And...It's Spain.. will it kick off ?
Discussion
Kermit power said:
Ah, well... If Vladimir Putin, that well known independent observer of all things Russian agrees with you, how could anyone possibly argue?
After all, we don't actually know you, so who knows what sort of reason you could have for attacking the EU, but Vladimir Putin? Everyone knows that anything coming from him could only possibly be dispassionate analysis with no ulterior motives, don't they?
If you actually think there's any point quoting Vladimir Putin, of all people, in this sort of scenario, then there's clearly no point in indulging in further discussion on the matter.
But it's OK. We can watch the video and see for ourselves!After all, we don't actually know you, so who knows what sort of reason you could have for attacking the EU, but Vladimir Putin? Everyone knows that anything coming from him could only possibly be dispassionate analysis with no ulterior motives, don't they?
If you actually think there's any point quoting Vladimir Putin, of all people, in this sort of scenario, then there's clearly no point in indulging in further discussion on the matter.
The Russia Today video edit, as further edited by the Express.
Hey, it is just one of many people looking at the Eu monolith with all its "laws and rules", it level of control and the extraordinary quantities of self promoting propaganda.....
Still waiting for one of you guys to give a comparison between the structure of the Eu and the Soviet system and show how it is different.
Still waiting for one of you guys to give a comparison between the structure of the Eu and the Soviet system and show how it is different.
Stickyfinger said:
Hey, it is just one of many people looking at the Eu monolith with all its "laws and rules", it level of control and the extraordinary quantities of self promoting propaganda.....
Still waiting for one of you guys to give a comparison between the structure of the Eu and the Soviet system and show how it is different.
No you're not. We started with "free and fair democratic elections", but you decided that didn't count. At that point you lost all your credibility, so it's up to you to try and regain it with some serious information if you can, not the rest of us to try and disprove your nutjob theory.Still waiting for one of you guys to give a comparison between the structure of the Eu and the Soviet system and show how it is different.
Stickyfinger said:
Still waiting for one of you guys to give a comparison between chalk and cheese and show how it is different.
I simply can't see any similarities, tbh. The differences are utterly obvious and huge.One is a democratic supranational group made of independent, democratic first-world countries who voluntarily joined and are enjoying the benefits of being part of the world's single most successful economy.
The other was a single-party dictatorship that forcibly annexed swathes of war-ravaged countries that had been invaded by the Nazis, along with third-world central Asia, then held them under repressive centralist rule until it all imploded under the cost of trying to be a superpower.
TooMany2cvs said:
One is a democratic supranational group made of independent, democratic first-world countries who voluntarily joined and are enjoying the benefits of being part of the world's single most successful economy.
First world? Really? A bit of stretch, surely, on most definitions? Greece? Croatia? Slovenia? Slovakia? Romania? Bulgaria? Hungary? Poland? Malta? Cyprus? At least ten of the member states are the rather cruddy and fly-blown remnants of the now-defunct Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian (and British) Empires.
None of these really fits any sensible definition of an advanced Western democracy.
Then perm two or three from the prevalence of organised crime, widespread official corruption, systemic repression and persecution of minorities, political assassinations, suborned judiciaries, harassment of the press, recovery from recent dictatorship etc.
Hmm, one begins to see why Spain feels at home...
TooMany2cvs said:
I simply can't see any similarities, tbh. The differences are utterly obvious and huge.
One is a democratic supranational group made of independent, democratic first-world countries who voluntarily joined and are enjoying the benefits of being part of the world's single most successful economy.
The other was a single-party dictatorship that forcibly annexed swathes of war-ravaged countries that had been invaded by the Nazis, along with third-world central Asia, then held them under repressive centralist rule until it all imploded under the cost of trying to be a superpower.
Yes, but other than that....what has the EU done for us One is a democratic supranational group made of independent, democratic first-world countries who voluntarily joined and are enjoying the benefits of being part of the world's single most successful economy.
The other was a single-party dictatorship that forcibly annexed swathes of war-ravaged countries that had been invaded by the Nazis, along with third-world central Asia, then held them under repressive centralist rule until it all imploded under the cost of trying to be a superpower.
I think the counter point that is being poorly expressed is that funded bureaucrats and politicians will always want more - more reach, more power, more laws, more control and more centralisation in all those issues. There is talk of more QMV in the EU now on key issues for example, which makes it impossible to veto or reject something that may very much not be in a country's interest.
You can not deny the project creep and its strategic continuation and expansion - EU army next...? None of this may be 'bad' - especially if you have no issues with layers and layers of expensive 'management' and control from local to regional to national to european.
Thank you comrades
Edited by Ken Figenus on Wednesday 8th November 10:03
It gets even better - so much for press freedom. Now we have Catalonia's answer to Ian Hislop up in front of the beak.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/sati...
In what way is Spain not a banana republic, apart from the fact it is a monarchy?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/sati...
In what way is Spain not a banana republic, apart from the fact it is a monarchy?
psi310398 said:
It gets even better - so much for press freedom. Now we have Catalonia's answer to Ian Hislop up in front of the beak.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/sati...
