Forum Topic

Mr Ixer'I'm not sure I could define British, it's obviously evolved since the 1950s and 60s when there were remnants of the British Empire,  and people still thought of Ruling the Waves. 'Could you define French, German, Italian.....?They themselves could and do.As I am sure you could also as a warmth towards anything/person from the continent of Europe just oozes from the open heartedness you express towards them.None of them of course once nasty imperialists with a desire to rule the waves and keep a white foot on a black neck.But you can't define British.It's just those of your own (and here I recognise I am making an assumption as to what that is) heritage and lineage on which you vent your ire and splenetic attitude.You are a classic example of the type of Brit (assuming you are such) that Orwell so despised."“In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. 
They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. (NOW - THOSE FROM ANY ISLAMIST OR ANTI-AMERICAN SOURCE). In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought.England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals 
are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always 
felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman 
and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse 
racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably 
true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of 
standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a 
poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping 
away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes 
squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian (NOW PRO-ISLAMIST), but always 
anti-British.”― George Orwell, England Your EnglandYou claim - 'Anyway, I'm sure the Scots, Welsh, English and Irish wouldn't agree on the term "British"'. This is a good example of your usual flawed logic.What are these groups other than people who chose to identify as members of a subset of the total population of  Britain - ie British.Many calling themselves Scot, Welsh or Irish were not even born in those parts of the Kingdom and the majority of them have shown themselves to have no desire to leave it, because of their financial dependence upon its English economy and subsidy if for no other reason.'You'd probably also get a different answer from a wealthy finance person in the City, an IT will kid in a Cambridge technology incubator company. to an unemployed person in Newcastle,  irrespective of their racial backgrounds'.Probably true.The former a citizen of nowhere rather than Britain.The latter cheering for England at football and wondering if  his lack of employment is cause by the vast number of immigrants enabling wage cutting.As for those of your other cohorts, the EU lovers of Irish ancestry (think farming subsidies), let them go and live where they feel most at home if it is not in Britain.Just make them choose a single nationality and passport and not have the benefit of dual nationality with which to hedge their bets.

John Hawkes ● 13d

Mr Ixer'Mr Hawkes. Personally, I believe President Trump is wrong in his attempts to take over another country's sovereign territory. I suppose you think he's right?'I do not think he is right.Just as I do not think it right for Palestinians to try to take over Israel.But...I understand that the US has the right to maintain armed forces in Greenland.I have no doubt Trump will expand this presence and then get into some form of negotiation with Denmark.The relationship between Denmark and Greenland would seem to be a classic case of 18thC colonialism.Wiki - "While Inuit survived in the icy world of the Little Ice Age, the early Norse settlements, known as the Eastern Settlement, along the southwestern coast disappeared, leaving Inuit as the only inhabitants of the island for several centuries. During this time, Denmark–Norway, apparently believing the Norse settlements had survived, continued to claim sovereignty over the island despite the lack of any contact between the Norsemen (specifically Icelanders) installed in Greenland and their Scandinavian brethren. In 1721, aspiring to become a colonial power, Denmark-Norway sent a missionary expedition to Greenland with the stated aim of reinstating Christianity among descendants of the Norse Greenlanders who may have converted back to paganism. When the missionaries found no descendants of the Norse Greenlanders, they baptised the Inuit they found living there instead. Denmark-Norway then developed trading colonies along the coast and imposed a trade monopoly and other colonial privileges on the area'.The land mass itself would seem to offer benefits far greater than Denmark would need or could exploit and the Greenlanders themselves require.For instance I understand that it is rich in rare earth minerals which the US could utilise for the general betterment of the Western World.It should be considered a natural asset for the West as a whole.The alternative would be exploitation by China or Russia which would pose not only an economic but also a political risk to the US and Europe which Trump quite rightly will not let happen.

John Hawkes ● 18d