BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
You might have to spell out how that worksTheBigBean said:
What if you see the EU as nationalism?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.0 -
In all its forms? now thats zealous bordering on hating your country, There are many beautiful places in the world but Englands countryside in spring has got to be amongst them. Surely you don't object to people being proud of that or keen to protect it? Perhaps youd rather point out whats not right about it or point to somewhere else that you feel better?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.
How about the bleakness of northumberland in November, truly beautiful on a world class scale. Or the beaches of the shetland islands, shimmering blue with perfect sand beaches.
there's nothing wrong with nationalism, or seeking to protect whats special about the place you live or your culture. pointing elsewhere and sneering at those who see things differently is a horrible middle class liberal affliction. It's almost like self hate.
0 -
Not many EU zealots in here are there?ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.
Doesn't seem like there are any who say they want the EU to do badly either.0 -
By his own admission...briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
I think there are a few on here. Although Joelsim (aka cat bloke) was the most amusing example. I think he got banned for abusing people less zealous than him.rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.
I look forward to some quotations to prove your point.
BTW, pointing out that staying in the EU was a better choice than leaving it does not make someone a zealot. If you can find any posts that say the EU was perfect and can do no wrong, I'll concede the point.
https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/20064123#Comment_20064123"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think that's a stretch, but certainly some of the #FBPE crowd and their fetishising of the EU flag are equally objectionable.TheBigBean said:
What if you see the EU as nationalism?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Check this out.
👌🏻👌🏻Too notch trade deal. Glad they wasted all that time on the fish0 -
Lest I be accused of being malevolent towards the EU, I would also add NATO to the list of organisations that have played less than a blinder.pblakeney said:
I'd prefer to think that it was, than think they weren't interested. The fact that we are cooperating militarily with Ukraine and Belarus would indicate an interest.ballysmate said:
So we were Blakey, so we were. One 28th of it in fact. Influencing the EU from inside eh?pblakeney said:
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.
Do you think fannying about with Ukraine was in line with UK foreign policy?
As far back as 2008 they held out the prospect of these countries joining. (What is it with these super-national organisations?) They are neither ready nor is it politically viable that they join to join either NATO nor the EU.
As regards British military presence in Belarus, the MoD said.
“Our engagement with the Belarusian armed forces is centred on areas of mutual learning, such as UN peacekeeping operations, language tuition and arms control. This will be kept under review as the situation develops.”0 -
Along side judgement, would you take any action? Say, consider not buying an new car from the EU or negate your holidays to Europe and try a different continent?Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.0 -
Will that count as unfair state aidrick_chasey said:Check this out.
👌🏻👌🏻Too notch trade deal. Glad they wasted all that time on the fish
So long as the MMT does not fall sick there will be no losers from Brexit0 -
That's a long winded way of saying "We can neither confirm nor deny...".ballysmate said:
“Our engagement with the Belarusian armed forces is centred on areas of mutual learning, such as UN peacekeeping operations, language tuition and arms control. This will be kept under review as the situation develops.”pblakeney said:
I'd prefer to think that it was, than think they weren't interested. The fact that we are cooperating militarily with Ukraine and Belarus would indicate an interest.ballysmate said:
So we were Blakey, so we were. One 28th of it in fact. Influencing the EU from inside eh?pblakeney said:
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.
Do you think fannying about with Ukraine was in line with UK foreign policy?
Agreed NATO is pretty much toothless.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 -
It seems like funny money given Covid will cost hundreds of billions.rick_chasey said:Check this out.
👌🏻👌🏻Too notch trade deal. Glad they wasted all that time on the fish
At least they are doing the right thing to help support them until any issues get resolved.0 -
Maybe its time we put our material driven middle class lives behind and not view the south of France as something one does in Summer with skiing in the winter and city breaks, perhpas we shouldnt be buying new cars from anywhere.focuszing723 said:
Along side judgement, would you take any action? Say, consider not buying an new car from the EU or negate your holidays to Europe and try a different continent?Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.
