then there is less left over for subsistence and storage. It’s simple arithmetic.

“You also imply that they were deliberately starving them through controlling the price and hence the supply of rice. To what end was this and who was to grow the profitable cash crops ?”

Well the end was clearly to make profit from the sale of rice in times of shortage. Perhaps you have a different explanation for the banning of of stockpiling? It’s academic anyway because the amount of land given over to cash crops and the taxes levied by the East India Company meant there was little surplus to store anyway. With regard to the taxes, they were doubled after the famine in order to get the same amount of revenue from a reduced population.

Here’s an Indian account of the famines in general but the Bengal famine in particular: https://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/ . There is plenty more informationon the internet if you have the stomach to read it. With regard to the later famines, Mike Davis’s “Late Victorian Holocausts” is worth reading.

Not under british rule but under British control. There’s no “balance” involved. They were as responsible for this one as the Bengal and Hyderabad famines.

“the general rule is that famines which occurred under British rule were
due to mismanagement or even genocide while those that occurred at other
times were due to climate failures . ”

They were all due to climate failures. The difference was that the local economy had developed to withstand them so previously they had not caused famines. The three super-famines that occurred between 1769 and the mid 1790s occured in climatic conditions which had been occuring for millenia without famines. The major difference was the ending of food production in order to facilitate the growing of cash crops (such as opium) for the East India Company. They also forbade the storing of staples such as rice in order that they could control prices. This was just as much the case in the nominally independent states as it was in the areas under direct company rule. How you conclude that growing cash crops and forbidding food storage doesn’t interfere with growing food escapes me.

I thought the processed food specialisation in the UK was largely the outcome of feeding the population in two world wars, but I could be wrong on this.

Britain was producing lots of goods for the world, and still do, but the proportion of our economy that makes things has not grown as fast as others, we make a lot of high quality products for export, everything from cars to hip replacements , but we need to make more, lots more. One of the problems with being in the EU is that supply chains have been hollowed out, so lots of components need to be brought into the country, some of this may now return (I hope this does happen), another has been an overrelianxe on financial services which has basically screwed the rest of the economy for the last 30 years or so.

We should not buy the glazed eye optimism of the idiots rubbing the country, but nor should we be defeatist like this article, we can make things in this country, good products, but we need to make more, lots more.

“Workshop of the world” was a slogan used by Disraeli, not an historic fact, Holmeboy. Britain needed an empire to sell its shoddy goods to. When the empire declined, Britain found itself competing for trade with countries like Germany, Sweden and Denmark and let’s face, who the hell was going to buy a Jaguar which broke down on a monthly basis when they could get a BMW or an Audi? That was the end. Nope, the myth was that Britain was ever capable of living off its ability to trade with anyone it couldn’t bully with a gunboat.

It does the exact opposite. The last thing these organisations want is fair and equal treatment for their people. They want to be discriminated against, oppressed and (ideally) martyred. That is how they recruit. It is those who advocate leaving the ECHR who play into their hands.

I read this article o. Brexit today, this is a first class analysis of the situation:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/11/brexit-kibasi-ippr-article-50-referendum-remain-leave

Write your own laws! have you thought about what the British politicians have done when allowed to write their own laws in the last 20 years? The direction of law-making is generally that of empowering the state and removing people’s rights. The quality is low. And the most important and useful laws are those actually imposed on the UK by the EU — such as workers’ rights; cheaper bank transactions; cheaper roaming costs (while the current government is trying to increase roaming costs!).

No, you live in a dreamworld, and have no grip on reality.

Anyway, I do believe we are in for a rocky ride in the coming years, and will undoubtedly be poorer with less international opportunities for the average person, so on that score Brexit will probably be a failure, however, if we can regain control of our courts, immigration policy and security Brexit could be deemed a success, only time will tell.

You run Britain down in a hyperbolic way (I think perhaps due to the looming indyref2 you want to make UK look really crap), Britain was once the workshop of the world, that’s how it funded it huge navy and imperial adventure, so it is a myth that Britain has never been good at trade. However, that said, whatever emerges from the next few years, whether it be a UK or rUK, wil have its work cut out, and the adjustments of a post EU world will be difficult, but hopefully worth it, I’ll judge Brexit in 10 years time on whether or not it was worth the upheaval.

At this time, the UK does not benefit from trade with India. Big business benefits from outsourcing (as opposed to trade) while the average Brits suffer in terms of lost employment, lower wages etc. With regard to the actual trade, the UK mainly imports cheap goods from India, while exporting fuck all. Again, who benefits from this? It is far from clear that the relationship between cheap imports and lost manufacturing is such that the average or low paid Brit has benefited. The reasonable assumption is that the rich have benefited.

You see, William, all of your comments are made from the vantage point of the rich, the owners or senior management of big business. You make no microeconomic distinctions concerning distribution of income and wealth. You also have no evidence to show that the UK could successfully engage in free trade — even in the past, let alone in the near future with a collapsing world economy. Your position is nothing other than ideological, and like all ideological arguments that defy reality it is guaranteed to be wrong.

The UK created an empire that covered around 3/4 of the globe from New Zealand to Vancouver and jealously guarded the resources within that empire, whether natural/indigenous (gold & diamonds in southern Africa) or introduced (tea in Kenya, coffee in Ceylon). We acquired that empire using the motivational tools of bayonets and frigates.

We bought the resources back to the UK (or other stable parts of the ‘white’ Empire) where we turned them into finished goods before re-exporting them back to markets within the empire that were protected by punitive tariff barriers and local regulations that forbade production (e.g. finished cotton in India). Once the empire began to crumble in earnest after the end of WW II, the advantages of having a massively protectionist network that covered both the supply of raw materials and the ultimate destination markets for finished value-added products disappeared like scotch mist over a period of about 15 years and, by 1965, any advantage the UK held over the nations that formed the original EEC was pretty much gone.

Of course, the UK wasn’t the only guilty party in this type of endeavour; France, Spain, Portugal and The Netherlands all have a similar background as does the United States who shielded their colonialism under the banners of various companies such as Dole, United Fruit as well as their oil companies. People who think that the United States was a stalwart beacon of freedom against the old imperial powers really need to learn how the US behaved in Cuba for nearly a century or indeed Nicaragua.

Global free trade really didn’t exist until the ITO came into operation in 1947 and GATT was ratified by various nations in a series of rounds that lasted from 1949 to 1986 at which point the WTO was formed and carried on the work.

The first truly global successful round of GATT came with the Tokyo round which involved 102 nations. Tokyo took place between 1973 and 1979, by which time the UK was already part of the-then EEC.

So, in reality, the UK has never stood alone in the global free trade environment as we understand it today; there are just some people who – like the people who believe that the Pilgrim Fathers established the Massachusetts Colony in the name of religious freedom – like to believe in comfortable mythologies.

It was an unmitigated disaster, a catastrophe, a holocaust for those who suffered and died…whole nations!

One must ALWAYS put oneself in the shoes of the VICTIMS of history. Always, almost without any exception.

And that is what the Brit Nat Imperialists NEVER DO. They never, ever put themselves in the shoes of the victims. They only stop to think of their own fallen, the British soldier, they do that every year. But for nobody else…

As for the UK, it is a class-ridden, socially moribund, artistically stifled and sexually repressed backwater…

They had small largely insiginficant empires, that can’t be used to explain their wealth.

“Look at Sweden, Denmark, and Germany, all countries which became prosperous with little or no colonies.”

All three of those countries had empires, William.

Yes some individual Brits gained from colonial exploitation, but after subtracting the costs the evidence that Britain overall gained is weak. Britain’s growth came from property rights and international trade, including with the Empire. Look at Sweden, Denmark, and Germany, all countries which became prosperous with little or no colonies.

The problem with this economic model was that it was predicated on military occupation of foreign territories, which could never be sustained in the long run. Having lost its empire, the UK looked for replacement scams (as described in this very article). Since 1945, it has failed to find any, and instead has resorted to exploiting its own native labour force (again) and more recently to outsourcing to India so that it can exploit other countries’ workers (again). There has never been a free trade model. Have you got that?

So, the ludicrous idea of the Brexiteers that the UK can compete in the global economy does not stand up to scrutiny even historically. In the contemporary world, it is nothing other than laughable. Even Germany — with high quality, good value manufacturing — is dependent on an undervalued currency scam called the eurozone. The UK may get an undervalued currency, but it has neither significant high quality production nor available export markets. In the context of a highly open economy, dependent on imports of almost everything, the only effect of a devalued currency is inflationary pressure and an increased trade deficit. This policy approach almost qualifies as a definition of insanity.

It was an evil kleptocracy and extortion racket. Imperialism is the geo-political equivalent of rape. There can be no defence for it. To call it “glorious” is nothing short of sick. It certainly wasn’t the empire which ended slavery. The empire not only fought tooth and nail to retain it, it actually managed to extort compensation for the vermin who had profited from it.

“But it is doubtful that it was of much benefit economically, compared with free trade without the costs of empire…”

It was the entire foundation of Britain’s wealth – or rather the wealth of Britain’s ruling class. It achieved it by deliberately destroying other economies – particularly in India and the Far east – in order to eliminate competition and create sources of cheap raw materials. Captive populations were treated as cheap labour and brutally stamped down if they attempted to rectify the situation. Famine was used as a weapon (just as it is claimed in the Soviet Union did) and straightforward cold blooded murder would be employed iwhen all else failed.

Far from benefiting from “free trade”, Britiain got rich by imposing tarriffs on imports and sending gunboats or troops to deal with anyone who presented problems.

It would be very surprising if those Liam Fox is seeking trade with are as ignorant about the true history of this “glorious” institution as most Britons seem to be. If he is expecting to encounter fond sentiments from them then he is about to be bitterly disappointed.

The Empire was and is a white supremacist Anglo-Saxan protestant racket which cared for nothing but lining the pockets of the upper class twits who run Britain today. Like Melanie Phillips….

“May the whores of the Empire
Lie awake in their bed
And sweat as they count out
The sins on their heads
While over in Ireland
Eight more men lie dead
Kicked down and shot
In the back of the head…”

I say, let’s not do this in a half-hearted way. Let’s go back to the 1950s in full style. So, no computers, colour TVs, mobile phones, internet, etc. Just books, the latest black and white small TVs, landlines, and no restaurants or eating out (unless you are stinking rich). The local “caff” should be where you socialise along with tobacco-filled pubs (make sure you don’t consume any funny foreign lager). Yes, this is the way forward for “Poverty UK” — back to the 1950s!

And that’s the basis of Brexit. We shouldn’t be asking these damned foreigners to trade with us. We should be impressing on them the fact that it’s our right and their duty . Once they understand that, the hotentots and fuzzywuzzies will be queing up to to sell us their raw materials for beads. Then, when we’ve turned said materials into sub standard and shoddy goods, they can borrow real money off us to buy them back at exorbitant prices and then be happy to redeem the debt by selling us everything they’ve got left for next to nothing . The idea that they wouldn’t want to do this is preposterous. After all, the alternative would be dealing with foreigners…

The Current Account as a Political & Foreign Policy Issue. The UK’s huge and persistent current account deficit is a problem; Brexit risks turning it into a disaster.