Discussion
5ohmustang said:
In terms of sheer numbers of troops and equipment, the entire EU does not come close to combined U.S. Armed Forces, Active duty, Reserve and National guard.
In the words of one officer... 'The British Tom, or squaddie, is without doubt the best fighting soldier in the world today. He may not be the best equipped but he is the best led, best trained military man on this planet. Man to man he is unbeatable. The problem is, there are not enough of him'
Not the words of an officer serving the Queen but those of a very senior US Army officer serving with NATO in the 80's
Tango13 said:
5ohmustang said:
In terms of sheer numbers of troops and equipment, the entire EU does not come close to combined U.S. Armed Forces, Active duty, Reserve and National guard.
In the words of one officer... 'The British Tom, or squaddie, is without doubt the best fighting soldier in the world today. He may not be the best equipped but he is the best led, best trained military man on this planet. Man to man he is unbeatable. The problem is, there are not enough of him'
Not the words of an officer serving the Queen but those of a very senior US Army officer serving with NATO in the 80's
t.True, the Americans do seem to end-ex when the rain starts but the world has lots of fine troops. Enlisted west African troops are fearsome although led by morons and mountainous Asian troops are fantastically dedicated.
You would be amazed at the quantity of fat infantry the UK carries.
Mrr T said:
This post shows how little the average brexiter understands the EU countries. I call it the Dover effect but it's more than that.
If you look at the working population of Dover many will work in the rest of Kent even in London. Almost no one works in France or Belgium. Partly because of language but also because of cost. The same is true of say Manchester as well, although there the issue is distance.
This is simply not true in most of the EU where the idea of crossing a border to work is often normal. I know Luxemburg well and a majority of its workers live in an other country. Let me tell you a French who drives into work in Luxembourg is still a Frenchman at heart.
Shows your own lack of comprehension, more like. The fact that the federalists' plan might not be working, or meaningfully to ordinary people, doesn't mean that it isn't their plan.If you look at the working population of Dover many will work in the rest of Kent even in London. Almost no one works in France or Belgium. Partly because of language but also because of cost. The same is true of say Manchester as well, although there the issue is distance.
This is simply not true in most of the EU where the idea of crossing a border to work is often normal. I know Luxemburg well and a majority of its workers live in an other country. Let me tell you a French who drives into work in Luxembourg is still a Frenchman at heart.
It probably does go someway to explain why dissatisfaction with the Eu even in core countries like Germany and France is around the 50% mark though. They forgot to ask the people if they agreed with the plan...
Murph7355 said:
Didn't it get re-branded as the Treaty of Lisbon. And in this country at least then just get signed without the referendum that was planned for the "constitution"?
...
It will be interesting to see how the EU pans out. You may be right. I may be the world's biggest tin foil hatter. A good part of my vote was to not take that risk though
The Lisbon Treaty is not just a rebranding of the proposed constitution. The constitution was completely castrated. For example, a role called "President" survived, but he has no power at all. That's hardly what the Constitution proposed, is it? The Constitution was roundly rejected. The Treaty was passed because the it completely hollowed out the Constitution, leaving a few face-saving names in as a compromise, but basically making it clear that there was no appetite for further integration for its own sake....
It will be interesting to see how the EU pans out. You may be right. I may be the world's biggest tin foil hatter. A good part of my vote was to not take that risk though
The EU is littered with hugely inflated job titles. These are the legacy of the federalists attempts to genuinely transfer power towards the centre. Look at the power that actually comes with these job titles; none at all. All of the power sits in the hands of the member states' national governments. It always has and every attempt to change this has been brushed aside.
Back in the day when the EU was basically just France and Germany plus a few others, France really did make a song and dance about integration ... because it assumed that the EU would really just be France on a bigger scale. The project was a vehicle for France, it assumed. But as the EU expanded to the East it took on a lot of members who had just freed themselves from Soviet hegemony and their own communist dictatorships. No appetite for integration there and certainly no appetite to be led by France. If you remember, their refusal to back France's position on Iraq led Chirac to call them "infantile" and to say they'd "missed a great opportunity to shut up". Which was somewhat ironic. He simply couldn't believe that they wouldn't naturally look to France to take the lead on foreign policy.