Save the planet!
0 -
It's definitely a minority of the pro-EU, but flags, anthems and foreign ministers are all steps in that direction. Also, I would consider wanting a federal states of Europe to be a nationalist movement.rjsterry said:
I think that's a stretch, but certainly some of the #FBPE crowd and their fetishising of the EU flag are equally objectionable.TheBigBean said:
What if you see the EU as nationalism?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.1 -
Because much of those were only created just after the second world war and I don't think are comparable.surrey_commuter said:
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?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.
0 -
Yes. All forms. It's just a way for people to feel like they belong to something. There's nothing special about being born on one bit of rock instead of another. Culture doesn't need nations to exist. For the vast majority of human history there has been no such thing as the nation state. For the whole Middle Ages, whole populations were passed around like a nice set of crockery from one Duchy to another. Most of the nations that people claim to love didn't even exist a couple of centuries ago.david37 said:
In all its forms? now thats zealous bordering on hating your country, There are many beautiful places in the world but Englands countryside in spring has got to be amongst them. Surely you don't object to people being proud of that or keen to protect it? Perhaps youd rather point out whats not right about it or point to somewhere else that you feel better?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.
How about the bleakness of northumberland in November, truly beautiful on a world class scale. Or the beaches of the shetland islands, shimmering blue with perfect sand beaches.
there's nothing wrong with nationalism, or seeking to protect whats special about the place you live or your culture. pointing elsewhere and sneering at those who see things differently is a horrible middle class liberal affliction. It's almost like self hate.
Not sure what an appreciation of various bits of English and Scottish landscape has to do with nationalism. I agree they are beautiful but I think even you would have to admit that that is independent of what country they are in. Geology and Bronze Age farming are the two biggest influences on the UK landscapes. Neither you nor I have any meaningful link with those whatsoever. We just happen to have been born on the same island.
As for 'liberal middle class'
P. S. Nearly all my holidays have been taken in the UK.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.1 -
I don't know what you are on about there, best of luck though.david37 said:
Maybe its time we put our material driven middle class lives behind and not view the south of France as something one does in Summer with skiing in the winter and city breaks, perhpas we shouldnt be buying new cars from anywhere.focuszing723 said:
Along side judgement, would you take any action? Say, consider not buying an new car from the EU or negate your holidays to Europe and try a different continent?Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.
Save the planet!0 -
rjsterry said:
Yes. All forms. It's just a way for people to feel like they belong to something. There's nothing special about being born on one bit of rock instead of another. Culture doesn't need nations to exist. For the vast majority of human history there has been no such thing as the nation state. For the whole Middle Ages, whole populations were passed around like a nice set of crockery from one Duchy to another. Most of the nations that people claim to love didn't even exist a couple of centuries ago.david37 said:
In all its forms? now thats zealous bordering on hating your country, There are many beautiful places in the world but Englands countryside in spring has got to be amongst them. Surely you don't object to people being proud of that or keen to protect it? Perhaps youd rather point out whats not right about it or point to somewhere else that you feel better?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.
How about the bleakness of northumberland in November, truly beautiful on a world class scale. Or the beaches of the shetland islands, shimmering blue with perfect sand beaches.
there's nothing wrong with nationalism, or seeking to protect whats special about the place you live or your culture. pointing elsewhere and sneering at those who see things differently is a horrible middle class liberal affliction. It's almost like self hate.
Not sure what an appreciation of various bits of English and Scottish landscape has to do with nationalism. I agree they are beautiful but I think even you would have to admit that that is independent of what country they are in. Geology and Bronze Age farming are the two biggest influences on the UK landscapes. Neither you nor I have any meaningful link with those whatsoever. We just happen to have been born on the same island.
As for 'liberal middle class'
Popeye's a Yam Yam?0 -
Interested in how you think Hong Kong "fell".TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying.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 -
The situation in Hong Kong has been coming since we handed it back. Anyone who thought China would actually honour the deal was/is deluded.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
China wants to rival and exceed the US's influence. The amount they have invested in developing nations to build up support and have those countries in hock to them is huge.0 -
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think that's bending the definition of nationalism somewhat, but agree that flags and anthems are a bit anachronistic.TheBigBean said:
It's definitely a minority of the pro-EU, but flags, anthems and foreign ministers are all steps in that direction. Also, I would consider wanting a federal states of Europe to be a nationalist movement.rjsterry said:
I think that's a stretch, but certainly some of the #FBPE crowd and their fetishising of the EU flag are equally objectionable.TheBigBean said:
What if you see the EU as nationalism?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The security law.pblakeney said:
Interested in how you think Hong Kong "fell".TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying.0 -
Hong Kong's value came from its rule of law and westernisation. If you destroy that all you have is a tiny bit more land in a big country. Thatcher explained this to Deng when he asked why he was negotiating a handover when he could just take it.elbowloh said:
The situation in Hong Kong has been coming since we handed it back. Anyone who thought China would actually honour the deal was/is deluded.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
China wants to rival and exceed the US's influence. The amount they have invested in developing nations to build up support and have those countries in hock to them is huge.
Unfortunately, Xi is an egotistical dimwit. No better example than the banning of Winnie the Pooh, because people thought that is what he looked like.0 -
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth.0 -
Whether you think it fits the definition doesn't really change the point - lusting after a big country isn't much different than lusting after a smaller one.rjsterry said:
I think that's bending the definition of nationalism somewhat, but agree that flags and anthems are a bit anachronistic.TheBigBean said:
It's definitely a minority of the pro-EU, but flags, anthems and foreign ministers are all steps in that direction. Also, I would consider wanting a federal states of Europe to be a nationalist movement.rjsterry said:
I think that's a stretch, but certainly some of the #FBPE crowd and their fetishising of the EU flag are equally objectionable.TheBigBean said:
What if you see the EU as nationalism?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.0 -
What response was that, out of interest?TheBigBean said:
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Inevitably, given its make up, there will be some within the EU who seek to regain an empire via another route. One thing is the organisation and another is the direction it is taken in by its leaders. The UK isn't inherently populist just because it has a populist government at the moment.TheBigBean said:
Whether you think it fits the definition doesn't really change the point - lusting after a big country isn't much different than lusting after a smaller one.rjsterry said:
I think that's bending the definition of nationalism somewhat, but agree that flags and anthems are a bit anachronistic.TheBigBean said:
It's definitely a minority of the pro-EU, but flags, anthems and foreign ministers are all steps in that direction. Also, I would consider wanting a federal states of Europe to be a nationalist movement.rjsterry said:
I think that's a stretch, but certainly some of the #FBPE crowd and their fetishising of the EU flag are equally objectionable.TheBigBean said:
What if you see the EU as nationalism?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.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!
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
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo_666 said:
What response was that, out of interest?TheBigBean said:
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth.Stevo_666 said:
What response was that, out of interest?TheBigBean said:
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth.Stevo_666 said:
What response was that, out of interest?TheBigBean said:
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth.
Allowing a lot of Hong Kong residents to move to the UK. Starts this year I think.Stevo_666 said:
What response was that, out of interest?TheBigBean said:
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
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?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?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.
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.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth.0 -
Russia is a bit of an irrelevance. It has not done structural changes to allow it to become a super power again. It economy is pretty average and future wars don't really fit with oligarchs wading off with piles of cash. China is a different kettle of fish. It won't be long before they start to take more territory in the South China sea as the see a lot of sovereign states as theirs. This will then provoke USA into a response. China is starting to get to becoming an equal and a serious threat. To the world order. I personally would rather the UK did not get involved with this as it won't be in our interests. A smart UK PM will offer words of support but little else.0
