BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Depends on the purpose. It was mentioned above that the EU was set up to stop the major powers in the region fighting each other, which now seems less likely than spotting the Loch Ness Monster. Don't think that was the purpose of the formation of the USA.briantrumpet said:I look forward to the arguments that the idea of the United States of America has had its day, has served its purpose, and might as well be wound up.
Or does the EU now has a new purpose, such as the formation of a Superstate?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
NATO appears to be a much cheaper option these days.TheBigBean said:
I agree with you that Yugoslavia is another example of failed federalism, and a bad example to use in favour of the EU.ballysmate said:
It really is up to them isn't it? Nowt do with us now.pblakeney said:
Much like that EU?ballysmate said:
The Yugoslavia of half a dozen regions with cultural and religious differences being artificially held together? That Yugoslavia?pblakeney said:Yugoslavia had a substantial amount of rifles and tanks in 1991.
Better is stays together, no?
Have been away from here for a little while and it really is unbelievable that people have gone back to spouting "the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe" bollox again.
One important thing to understand though is that it doesn't matter whether the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe, but that a lot of people in continental Europe believe it has, and therefore are big fans of the EU.
Generally speaking, looking around the world, there are a lot of countries that were involved in world war 2, are not part of a union and yet are still peaceful."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's a (or the) good example of federalism. The population, ignoring the natives, potentially has a lot more in common though than other less successful attempts.briantrumpet said:I look forward to the arguments that the idea of the United States of America has had its day, has served its purpose, and might as well be wound up.
0 -
Merely countering the opinion that Bosnia can be discounted as a force given how it came to be what it is now. Europe is nothing to do with us could have been a response in either 1914 or 1938.ballysmate said:
It really is up to them isn't it? Nowt do with us now.pblakeney said:
Much like that EU?ballysmate said:
The Yugoslavia of half a dozen regions with cultural and religious differences being artificially held together? That Yugoslavia?pblakeney said:Yugoslavia had a substantial amount of rifles and tanks in 1991.
Better is stays together, no?
Have been away from here for a little while and it really is unbelievable that people have gone back to spouting "the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe" bollox again.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
extreem remoaner rubbish that the EU was responsible for peace. they were one of a number of post war groups. I would suggest that since the biggest threat to Europe until the last 20 years was conventional war with Russia. since then its been russia with non conventional war and islam.ballysmate said:
It really is up to them isn't it? Nowt do with us now.pblakeney said:
Much like that EU?ballysmate said:
The Yugoslavia of half a dozen regions with cultural and religious differences being artificially held together? That Yugoslavia?pblakeney said:Yugoslavia had a substantial amount of rifles and tanks in 1991.
Better is stays together, no?
Have been away from here for a little while and it really is unbelievable that people have gone back to spouting "the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe" bollox again.
The EU has never had a direct response to either of those. the NATO yes, UN yes. the EU prefers french sliming diplomacy that panders to Russia.
Also the French as a key country in Europe actually armed the Argentinians at the beginning of the Falklands conflict, only stopping when they got busted for it.
As for the EU army, thats just one of the final steps along with a tightening of member state finance and treasury controls on its journey to becoming a superstate of un elected beurocracy.
The French and EU do not care about Britain or Britain in Europe any further than it suits them to. That was also the case whilst we were in the EU.
0 -
Can we please stop comparing Jugoslavia with the EU. Yugoslavia was ruled an absolute monarchy, under a marxist-leninist government and as a dictatorship. It was never really a confederation of sovereign states like the EU.0
-
the vestiges of sovereignty are being eroded all the time.elbowloh said:Can we please stop comparing Jugoslavia with the EU. Yugoslavia was ruled an absolute monarchy, under a marxist-leninist government and as a dictatorship. It was never really a confederation of sovereign states like the EU.
0 -
However is does show what people are capable of once they start disagreeing, and in relatively recent history. Ukraine could be next. Still, nowt to do with us...elbowloh said:Can we please stop comparing Jugoslavia with the EU. Yugoslavia was ruled an absolute monarchy, under a marxist-leninist government and as a dictatorship. It was never really a confederation of sovereign states like the EU.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
We? There is no we, now. We're on our own. Think it's a stretch to say that the rise of populism - a worldwide phenomenon of the last few years - has arisen due to EU membership. Erdogan in Turkey? Bolsonaro in Brazil? Trump? Modi?Stevo_666 said:
So we keep the huge EU monolith going just in case some small corner of Europe decides to have a fight? Sledgehammers and nuts maybe. Although ironically a lot of the current populism in Europe has arisen because those countries are in the EU - so there is an obvious potential solution to that...briantrumpet said:john80 said:
How long would it take them to completely destroy each other with the advancement in arms? Given it is likely to be less than a week should tell you that it is not going to happen.Stevo_666 said:
Nothing is impossible, but it's highly unlikely. How likely is it that say France and Germany might go to war these days?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Given that was its purpose, surely its job is now done?focuszing723 said:It's fine for people to be positive towards our Country, but when you start getting silly rejoicing in the breakup of a European Union. Which was created to maintain peace off the backdrop of two world wars. Surely you are either trolling or just not well versed in history.
So you think it's impossible for a return to any sort of conflict in Europe, even if the EU disappeared?
Having been to Serbia in 2015, with the recent marks of a brutal war still very much in evidence, you'll have to excuse me if I don't share the blithe "it's not going to happen" assurance. They didn't think it would happen either. I'd agree that it's rather unlikely between France and Germany, but there are enough tensions elsewhere ready to be exploited by the next populist/fascist.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Going back 3 yearsrick_chasey said:ballysmate said:"the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe" bollox again.
Come on, substantiate that claim. How is that bollocks?
https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/13028650/brexit-2020-bye-bye-brussels-its-been-a-blast/p671
Following on from those 3 year old posts
Peace was more likely due to the fear of the 300 Soviet divisions that Western Europe were fearful of rolling westwards and the necessity of stationing hundreds of thousands of Nato trrops in W Germany.
1 -
And the EU played its part in destabilising the area by courting Ukraine.pblakeney said:
However is does show what people are capable of once they start disagreeing, and in relatively recent history. Ukraine could be next. Still, nowt to do with us...elbowloh said:Can we please stop comparing Jugoslavia with the EU. Yugoslavia was ruled an absolute monarchy, under a marxist-leninist government and as a dictatorship. It was never really a confederation of sovereign states like the EU.
1 -
As did Russia. That is how these things begin.ballysmate said:
And the EU played its part in destabilising the area by courting Ukraine.pblakeney said:
However is does show what people are capable of once they start disagreeing, and in relatively recent history. Ukraine could be next. Still, nowt to do with us...elbowloh said:Can we please stop comparing Jugoslavia with the EU. Yugoslavia was ruled an absolute monarchy, under a marxist-leninist government and as a dictatorship. It was never really a confederation of sovereign states like the EU.
PS - We were a major part of the EU at the beginning of this saga.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Edited to deal with your first point.rjsterry said:
We? There is no we, now. We're on our own. Think it's a stretch to say that the rise of populism - a worldwide phenomenon of the last few years - has arisen due to EU membership. Erdogan in Turkey? Bolsonaro in Brazil? Trump? Modi?Stevo_666 said:
So they keep the huge EU monolith going just in case some small corner of Europe decides to have a fight? Sledgehammers and nuts maybe. Although ironically a lot of the current populism in Europe has arisen because those countries are in the EU - so there is an obvious potential solution to that...briantrumpet said:john80 said:
How long would it take them to completely destroy each other with the advancement in arms? Given it is likely to be less than a week should tell you that it is not going to happen.Stevo_666 said:
Nothing is impossible, but it's highly unlikely. How likely is it that say France and Germany might go to war these days?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Given that was its purpose, surely its job is now done?focuszing723 said:It's fine for people to be positive towards our Country, but when you start getting silly rejoicing in the breakup of a European Union. Which was created to maintain peace off the backdrop of two world wars. Surely you are either trolling or just not well versed in history.
So you think it's impossible for a return to any sort of conflict in Europe, even if the EU disappeared?
Having been to Serbia in 2015, with the recent marks of a brutal war still very much in evidence, you'll have to excuse me if I don't share the blithe "it's not going to happen" assurance. They didn't think it would happen either. I'd agree that it's rather unlikely between France and Germany, but there are enough tensions elsewhere ready to be exploited by the next populist/fascist.
As for your reference to populism outside of the EU, if you read my post I did say 'populism in Europe'."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So if we're agreed that it's a fairly universal phenomenon, your evidence for the EU causing the rise of populism is what, exactly?Stevo_666 said:
Edited to deal with your first point.rjsterry said:
We? There is no we, now. We're on our own. Think it's a stretch to say that the rise of populism - a worldwide phenomenon of the last few years - has arisen due to EU membership. Erdogan in Turkey? Bolsonaro in Brazil? Trump? Modi?Stevo_666 said:
So they keep the huge EU monolith going just in case some small corner of Europe decides to have a fight? Sledgehammers and nuts maybe. Although ironically a lot of the current populism in Europe has arisen because those countries are in the EU - so there is an obvious potential solution to that...briantrumpet said:john80 said:
How long would it take them to completely destroy each other with the advancement in arms? Given it is likely to be less than a week should tell you that it is not going to happen.Stevo_666 said:
Nothing is impossible, but it's highly unlikely. How likely is it that say France and Germany might go to war these days?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Given that was its purpose, surely its job is now done?focuszing723 said:It's fine for people to be positive towards our Country, but when you start getting silly rejoicing in the breakup of a European Union. Which was created to maintain peace off the backdrop of two world wars. Surely you are either trolling or just not well versed in history.
So you think it's impossible for a return to any sort of conflict in Europe, even if the EU disappeared?
Having been to Serbia in 2015, with the recent marks of a brutal war still very much in evidence, you'll have to excuse me if I don't share the blithe "it's not going to happen" assurance. They didn't think it would happen either. I'd agree that it's rather unlikely between France and Germany, but there are enough tensions elsewhere ready to be exploited by the next populist/fascist.
As for your reference to populism outside of the EU, if you read my post I did say 'populism in Europe'.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Here's one example close to home, although now historical. Would UKIP and the Brexit party have existed if the UK had never been in the EU?rjsterry said:
So if we're agreed that it's a fairly universal phenomenon, your evidence for the EU causing the rise of populism is what, exactly?Stevo_666 said:
Edited to deal with your first point.rjsterry said:
We? There is no we, now. We're on our own. Think it's a stretch to say that the rise of populism - a worldwide phenomenon of the last few years - has arisen due to EU membership. Erdogan in Turkey? Bolsonaro in Brazil? Trump? Modi?Stevo_666 said:
So they keep the huge EU monolith going just in case some small corner of Europe decides to have a fight? Sledgehammers and nuts maybe. Although ironically a lot of the current populism in Europe has arisen because those countries are in the EU - so there is an obvious potential solution to that...briantrumpet said:john80 said:
How long would it take them to completely destroy each other with the advancement in arms? Given it is likely to be less than a week should tell you that it is not going to happen.Stevo_666 said:
Nothing is impossible, but it's highly unlikely. How likely is it that say France and Germany might go to war these days?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Given that was its purpose, surely its job is now done?focuszing723 said:It's fine for people to be positive towards our Country, but when you start getting silly rejoicing in the breakup of a European Union. Which was created to maintain peace off the backdrop of two world wars. Surely you are either trolling or just not well versed in history.
So you think it's impossible for a return to any sort of conflict in Europe, even if the EU disappeared?
Having been to Serbia in 2015, with the recent marks of a brutal war still very much in evidence, you'll have to excuse me if I don't share the blithe "it's not going to happen" assurance. They didn't think it would happen either. I'd agree that it's rather unlikely between France and Germany, but there are enough tensions elsewhere ready to be exploited by the next populist/fascist.
As for your reference to populism outside of the EU, if you read my post I did say 'populism in Europe'.
Something tells me you're bored."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
UKIP as originally set up were not a populist party. They have since disintegrated. The Brexit Party is more of a money making exercise for Farage than a political party, but certainly capitalised on disenchantment with our membership, but now that we're out, they have pivoted to being an anti-lockdown/covid denial group so I'll give you half a point.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
One of the interesting things that has come out of the EU not granting equivalence is that it incentivises the UK to diverge. The possibility of divergence is the reason the EU gives for not granting equivalence despite the possibility of it being revoked with 30 days notice.
0 -
I always thought equivalence with 30 days notice was worse than useless other than as a stop gap measureTheBigBean said:One of the interesting things that has come out of the EU not granting equivalence is that it incentivises the UK to diverge. The possibility of divergence is the reason the EU gives for not granting equivalence despite the possibility of it being revoked with 30 days notice.
0 -
It's the carrot the EU is dangling. They don't seem to have noticed it is not that appealing and might damage their own economy by not offering it.surrey_commuter said:
I always thought equivalence with 30 days notice was worse than useless other than as a stop gap measureTheBigBean said:One of the interesting things that has come out of the EU not granting equivalence is that it incentivises the UK to diverge. The possibility of divergence is the reason the EU gives for not granting equivalence despite the possibility of it being revoked with 30 days notice.
0 -
Wiki disagrees with you.rjsterry said:UKIP as originally set up were not a populist party. They have since disintegrated. The Brexit Party is more of a money making exercise for Farage than a political party, but certainly capitalised on disenchantment with our membership, but now that we're out, they have pivoted to being an anti-lockdown/covid denial group so I'll give you half a point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That's a bit harsh on SC and PBddraver said:Can the morons get themselves an avatar, please? It's really hard to spot the posts to scroll past...
A sweedish Flag works well.
Thanks
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Feel free to substantiate peace being due to the EU. The existence of the EU does not actually prove this for the avoidance of doubt anymore than the existence of any number of other organisations.rick_chasey said:ballysmate said:"the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe" bollox again.
Come on, substantiate that claim. How is that bollocks?
It could be easy to argue that for the 20 years post WW2 the public and countries were too busy digging themselves out of the prior war to have much appetite for another scrap which takes us to the 1970s. At that point France and the UK has a full nuclear deterrent. So lets say a nation decides to invade another. All that is required is for the UK or France to ask them to leave, give them a timescale then destroy their capital if the deadline is missed. How is that country going to continue their assault if city by city they are destroyed for failing to leave the country that they have invaded. how are they going to supply their troops from their demolished country and how is soldier moral having wiped out their entire family at home. The Japanese did not have much appetite to continue and they are probably one of the most stuborn nations in the world. Take us into the modern age and no politician is safe from the weapons of another developed country. The UK could wipe out a leadership overnight with modern weapons that are non-nuclear. The reason Europe is not at war is not just because of the EU. Just think how communications have changed beyond their village since the 1950s. You can get news from anywhere in the world 24 hours a day which makes it much harder to hoodwink the majority of a country into stupid actions. How would Hitler have operated in the modern world. I think he would have been killed a lot earlier.0 -
-
Chapeaujohn80 said:
Feel free to substantiate peace being due to the EU. The existence of the EU does not actually prove this for the avoidance of doubt anymore than the existence of any number of other organisations.rick_chasey said:ballysmate said:"the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe" bollox again.
Come on, substantiate that claim. How is that bollocks?
It could be easy to argue that for the 20 years post WW2 the public and countries were too busy digging themselves out of the prior war to have much appetite for another scrap which takes us to the 1970s. At that point France and the UK has a full nuclear deterrent. So lets say a nation decides to invade another. All that is required is for the UK or France to ask them to leave, give them a timescale then destroy their capital if the deadline is missed. How is that country going to continue their assault if city by city they are destroyed for failing to leave the country that they have invaded. how are they going to supply their troops from their demolished country and how is soldier moral having wiped out their entire family at home. The Japanese did not have much appetite to continue and they are probably one of the most stuborn nations in the world. Take us into the modern age and no politician is safe from the weapons of another developed country. The UK could wipe out a leadership overnight with modern weapons that are non-nuclear. The reason Europe is not at war is not just because of the EU. Just think how communications have changed beyond their village since the 1950s. You can get news from anywhere in the world 24 hours a day which makes it much harder to hoodwink the majority of a country into stupid actions. How would Hitler have operated in the modern world. I think he would have been killed a lot earlier.
I missed it first time around, but having read the last two sentences went back and read again from the start.0 -
Small point, but 1945 + 20 = 1965. Most historians agree this was not in the 1970s.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
1918 + 20 = 1938 which has a ring of coincidence though. 😉pangolin said:Small point, but 1945 + 20 = 1965. Most historians agree this was not in the 1970s.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
This takes some beating for wilfully blind optimism, although TBF 52% of those who voted is not actually a majority of a countryjohn80 said:You can get news from anywhere in the world 24 hours a day which makes it much harder to hoodwink the majority of a country into stupid actions.
0 -
You could make a strong case that not voting (either way) is a pretty stupid action.bompington said:
This takes some beating for wilfully blind optimism, although TBF 52% of those who voted is not actually a majority of a countryjohn80 said:You can get news from anywhere in the world 24 hours a day which makes it much harder to hoodwink the majority of a country into stupid actions.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Aren't you just whimsically playing around in the comfort of hindsight?john80 said:
Feel free to substantiate peace being due to the EU. The existence of the EU does not actually prove this for the avoidance of doubt anymore than the existence of any number of other organisations.rick_chasey said:ballysmate said:"the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe" bollox again.
Come on, substantiate that claim. How is that bollocks?
It could be easy to argue that for the 20 years post WW2 the public and countries were too busy digging themselves out of the prior war to have much appetite for another scrap which takes us to the 1970s. At that point France and the UK has a full nuclear deterrent. So lets say a nation decides to invade another. All that is required is for the UK or France to ask them to leave, give them a timescale then destroy their capital if the deadline is missed. How is that country going to continue their assault if city by city they are destroyed for failing to leave the country that they have invaded. how are they going to supply their troops from their demolished country and how is soldier moral having wiped out their entire family at home. The Japanese did not have much appetite to continue and they are probably one of the most stuborn nations in the world. Take us into the modern age and no politician is safe from the weapons of another developed country. The UK could wipe out a leadership overnight with modern weapons that are non-nuclear. The reason Europe is not at war is not just because of the EU. Just think how communications have changed beyond their village since the 1950s. You can get news from anywhere in the world 24 hours a day which makes it much harder to hoodwink the majority of a country into stupid actions. How would Hitler have operated in the modern world. I think he would have been killed a lot earlier.
I would have also thought Countries would have had enough of the world war after the first one. That didn't seem to come to fruition, hence outward looking concepts such as the EU and Cern.
Honestly, it seems as though some people live their lives akin to 1984, wiping out history to suit their myopic stance.0