Once that expansion had taken place, the UK couldn't be seen in any quarter as being a fringe, heretical member. We were mainstream. Indeed the EU came to be seen as trojan horse for Anglo Saxon capitalism by many of the old guard. We had won the argument.
Thus is why I find the Brexit vote particularly painful. There was absolutely no need to leave because of a fear of federalism. We'd already won that battle. We'd already set it on the course we wanted. Yes, there'd be a tension between the Eurozone and all of us who hadn't adopted the Euro, but that was perfectly manageable as we'd just shown by being able to distance ourselves from the Greek crisis. But the path towards wider economic reform in the Single Market was in place. Creating new subsidies, new protectionism was just not an option. No one was going to handover foreign policy, criminal law, education or any other competence to the EU.
In addition to the economic benefits we've reaped, the EU had been extremely successful at helping prospective members to reform themselves by making democratic, legal and economic reforms a pre-condition of membership. The historic importance of this is hard to exaggerate. It's ability to project soft power is without parallel. It is a crying shame that we've lost focus on that and allowed ourselves to become so timid and fearful instead. The EU was no threat to the UK. How weak and feeble someone must think the UK is to see the EU as a threat.
grumbledoak said:
Murph7355 said:
ATG said:
...Look at what the federalists proposed for the EU Constitution and look what the member states did to the proposal. ....
Didn't it get re-branded as the Treaty of Lisbon. And in this country at least then just get signed without the referendum that was planned for the "constitution"?
One of them - I think Juncker - even said words to the effect that "all the important parts were still in it". Lie more and carry on, as usual. Good riddance.ETA - It was Giscard d'Estaing and he said it even more clearly than that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567804/Gis...
Edited by grumbledoak on Saturday 21st January 06:52
ATG said:
Thus is why I find the Brexit vote particularly painful. There was absolutely no need to leave because of a fear of federalism. We'd already won that battle.
I suspect this is where we differ. You think we've won the battle, I think they're just playing the long game, like they always do, that the battle will never be over. And that ultimately we would lose.LimaDelta said:
Mrr T said:
This post shows how little the average brexiter understands the EU countries. I call it the Dover effect but it's more than that.
If you look at the working population of Dover many will work in the rest of Kent even in London. Almost no one works in France or Belgium. Partly because of language but also because of cost. The same is true of say Manchester as well, although there the issue is distance.
This is simply not true in most of the EU where the idea of crossing a border to work is often normal. I know Luxemburg well and a majority of its workers live in an other country. Let me tell you a French who drives into work in Luxembourg is still a Frenchman at heart.
I suggest you do some research into how European borders have moved over the last few centuries, and then tell me if they are really crossing borders. A border is just an arbitrary line on a map. Britain is an Island nation and thinks accordingly. The Europeans, particularly France/BENELUX/Germany are fairly homogenous. If you look at the working population of Dover many will work in the rest of Kent even in London. Almost no one works in France or Belgium. Partly because of language but also because of cost. The same is true of say Manchester as well, although there the issue is distance.
This is simply not true in most of the EU where the idea of crossing a border to work is often normal. I know Luxemburg well and a majority of its workers live in an other country. Let me tell you a French who drives into work in Luxembourg is still a Frenchman at heart.
Also Luxembourg, etc don't really count as they have to rely on 'foreign' workers due to their size. Many people working in Monaco live in France for financial reasons.
CrutyRammers said:
ATG said:
Thus is why I find the Brexit vote particularly painful. There was absolutely no need to leave because of a fear of federalism. We'd already won that battle.
I suspect this is where we differ. You think we've won the battle, I think they're just playing the long game, like they always do, that the battle will never be over. And that ultimately we would lose.ATG said:
CrutyRammers said:
ATG said:
Thus is why I find the Brexit vote particularly painful. There was absolutely no need to leave because of a fear of federalism. We'd already won that battle.