In what way is Spain not a banana republic, apart from the fact it is a monarchy?
I love the fact that he's quoting Ricky Gervais in his defence! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/sati...
In what way is Spain not a banana republic, apart from the fact it is a monarchy?
psi310398 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
One is a democratic supranational group made of independent, democratic first-world countries who voluntarily joined and are enjoying the benefits of being part of the world's single most successful economy.
First world? Really? A bit of stretch, surely, on most definitions? Greece? Croatia? Slovenia? Slovakia? Romania? Bulgaria? Hungary? Poland? Malta? Cyprus? Sure, they were held back severely while they were (mostly) behind the Iron Curtain, although never actually part of the USSR itself, but - yes - they are very much first world economies, albeit some do have less-developed backwaters. Have you been to some of the more depressed parts of the post-industrial north of the UK or north-east of France or east of Germany? OK, perhaps there are fewer peasants subsistence farming with horses and carts than in, say, Maramureș - but that's more of a reflection of our welfare system than anything greater.
If anything, the massive strides forward they've taken post-communism simply highlights how ridiculous drawing parallels between the EU and the USSR is. Comparing the former Yugoslav states makes it even clearer - Slovenia was least affected by the war, first into the EU - and is pretty indistinguishable from the west. Montenegro and Croatia both have the coast, but MNE looked east (and was tied to Serbia until quite recently) while HR looked west. Macedonia has been held back by Greek boycott and barriers because of the whole Alexander silliness.
Romania has done incredibly well to shed the legacy of Ceaușescu so quickly - just look how long Hoxhe's shadow is in poor ol' Albania.
Anyway, why IS an "EU army" held up as being the ultimate bad thing? The militaries of all EU states are in close co-operation already, even before we consider NATO ties.
Surely, at a time when defence spending is always bemoaned as being restricted, there's massive synergies and savings to be made? Or, rather, massive benefits from the same expenditure?
Is it really any more than the knee-jerk flag-wave hollow "patriotism" of US-style deification of people who decided their best career choice was as a squaddie?
Surely, at a time when defence spending is always bemoaned as being restricted, there's massive synergies and savings to be made? Or, rather, massive benefits from the same expenditure?
Is it really any more than the knee-jerk flag-wave hollow "patriotism" of US-style deification of people who decided their best career choice was as a squaddie?
I visit Czech Republic and Slovakia often and their quality of life is better than ours in the UK in my opinion. They may not all drive around in the latest bmws on pcp or afford the latest iPhone x, however I find the uk far more restrictive, regarding rules and regulations. I own land in Slovakia and intend to buy a house outside Prague or in Slovakia.
TooMany2cvs said:
Anyway, why IS an "EU army" held up as being the ultimate bad thing? The militaries of all EU states are in close co-operation already, even before we consider NATO ties.
Surely, at a time when defence spending is always bemoaned as being restricted, there's massive synergies and savings to be made? Or, rather, massive benefits from the same expenditure?
It could be an excellent idea especially given that the UK army is at its lowest point ever. With the weight of the collective of 26/27 behind decisions it could have more world impact and less local politics? There remains however a HUGE can of worms and would we reduce our army even further if we had an EU army (were we in of course)? Would we want that little guy from dodgy Malta telling British soldiers what to do if it was his turn again and he told them to restore Gibraltar to the Spanish? Surely, at a time when defence spending is always bemoaned as being restricted, there's massive synergies and savings to be made? Or, rather, massive benefits from the same expenditure?
;)TooMany2cvs said:
Anyway, why IS an "EU army" held up as being the ultimate bad thing? The militaries of all EU states are in close co-operation already, even before we consider NATO ties.
Surely, at a time when defence spending is always bemoaned as being restricted, there's massive synergies and savings to be made? Or, rather, massive benefits from the same expenditure?
I'm basically against it because:Surely, at a time when defence spending is always bemoaned as being restricted, there's massive synergies and savings to be made? Or, rather, massive benefits from the same expenditure?
(a) The current system, based around NATO has worked very well for nearly 70 years so why try and break something which already works? I appreciate one could argue it would be in addition to NATO but let's face it, it would change the dynamics.
(b) I am far from convinced the EU as an organisation or it's decision making structure is up to it. It is a massive struggle to get 27/28 members to agree on food standards let alone whether to intervene militarily and then on what basis and what rules of engagement etc. In short, I don't think it would achieve much because I don't think there would ever be an agreement to do anything.
European wide Defence co-operation and integration already seems to work pretty well and is getting closer so I'm inclined to think we (Europe) are probably better off letting things carry on as they are.
confused_buyer said:
I am far from convinced the EU as an organisation or it's decision making structure is up to it.
And Westminster is...?confused_buyer said:
It is a massive struggle to get 27/28 members to agree on food standards let alone whether to intervene militarily and then on what basis and what rules of engagement etc. In short, I don't think it would achieve much because I don't think there would ever be an agreement to do anything.
When did the UK last go it alone in any military action? The Falklands? Woo. Two and a half months to evict 600 squatters from a penguin reserve in the arse end of nowhere - with a UN resolution to wave. Could we even do that again tomorrow without having to ask friends to help?TooMany2cvs said:
How many of those have you ever actually been to? I've travelled fairly widely through seven of those countries, as well as Iberia (itself only a few decades out of totalitarianism, albeit far-right rather than far-left).
Sure, they were held back severely while they were (mostly) behind the Iron Curtain, although never actually part of the USSR itself, but - yes - they are very much first world economies, albeit some do have less-developed backwaters. Have you been to some of the more depressed parts of the post-industrial north of the UK or north-east of France or east of Germany? OK, perhaps there are fewer peasants subsistence farming with horses and carts than in, say, Maramure? - but that's more of a reflection of our welfare system than anything greater.
If anything, the massive strides forward they've taken post-communism simply highlights how ridiculous drawing parallels between the EU and the USSR is. Comparing the former Yugoslav states makes it even clearer - Slovenia was least affected by the war, first into the EU - and is pretty indistinguishable from the west. Montenegro and Croatia both have the coast, but MNE looked east (and was tied to Serbia until quite recently) while HR looked west. Macedonia has been held back by Greek boycott and barriers because of the whole Alexander silliness.
Romania has done incredibly well to shed the legacy of Ceau?escu so quickly - just look how long Hoxhe's shadow is in poor ol' Albania.
I've been to all of them and fairly frequently. Sure, they were held back severely while they were (mostly) behind the Iron Curtain, although never actually part of the USSR itself, but - yes - they are very much first world economies, albeit some do have less-developed backwaters. Have you been to some of the more depressed parts of the post-industrial north of the UK or north-east of France or east of Germany? OK, perhaps there are fewer peasants subsistence farming with horses and carts than in, say, Maramure? - but that's more of a reflection of our welfare system than anything greater.
If anything, the massive strides forward they've taken post-communism simply highlights how ridiculous drawing parallels between the EU and the USSR is. Comparing the former Yugoslav states makes it even clearer - Slovenia was least affected by the war, first into the EU - and is pretty indistinguishable from the west. Montenegro and Croatia both have the coast, but MNE looked east (and was tied to Serbia until quite recently) while HR looked west. Macedonia has been held back by Greek boycott and barriers because of the whole Alexander silliness.
Romania has done incredibly well to shed the legacy of Ceau?escu so quickly - just look how long Hoxhe's shadow is in poor ol' Albania.
Most have indeed taken massive strides but from a very low base, most probably because of remittances from the developed EU and the fact that we, the rich parts of the EU, have been hosing them down with our own taxpayers' money and easy credit, which amounts to the same thing in the end (rather than helping our own depressed bits) but, in the way that the near-dead will perk up when given a blood transfusion, once that money vanishes we will see quickly whether the patient is actually cured. Given the on-going problems with governance, I suspect not.
liner33 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Two and a half months to evict 600 squatters from a penguin reserve in the arse end of nowhere
Very disrespectful comment , you should be ashamed Did it take two and a half months? Start of April to mid June 1982.
How big was the Argentine invasion force? 600.
Are the Falklands anything more than a penguin reserve? Not really. Oh, wait - there might be some oil nearby, but it's still not really profitable yet.
Are they in the arse end of nowhere? Undoubtedly.
I notice you decided not to take issue on the other simple fact - that we couldn't do it again tomorrow.
TooMany2cvs said:
<shrug> It's a simple fact. Sorry if that doesn't fit your preferences.
Did it take two and a half months? Start of April to mid June 1982.
How big was the Argentine invasion force? 600.
Are the Falklands anything more than a penguin reserve? Not really. Oh, wait - there might be some oil nearby, but it's still not really profitable yet.
Are they in the arse end of nowhere? Undoubtedly.
I notice you decided not to take issue on the other simple fact - that we couldn't do it again tomorrow.
Our country sent British Forces to protect British citizens, some of them didnt come back and some of them live with the results of that conflict even today Did it take two and a half months? Start of April to mid June 1982.
How big was the Argentine invasion force? 600.
Are the Falklands anything more than a penguin reserve? Not really. Oh, wait - there might be some oil nearby, but it's still not really profitable yet.
Are they in the arse end of nowhere? Undoubtedly.
I notice you decided not to take issue on the other simple fact - that we couldn't do it again tomorrow.
Why dont you learn something https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
Any war where British service personnel serve and die deserves a little respect.
Yes we could barely do it then but thanks to a more sensible attitude with the FI its not as inviting as it was in 1982 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant
liner33 said:
Our country sent British Forces to protect British citizens, some of them didnt come back and some of them live with the results of that conflict even today
They all joined the forces voluntarily. I'm sorry if it came as a surprise to them that they might have to actually fight as a result of that career decision.liner33 said:
Any war where British service personnel serve and die deserves a little respect.
If the UK had been in Vietnam, would you say the same about that utter cock-up? How about Suez?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff