Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions
- Thread starter Vergennes
- Start date
Ireland’s strange decision to become a French colonial outpost
Only a cynic would suggest this is a calculated two fingers to Brexit Britain
Ireland’s strange decision to become a French colonial outpost | The Spectator
Only a cynic would suggest this is a calculated two fingers to Brexit Britain
Ireland’s strange decision to become a French colonial outpost | The Spectator
Proof that @BMD is completely out of his depths as far as current affairs in Ireland go .Ireland’s strange decision to become a French colonial outpost
Only a cynic would suggest this is a calculated two fingers to Brexit Britain
Ireland’s strange decision to become a French colonial outpost | The Spectator
Anyway, for the French, England is a colony that has gone wrong
Give us free rafalesMaybe India could also join the French Commonwealth?
France has a commonwealth ? This is news to me. So, who else is in that club ?Maybe India could also join the French Commonwealth?
That's honestly a topic for a different thread, long story short: yes but no.
The International Organisation of the Francophonie differs from the Commonwealth in several key aspects. The first is that it wasn't actually created by France, unlike the Commonwealth of Nations which was a British initiative. The actual French equivalent to the Commonwealth was the French Union, which didn't last long: started in 1946, transformed into the French Community in 1958, ceased all activities in 1959 and was then forgotten about.
The Francophonie instead was conceived by the heads of states of several newly-independent former French colonies: primarily Léopold Sédar Senghor of Senegal, Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia, Hamani Diori of Niger and Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia. It was originally created in 1970 to promote cooperation between member countries in the domains of education, culture, scientific and technical research, and it was explicitly barred by its founding charter to discuss of political and ethical issues. This was changed in 1986 where it started being charged with promoting human rights as well as safeguard local languages. Although the organisation is ostensibly defined by sharing the French language, most countries in it only has small minorities of French speakers, even counting those for whom French is a second language acquired in school. Lately, the organisation has mostly been seen as a way to get privileged access to the emerging market of western and central Africa, which is largely why countries such as South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, or Ireland have decided to join.
The organisation currently features 88 member governments, spread between full members, associates, and observers; which together represent a total of 82 countries (one of which is currently suspended) and 6 regional governments.
Technically, India could easily join through its Union Territory of Puducherry. (The whole country doesn't need to join: the American state of Louisiana is in, even though the USA as a whole aren't. Yeah, that Wikipedia map doesn't show Louisiana but it's there.)
That's honestly a topic for a different thread, long story short: yes but no.
The International Organisation of the Francophonie differs from the Commonwealth in several key aspects. The first is that it wasn't actually created by France, unlike the Commonwealth of Nations which was a British initiative. The actual French equivalent to the Commonwealth was the French Union, which didn't last long: started in 1946, transformed into the French Community in 1958, ceased all activities in 1959 and was then forgotten about.
The Francophonie instead was conceived by the heads of states of several newly-independent former French colonies: primarily Léopold Sédar Senghor of Senegal, Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia, Hamani Diori of Niger and Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia. It was originally created in 1970 to promote cooperation between member countries in the domains of education, culture, scientific and technical research, and it was explicitly barred by its founding charter to discuss of political and ethical issues. This was changed in 1986 where it started being charged with promoting human rights as well as safeguard local languages. Although the organisation is ostensibly defined by sharing the French language, most countries in it only has small minorities of French speakers, even counting those for whom French is a second language acquired in school. Lately, the organisation has mostly been seen as a way to get privileged access to the emerging market of western and central Africa, which is largely why countries such as South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, or Ireland have decided to join.
The organisation currently features 88 member governments, spread between full members, associates, and observers; which together represent a total of 82 countries (one of which is currently suspended) and 6 regional governments.
Technically, India could easily join through its Union Territory of Puducherry. (The whole country doesn't need to join: the American state of Louisiana is in, even though the USA as a whole aren't. Yeah, that Wikipedia map doesn't show Louisiana but it's there.)
India should get out of the Commonwealth!! And do more to strengthen BIMSTEC, BRICS and ASEAN.
Buy one, get one free Rafales,That's honestly a topic for a different thread, long story short: yes but no.
The International Organisation of the Francophonie differs from the Commonwealth in several key aspects. The first is that it wasn't actually created by France, unlike the Commonwealth of Nations which was a British initiative. The actual French equivalent to the Commonwealth was the French Union, which didn't last long: started in 1946, transformed into the French Community in 1958, ceased all activities in 1959 and was then forgotten about.
The Francophonie instead was conceived by the heads of states of several newly-independent former French colonies: primarily Léopold Sédar Senghor of Senegal, Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia, Hamani Diori of Niger and Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia. It was originally created in 1970 to promote cooperation between member countries in the domains of education, culture, scientific and technical research, and it was explicitly barred by its founding charter to discuss of political and ethical issues. This was changed in 1986 where it started being charged with promoting human rights as well as safeguard local languages. Although the organisation is ostensibly defined by sharing the French language, most countries in it only has small minorities of French speakers, even counting those for whom French is a second language acquired in school. Lately, the organisation has mostly been seen as a way to get privileged access to the emerging market of western and central Africa, which is largely why countries such as South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, or Ireland have decided to join.
The organisation currently features 88 member governments, spread between full members, associates, and observers; which together represent a total of 82 countries (one of which is currently suspended) and 6 regional governments.
Technically, India could easily join through its Union Territory of Puducherry. (The whole country doesn't need to join: the American state of Louisiana is in, even though the USA as a whole aren't. Yeah, that Wikipedia map doesn't show Louisiana but it's there.)
I literally fell off laughing at that joke.On a serious note, If some preferred trade benefits can be extracted, then like Louisiana, Pondicherry joining is not a bad option, thereby helping Indian traders. It may be tough politically though at grass root lvl due to past fears. But it can be a win-win for both India & France
Last edited:
Well, it is stupid. If there is a border in the Irish Sea, then the 80% of ROI exports to the EU that go via the UK will have to clear two customs borders before reaching the EU - the one in the Irish Sea and the one in the English Channel.
True but it's more to do with business lobbies than personal pride. Half of them are probably being bribed or blackmailed by rich elites.
It's also called the EU. Just like the British Empire, they take your money too, hence Common-Wealth, since your wealth is their wealth. The only difference is that they're less honest, rather than using force they use wealthy elites to 'persuade' elected leaders to sign over your country behind your back and then keep asking for more referendums whenever you vote to leave, as well as using their newspapers to tell Leave voters that they're thick and racist.
Last edited:
I thought it was a diagram of how the EU Parliament, Council and Commission interacts. When you have three different presidents you know something is wrong. What are the roles of the other two exactly? To stroke the dick and scratch the head of the first one? But let me guess, you think we should pay their pension?Brexit: with this flowchart, everything becomes simple and clear