I suspect this is where we differ. You think we've won the battle, I think they're just playing the long game, like they always do, that the battle will never be over. And that ultimately we would lose.You may be right about the eventual outcome, or you may be wrong, but the debate is certainly not finished;
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-0...
loafer123 said:
ATG said:
CrutyRammers said:
ATG said:
Thus is why I find the Brexit vote particularly painful. There was absolutely no need to leave because of a fear of federalism. We'd already won that battle.
I suspect this is where we differ. You think we've won the battle, I think they're just playing the long game, like they always do, that the battle will never be over. And that ultimately we would lose.You may be right about the eventual outcome, or you may be wrong, but the debate is certainly not finished;
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-0...
It says the high water mark for integration was the creation of the Euro.
It says Juncker's plan for further integration is languishing in a drawer.
It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
ATG said:
...
It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
The implication being that this is not what it is right now, and quite possibly isn't heading that way...?It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
You can cite Bacofoil all you wish. I'm certainly not going to deny that there are elements of that...but that cuts both ways.
You're adamant the EU will never get there. I'm adamant that the powers that be are not prepared to stop trying. Our vote to leave may have disrupted that, but the history of the EU suggests the game plan isn't over - bacofoil turned up to 11 the underpinning objective since '57 was ever closer union, and the bumps along the way have been ridden and still we seem to go in that direction.
Lisbon may have been "less" than the constitution proposal. But again it was a creep forwards and nations either didn't hold referenda to accept it, or when they did and they voted against, they rapidly held follow ons to get the "right" answer.
It feels like the 80:20 rule is at play. They got 80% of what they wanted from Lisbon. Now they apply the same rule against the 20% and steadily will chip away at it. And incredibly large chunk of this, in the UK at least, happened without the public being consulted/educated on it at all.
Let's see what happens next. But the only reason (well, one of two - I'll come to that) parties like UKIP could get the hold they did was people seeing this inexorable mission creep. The other reason? No pro-EU group could put a concrete, logical reason together as to why the current state of the EU was a "good thing". Many like the chap in the link could readily see some benefit with where it was in 1975. But not now. All the pro-EU groups focussed on was the apparent stupidity/racism of the opposing camp and how badly we would do if we left. Evidently not compelling arguments!
Incidentally, if all of these positions mean nothing, why do they exist? Why aren't the leaders of the member states being significantly more vocal about Mr Juncker's views and telling him roundly to STFU, that "more EU" is not wanted nor desirable etc etc? When Cameron came back with his deal, why did we even need vetos on the items he thought were the big wins? And how would they have worked - e.g. you note about not bailing Greece out etc. With the EUs finances in the state we're in, how can we be sure that UK contributions are not directly/indirectly involved?
As for free movement, if it's so essential between trading nations (assuming that's the only reason for the 4 freedoms to exist), why does no one else have it (or pretty much any of the other 3 freedoms either)? And why is it limited to between the 27 member states? The answers are likely to be centred around economic and social diversity issues....which frankly apply equally between many of the current member states. That being the case, the argument for the 4 freedoms being about trading/economic benefits feels somewhat weakened...
ATG said:
Did you even read that article?
It says the high water mark for integration was the creation of the Euro.
It says Juncker's plan for further integration is languishing in a drawer.
It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
Yes, I read it, and I am balanced enough to read it all, rather than just pick out the bits that reinforce my narrative. It says the high water mark for integration was the creation of the Euro.
It says Juncker's plan for further integration is languishing in a drawer.
It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
You should try it.
ATG said:
CrutyRammers said:
ATG said:
Thus is why I find the Brexit vote particularly painful. There was absolutely no need to leave because of a fear of federalism. We'd already won that battle.
I suspect this is where we differ. You think we've won the battle, I think they're just playing the long game, like they always do, that the battle will never be over. And that ultimately we would lose.ATG said:
...
