BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

briantrumpet

If I'm reading the thrust of the argument here, the EEC/EU has done nothing to improve the economy of the EEC/EU, and probably didn't do anything to preserve peace after two world wars. And no wars will happen within in its borders again because, well, Europe has great at not having ways any more during the 70 years when the EEC/EU has been in existence... which has had nothing to do with there being no wars, just a happy coincidence.

Have I got that about right?

Dorset_Boy

focuszing723 said:

john80 said:

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?

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.

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.

Aren't you just whimsically playing around in the comfort of hindsight?

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.

The highly punitive nature of the First World War Peace Treaties was a significant factor in the rise of Hitler, and a major factor leading to WW2.
Fortunately the Allies learnt that lesson post 1945.
There was also a weariness of war post 1945 due to having suffered two major conflicts over the previous 30 years, and a strong desire not to go there again.
NATO has been more responsible for peace in western Europe than the EU, though the cooperationcreated by the original concepts of the EC and EEC were also influential.
Not sure how much the Eurocrat wet dream of a European Superstate will help preserve peace as identies and cultures are forcibly submerged.

ballysmate

Should be an easy question for you Brian. Can you give us some examples of where wars were averted by virtue of the potential combatants being in the EU? When the rest of Europe figuratively mopped its brow and sighed, "That was close! Thank god they are in the EU."

pangolin

ballysmate said:

Should be an easy question for you Brian. Can you give us some examples of where wars were averted by virtue of the potential combatants being in the EU? When the rest of Europe figuratively mopped its brow and sighed, "That was close! Thank god they are in the EU."

Surely if a union is functioning well the point is that countries don't ever get to the brink of war.

The concept is explained to B3nder in Futurama in this scene

briantrumpet

ballysmate said:

Should be an easy question for you Brian. Can you give us some examples of where wars were averted by virtue of the potential combatants being in the EU? When the rest of Europe figuratively mopped its brow and sighed, "That was close! Thank god they are in the EU."

What a bizarre question. By that reckoning, anything that is successful in preventing something can be dismissed because that 'something' didn't happen, or even get close to happening.

rjsterry

Might be worth considering what is found under the bit of land that France and the various incarnations of Germany have fought over and compare this with the precursor to the EU, which was focused on a common market for coal and steel.

rick_chasey

Cultures are forcibly submerged jfc

The problem with this discussion is people’s understanding of reality are waaay off.

Can’t discuss it without coalescing under an agreed understanding and there are some amazingly batshit assumptions going on here

ballysmate

Until 1973 there were 6 countries Italy, France, W Germany and the Benelux countries. In 73 the UK, neutral Ireland and Denmark joined. Were any of these new countries any threat to European peace prior to their membership? In 1981 Greece joined. Had they posed any threat? In 86, the Iberian countries joined. Any threat from them? In 95 the warlike Finns , Swedes and Austrians joined In 2004 a shed load of E European nations joined plus Malta and Cyprus. Had any of these new members threatened to kick off? Erm... bit of a pattern forming .

Don't get me wrong, co-operation is good. But "The EU is responsible for peace in Europe since WW2" belongs on the side of a bus.

TheBigBean

You need a control group for any assertion.

Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.

Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.

What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.

Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Wiki disagrees with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party

No, if you read the article it actually confirms what I wrote. I agreed that they were a populist party for the period that Farage was in charge. Before that they were not. Sked was formerly a Liberal. And afterwards they are not popular, so can hardly be thought of as populist. The populist bit clearly originates from Farage.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

Until 1973 there were 6 countries Italy, France, W Germany and the Benelux countries. In 73 the UK, neutral Ireland and Denmark joined. Were any of these new countries any threat to European peace prior to their membership? In 1981 Greece joined. Had they posed any threat? In 86, the Iberian countries joined. Any threat from them? In 95 the warlike Finns , Swedes and Austrians joined In 2004 a shed load of E European nations joined plus Malta and Cyprus. Had any of these new members threatened to kick off? Erm... bit of a pattern forming .

Don't get me wrong, co-operation is good. But "The EU is responsible for peace in Europe since WW2" belongs on the side of a bus.

Agreed that this is far too simplistic. Nevertheless it's worth remembering that most wars are fought over control of resources. Therefore setting up ways for those resources to be freely and fairly traded between potential rivals is likely to reduce the opportunity for conflict.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

Might be worth considering what is found under the bit of land that France and the various incarnations of Germany have fought over and compare this with the precursor to the EU, which was focused on a common market for coal and steel.

If you are implying that the potential area for conflict would have been the historical flash point between Germany and France, it should be remembered that after the war, Germany was in no position to wage war, it was occupied. Even after occupation, there were NATO troops stationed in the West, making any German military action against its western neighbours impossible. Until '73, the only other Common Market members were France, Italy and the Benelux countries.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Wiki disagrees with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party

No, if you read the article it actually confirms what I wrote. I agreed that they were a populist party for the period that Farage was in charge. Before that they were not. Sked was formerly a Liberal. And afterwards they are not popular, so can hardly be thought of as populist. The populist bit clearly originates from Farage.

It confirms what I wrote - they were a populist party.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

You need a control group for any assertion.

Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.

Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.

What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.

Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.

It's a bit more basic isn't it?

If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?

I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.

The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.

There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.

Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

focuszing723 said:

john80 said:

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?

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.

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.

Aren't you just whimsically playing around in the comfort of hindsight?

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.

The highly punitive nature of the First World War Peace Treaties was a significant factor in the rise of Hitler, and a major factor leading to WW2.
Fortunately the Allies learnt that lesson post 1945.
There was also a weariness of war post 1945 due to having suffered two major conflicts over the previous 30 years, and a strong desire not to go there again.
NATO has been more responsible for peace in western Europe than the EU, though the cooperationcreated by the original concepts of the EC and EEC were also influential.
Not sure how much the Eurocrat wet dream of a European Superstate will help preserve peace as identies and cultures are forcibly submerged.

I think the polite way of saying it is that this take, or takes, is/are highly contested in professional historian circles. (and this ignoring the bizarre "cultures forcibly submerged" comment)

Dorset_Boy

Rick, curious, which bits?

rick_chasey

If I'm reading it right, as you mentioned only two causes of WW2, which are what, treaty of Versaille which leads to Hitler which leads to the war, so I'm assuming you're putting the treaty as the most important.

This doesn't need to be a "causes of the second world war" thread, but that's not right.

Dorset_Boy

Pretty sure it is hard to deny that the Treaty of Versailles was so punitive that it caused huge economic issues in Germany, which fuelled the rise of the Communist and Nazi parties, with the Nazi's winning that internal conflict.
If the ToV had been more concilliatory and less punitive, then Germany's economy might not have been destroyed and the extremist parties might not have acquired power.
Germany then wanted / needed to acquire raw materials and some of the industrial production centres that it had been stripped of by the peace treaties, hence the various land grabs, which the rest of Europe ignored, emboldening Hitler to push for the recreation of a German empire.
So the punitive nature of those treaties were a significant factor in causing WW2 in Europe.
Of course there are going to have been other factors because the world is a complex place, and no signle factor in isolation will cause something like that to occur, but can be an initial trigger point.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

You need a control group for any assertion.

Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.

Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.

What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.

Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.

there was not a lot of wars in the caribbean before WW2 so why don't we swap that out for the mid-east or Africa?

rick_chasey

Right, so if it's so punitive, why does Germany a) go through an economic boom in the 20s and then b) have to get absolutely murdered in the The Depression a good decade and a bit after the Versaille Treaty to get the Nazis elected, and even then another 8 years of getting themselves embedded to the point that Hitler could call the shots at a whim?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

You need a control group for any assertion.

Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.

Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.

What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.

Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.

It's a bit more basic isn't it?

If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?

I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.

The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.

There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.

Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.

My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.

focuszing723

Isn't this discussion futile, it's happened. The EU was created at that moment in time and has evolved since into a union which can command more power, rather than an individual European country. Isn't this a good thing given that soon China will have the largest economy and consequential military budget at it's disposable?

I don't get why some people seem fixated and take pleasure in anything negative which happens to it? I bet the same people are happy to spend money on European cars and holidays bragging at how wonderful they've been (if you hate it so much buy British). Completely bizarre to me!

rick_chasey

Yes counter factual history is a bit of a mugs game, but mutual co-operation over asserting sovereignty through nationalist reflexes is probably more likely to stop war between nations than start them.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

You need a control group for any assertion.

Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.

Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.

What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.

Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.

It's a bit more basic isn't it?

If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?

I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.

The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.

There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.

Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.

My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.

Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

Isn't this discussion futile, it's happened. The EU was created at that moment in time and has evolved since into a union which can command more power, rather than an individual European country. Isn't this a good thing given that soon China will have the largest economy and consequential military budget at it's disposable?

I don't get why some people seem fixated and take pleasure in anything negative which happens to it? I bet the same people are happy to spend money on European cars and holidays bragging at how wonderful they've been (if you hate it so much buy British). Completely bizarre to me!

It is a common mistake on here for people to fail to distinguish between the EU i.e. the institution and the individual countries that make up the EU.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

You need a control group for any assertion.

Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.

Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.

What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.

Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.

It's a bit more basic isn't it?

If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?

I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.

The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.

There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.

Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.

My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.

Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?

That's a far more interesting question that does at least acknowledge one of the main reasons for the peace. I will give it some thought.

The other major factor is economic development which also brings peace.

focuszing723

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Isn't this discussion futile, it's happened. The EU was created at that moment in time and has evolved since into a union which can command more power, rather than an individual European country. Isn't this a good thing given that soon China will have the largest economy and consequential military budget at it's disposable?

I don't get why some people seem fixated and take pleasure in anything negative which happens to it? I bet the same people are happy to spend money on European cars and holidays bragging at how wonderful they've been (if you hate it so much buy British). Completely bizarre to me!

It is a common mistake on here for people to fail to distinguish between the EU i.e. the institution and the individual countries that make up the EU.

It also seems to be a common mistake for people to forget about the EU which it suits their needs.

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Isn't this discussion futile, it's happened. The EU was created at that moment in time and has evolved since into a union which can command more power, rather than an individual European country. Isn't this a good thing given that soon China will have the largest economy and consequential military budget at it's disposable?

I don't get why some people seem fixated and take pleasure in anything negative which happens to it? I bet the same people are happy to spend money on European cars and holidays bragging at how wonderful they've been (if you hate it so much buy British). Completely bizarre to me!

It is a common mistake on here for people to fail to distinguish between the EU i.e. the institution and the individual countries that make up the EU.

It also seems to be a common mistake for people to forget about the EU which it suits their needs.

Maybe, but you just made the mistake above.

I have issues with the EU as you know but am quite happy owning a German car and going on skiing holidays to France (and yes they are very good ta )

surrey_commuter

focuszing723 said:

Isn't this discussion futile, it's happened. The EU was created at that moment in time and has evolved since into a union which can command more power, rather than an individual European country. Isn't this a good thing given that soon China will have the largest economy and consequential military budget at it's disposable?

I don't get why some people seem fixated and take pleasure in anything negative which happens to it? I bet the same people are happy to spend money on European cars and holidays bragging at how wonderful they've been (if you hate it so much buy British). Completely bizarre to me!

The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.

Why is another interesting question, my own guess is that it is because they see GB through a Nelsonian/Victorian lens so see the EU as a threat to their European hegemony

focuszing723

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Isn't this discussion futile, it's happened. The EU was created at that moment in time and has evolved since into a union which can command more power, rather than an individual European country. Isn't this a good thing given that soon China will have the largest economy and consequential military budget at it's disposable?

I don't get why some people seem fixated and take pleasure in anything negative which happens to it? I bet the same people are happy to spend money on European cars and holidays bragging at how wonderful they've been (if you hate it so much buy British). Completely bizarre to me!

It is a common mistake on here for people to fail to distinguish between the EU i.e. the institution and the individual countries that make up the EU.

It also seems to be a common mistake for people to forget about the EU which it suits their needs.

Maybe, but you just made the mistake above.

I have issues with the EU as you know but am quite happy owning a German car and going on skiing holidays to France (and yes they are very good ta )

Again you make the exception to suit your needs. Happily spending the Euro with one hand and sticking a finger up with the other.