It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
In reading the article back, the impression I got about Rutte is that finally we have one EU state leader who may have woken up and smelled the coffee...the Dutch have elections soon and he sounds like someone who knows the "more EU" message would not be popular. Not least of which because he is currently lagging in the polls (pah! It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
) to the Dutch party who aren't too keen on the EU.I didn't get the impression he feels that means it won't happen though (closer union). Earlier in the article he's quoted as saying we (member states) must do what we promised/committed to. Smoke screening? It's up to his electorate to decide.
loafer123 said:
ATG said:
Did you even read that article?
It says the high water mark for integration was the creation of the Euro.
It says Juncker's plan for further integration is languishing in a drawer.
It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
Yes, I read it, and I am balanced enough to read it all, rather than just pick out the bits that reinforce my narrative. It says the high water mark for integration was the creation of the Euro.
It says Juncker's plan for further integration is languishing in a drawer.
It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
You should try it.
Murph7355 said:
ATG said:
...
It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
In reading the article back, the impression I got about Rutte is that finally we have one EU state leader who may have woken up and smelled the coffee...the Dutch have elections soon and he sounds like someone who knows the "more EU" message would not be popular. Not least of which because he is currently lagging in the polls (pah! It quotes the leader of a core Eurozone country saying that the EU should go back to its roots as a collection of member states.
) to the Dutch party who aren't too keen on the EU.I didn't get the impression he feels that means it won't happen though (closer union). Earlier in the article he's quoted as saying we (member states) must do what we promised/committed to. Smoke screening? It's up to his electorate to decide.
CrutyRammers said:
ATG said:
CrutyRammers said:
ATG said:
Thus is why I find the Brexit vote particularly painful. There was absolutely no need to leave because of a fear of federalism. We'd already won that battle.
I suspect this is where we differ. You think we've won the battle, I think they're just playing the long game, like they always do, that the battle will never be over. And that ultimately we would lose.ATG said:
Who is the "they" that are plotting this dastardly plot? Seriously ... there is no "they". All the old federalists of the 1980s are gone; retired and/or dead. The idea that there is some group who have been pushing an integrationist agenda for the last 50 years or whatever makes no sense. The only people in control of the EU's future are the current and future governments of the member states. There is no Illuminati in the background pulling strings. I would have thought it was pretty clear that far from having a long term, coherent strategy, the EU actually just lurches from one crisis to the next. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, there is no popular demand for greater integration, therefore it ain't going to happen. And the way the rules of the game have been set up, e.g. unanimous agreement required to change anything of note, you need a tremendous degree of consensus to allow anything major to change. The idea that we could see further integration without a huge degree of popular support makes no sense.
I know one should always be careful with Wiki, but...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Counci...
The table here notes what shifted from unanimity being required to qualified majority. Yes, there are some hefty items where unanimity is still currently required. But surely you have to admit that there are some big ticket items in here?
And this is just the change from the last treaty to its predecessor. It doesn't map the changes before that which, to my way of thinking, constitute the inexorable creep. And everything since 1975 in this country has been done without much in the way of clarity to the electorate here in the UK, let alone consultation. 6x accession treaties and at least 4 or 5 major changes.
Maybe these were all clearly signposted and advertised to the nation. For some I was too young to have cared. For others maybe I just didn't pay attention. But without seismic shifts (such as Brexit) I don't see any reason to believe that the EU would have carried on as usual. A 40yr track record is hard to ignore.
I don't understand.
Leavers got their way; the country voted to leave the EU, and Prime Minister May is all signed up to cutting every tie we have with the EU unless the EU bows down to British demands.
You wanted out of the EU because you didn't want a say in what the EU does.
Why the hell are you now all complaining that the EU is getting on with plans that were being delayed by the British?
Leavers got their way; the country voted to leave the EU, and Prime Minister May is all signed up to cutting every tie we have with the EU unless the EU bows down to British demands.
You wanted out of the EU because you didn't want a say in what the EU does.
Why the hell are you now all complaining that the EU is getting on with plans that were being delayed by the British?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff