Bye bye, Britain

[Franconicus]

Great Britain wants to make the people vote if they want to stay in the European Union or leave it and Britains politicians keep on demanding reforms of the Union so that Britain can stay.

This is my point of view.

Of course Britain is part of Europe (although they may not fell that way) with common values, history and economy. Britain is an economical power, which could and should be one of the leaders of the Union. However, Britain likes to play the internal opposition, claiming special conditions and blocking the development of the Union.

I think it would not be democratic to insist that Britain stays, if its people do not want to. The EU is not the USA, there will be no Civil War. However, it would be more undemocratic if Britain wanted to dictate the course of the Union.


The European Union is based on solidarity as a counter concept to national egoism and class struggle. Britain has a completely different view on economy, foreign policy and military. If Britain does not want to follow the European way, it may leave. And it should do it as soon as possible without this painful comedy.

I do not think that there is a way to keep Britain in the Union. Te differences came to a point where there does not seem to be a good compromise any longer. Especially the British spying of citizens of other European countries is absolotely proves that there is no way to keep Britain in the Union.

There is no bad thing in leaving the Union, GB would still be a friend with economical and military connections. But the Union would no longer hinder the Britain to go its way and the Union would finally be able to go on itself.

[Myth]

GB will save on its membership fee, and will be free to set its own laws of immigration. IMO the best course of action for the country.

[InsaneApache]

The European Union is based on solidarity

Ha ha ha! Oh my aching sides. You should do stand up mate.

Look, its really simple.

The British were lied to from the very beginning about the true nature of the 'Union'. We were told in no uncertain terms that it was only a trading bloc and on that basis we voted to join it. Fast forward forty years and it does not resemble anything like the British people voted for.

Put it this way, if we wanted to be ruled by a foreign power we'd have given up in June 1940, just after you lot did.

We don't take kindly to being fed falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Thank God for UKIP. At last a party that does what it says on the tin.

[Fragony]

We aren't very happy with the EU here either. Except for those who are happy with it.

[HoreTore]

Who will the British blame for their troubles once the EU no longer serves as the scapegoat?

Are the British mature enough to accept the reality that they have themselves to blame for their troubles?

[InsaneApache]

Nurse! He's out of bed again.

:wall:

[Fragony]

The Brittish just doesn't like to be ruled by a foreign power. Neither do we, while polls can't be relied upon because the questions are suggestive, it wouldn't be that far of a strech to claim that the majority of the Dutch are sick of the EU. If we can find a buddy in the English that would be great. The German industry can't function without us so making a deal should be easy.

[Franconicus]

Are the British ruled by a foreign power? How is this?
The European Union has many problems and most of all - if not all - are caused by national governments and parties.
If anything goes wrong it is always the Union taht is blamed for it.
One example is the water supply - the Union was ordered by the national governemnts to make a regulation for that including the privatization. There had been at least two milestone reports agreed by the national governemnts before it went into public. Then, when the people showed that they were uneasy with a new regulation, all over sudden the national goverment was against it too (means had always been against it) and promised to stop it. That is the way things are going.

As stated above, if the Brits get happy without the Union, that is alright with me. They should just stop bothering the rest.

[Myth]

The Brittish just doesn't like to be ruled by a foreign power. Neither do we, while polls can't be relied upon because the questions are suggestive, it wouldn't be that far of a strech to claim that the majority of the Dutch are sick of the EU. If we can find a buddy in the English that would be great. The German industry can't function without us so making a deal should be easy.

Interesting claim. Why is it so? I'd argue that the German industry can't function without Poland. Would not have considered the Netherlands to be of much importance (industry wise).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Since Cameron is determined to incarcerate everybody for everything and for as long as possible, spy on everybody in the most invasive ways, deny the poor healthcare, remove the social security net, and generally undo the 20th Century; I am actually a little concerned about the prospect of leaving the EU. Britain does have a political culture that is distinct from what you see on the continent and that does cause issues with the EU, but to be honest I am more worried about the tendency in the major parties to increasingly turn us into another Reaganite-style America.

[Greyblades]

Britain is experiencing a new low in public trust, we have become disillusioned, cynical, over the last decade every party has been shown not to live up to the expectations of their supporters:
Labour is incompetent and counterproductive, The liberal democrats sold themselves out, The conservatives are elitist gits padding thier offshore bank accounts with public funds, and UKip dont seem to have any idea what they will do after they get thier goals. (This scares me shedless when I consider they have an unfortunate habit of filling out thier ranks with the same breed of far right maniacs who buggered the USA.)

Point is our own politicians are smeg, we dont trust them as far as we can throw them, and yet they still look a mile better than the EU politicians because they have yet to turn Britain into another greece/ireland/spain. And now we see signs that those very EU politicians are trying to edge out our own parliament. Whether or not those signs are fictional, the very possibility that these idiots could take over from our idiots is bloody terrifying, enough to throw away an economic union in an attempt to avert it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Since Cameron is determined to incarcerate everybody for everything and for as long as possible, spy on everybody in the most invasive ways, deny the poor healthcare, remove the social security net, and generally undo the 20th Century; I am actually a little concerned about the prospect of leaving the EU. Britain does have a political culture that is distinct from what you see on the continent and that does cause issues with the EU, but to be honest I am more worried about the tendency in the major parties to increasingly turn us into another Reaganite-style America.

I do not follow the various political happenings in the UK, Cameron may be evil incarnate -- I have not followed him enough to form or gainsay such an assessment.

If you associate the various steps listed in your first sentence with Reaganism, however, I can assure you that the "Reaganite" label you are using is a stereotype at best. Look up that administration's actions, particularly domestically, and you won't see much "reversing the 20th century" in there. US Neo-cons and TEA partyers' are far more ardent and determined on trashing everything that fails to adhere to their ideological models than Reagan ever was. Reagan believed in the doable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are the British ruled by a foreign power? How is this?
The European Union has many problems and most of all - if not all - are caused by national governments and parties.
If anything goes wrong it is always the Union taht is blamed for it.
One example is the water supply - the Union was ordered by the national governemnts to make a regulation for that including the privatization. There had been at least two milestone reports agreed by the national governemnts before it went into public. Then, when the people showed that they were uneasy with a new regulation, all over sudden the national goverment was against it too (means had always been against it) and promised to stop it. That is the way things are going.

As stated above, if the Brits get happy without the Union, that is alright with me. They should just stop bothering the rest.

The European Court of Human Rights - which is tied to the EU today - has told the British Government that it MUST give prisoners the vote.

Imposing restrictions on the franchise is core right of a sovereign government - taking that away from the UK Parliament is the definition of foreign rule.

[Beskar]

The European Court of Human Rights - which is tied to the EU today - has told the British Government that it MUST give prisoners the vote.

Imposing restrictions on the franchise is core right of a sovereign government - taking that away from the UK Parliament is the definition of foreign rule.

Nothing wrong with the right to vote going to prisoners. Most are just unfortunate people or those who conducted mild crimes. Even though given the apathy in elections, the prisoners most likely won't care much.

Though I actually approve of the court of human rights as it ensures national governments safeguard the liberties of its citizens. Because of that, it is safer to travel within Europe.


Thank God for UKIP. At last a party that does what it says on the tin.

"We're a bunch of quack-pots which should avoid politics at all costs! But we hate Europe enough just to stick the middle finger at them which appeals to a bunch of people"

[HoreTore]

The European Court of Human Rights - which is tied to the EU today - has told the British Government that it MUST give prisoners the vote.

Imposing restrictions on the franchise is core right of a sovereign government - taking that away from the UK Parliament is the definition of foreign rule.

I see the EU is busy learning you barbarian savages how a proper democracy works.

Taking away the vote for prisoners is absurd.

[Kagemusha]

Maybe UK should apply to become part of USA? I think it would be interesting closure for a historical circle.:hide:

[Beskar]

I do not follow the various political happenings in the UK, Cameron may be evil incarnate -- I have not followed him enough to form or gainsay such an assessment.

A lot of it is blowing hot-air.

The thing is, to most in the south of England (London), they would rather be part of the United States than be part of the European Union. The concept of the 'American Dream' did breach our shores.

Scotland, Ireland, Wales, North of England would rather be part of the European Union.

Issue is, London dictates to the rest of Britain. it is also part of the powerhouse of the conservative party too. With Scotland Independence looming, David Cameron gains by sanctioning because the Scots hate the Tories and their policies. So it would be getting rid of their biggest political bloc which would always vote against them. With the Tories in power and them most likely going to announce some big policies which Scotland opposes just before, they are bound to say 'yes' to get away.

Northern Ireland is kind of a special case as it is becoming more 'Shared' with Ireland, and there maybe a day when Northern Ireland re-unites in some form with the Republic. Wales has been more nationalistic within the last decade, from bringing a language back from the dead and forcing it mainstream in a bid to separate themselves. So they would most likely leave. Nationalistic tendencies growing in Cornwall. This then leaves the North of England more screwed over by London and the South.

[Greyblades]

Which is why I am always going to be against the independence movements. Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Please don't leave us alone with these people!

[HoreTore]

Maybe UK should apply to become part of USA? I think it would be interesting closure for a historical circle.:hide:

The question is, would it become the 51st state or would you have to break the UK down into 4 states?

[Fragony]

Interesting claim. Why is it so? I'd argue that the German industry can't function without Poland. Would not have considered the Netherlands to be of much importance (industry wise).

Logistical-wise. Rotterdam is the only harbour that is efficiecent enough to ship raw materials, and the only harbour that can take the mammoths. From Rotterdam our waterways go to Germany, as well as the railroads.

[Beskar]

The question is, would it become the 51st state or would you have to break the UK down into 4 states?

Well, it would most likely be the 52nd, but it would only be England joining as no one else wants to (and the North is dragged in by the South). This is why the American view of the British Isles is to join the European Union get engaged with the politics there to make it more USA-friendly.

Then comes in Myths 'Trans-Atlantic Union' theory.

[HoreTore]

Logistical-wise. Rotterdam is the only harbour that is efficiecent enough to ship raw materials, and the only harbour that can take the mammoths. From Rotterdam our waterways go to Germany, as well as the railroads.

Irrelevant, and simply a standard ethnocentric claim of superiority. All the "X won't work without us!"-claims are bogus.

German industry currently relies on Rotterdam simply because Rotterdam exists and is available. If Rotterdam didn't exist, a new harbour would be the point of export.

Most of the Norwegian international shipping goes through Malmø. However, it is absurd to state that Norway would shut down if someone closed Malmø. We'd simply create another harbour. Just like the Germans would.

[Slyspy]

British Governments are so often in the position that while closer involvement in the European project may (or may not) be a sensible national policy it isn't generally not be in their electoral interests. Rock and a hard place is not where a politician like to be. In the same way in which the Argentinian government tries to look strong by bellyaching about the Falklands and the Spanish about Gibraltar so our lot play to the home crowd by being seen to be "strong" on Europe.

Have the auditors signed off the EU's books yet?

[Beskar]

Logistical-wise. Rotterdam is the only harbour that is efficiecent enough to ship raw materials, and the only harbour that can take the mammoths. From Rotterdam our waterways go to Germany, as well as the railroads.

Looking at the figures, Fragony is correct. Rotterdam is very significant, with Antwerp second with under half. Then 3rd is Hamburg which is a 4th. Amsterdam is 4th on the list for tonnage, but it is not a container port.

However, there is a little flaw in Fragony's theory and that is if the Netherlands leave the EU, the EU would not use its ports. Simply because the Netherlands has to make its money from somewhere for its ports and I don't think they will turn down German cash.

If Netherlands didn't play ball, then it would be as HoreTore suggests, it would be financially worthwhile to create another or expand Hamburg.

[Fragony]

Looking at the figures, Fragony is correct. Rotterdam is very significant, with Antwerp second with under half. Then 3rd is Hamburg which is a 4th. Amsterdam is 4th on the list for tonnage, but it is not a container port.

However, there is a little flaw in Fragony's theory and that is if the Netherlands leave the EU, the EU would not use its ports. Simply because the Netherlands has to make its money from somewhere for its ports and I don't think they will turn down German cash.

If Netherlands didn't play ball, then it would be as HoreTore suggests, it would be financially worthwhile to create another or expand Hamburg.

Expanding Hamburg won't do any good, it still won't be able to process as much, big ships simply can't get there. Iam sure we can make an arrangement with Germany without having to put up with the EU.

[Fragony]

Irrelevant, and simply a standard ethnocentric claim of superiority. All the "X won't work without us!"-claims are bogus.

German industry currently relies on Rotterdam simply because Rotterdam exists and is available. If Rotterdam didn't exist, a new harbour would be the point of export.

Most of the Norwegian international shipping goes through Malmø. However, it is absurd to state that Norway would shut down if someone closed Malmø. We'd simply create another harbour. Just like the Germans would.

Yeah and Norway is so very significant industry-wise. Norway is two towns sitting on oil.

[Franconicus]

Sure, I do not see any problem to make an arrangement. The Netherlands need the trade via Rotterdam and Amsterdam and it is also beneficial for Germany. This would work regardless if the Dutch are in or out of the Union. But I cannot see how Germany could not function w/o these harbors???

Regarding the USA: I always wondered if I heard Brits (English or Scottish) talking about Americans. They all seem to think those are barbarians with nuke. Guess the Brits hate them more then the Europeans.
I think the British politic is already very American. Economic ideals are similar and the it seems as if the British foreign ministers do not make any step before asking their big brother. Looking at the spy programs it seems as if they also have the same view on human rights.
However I do not think that the US would led England in. Why change things? GB has a similar status as Puerto Rico. It follows the orders of the US government, has no right to vote for Congress or President but has the priviledge to keep the Queen.

[Fragony]

Sure, I do not see any problem to make an arrangement. The Netherlands need the trade via Rotterdam and Amsterdam and it is also beneficial for Germany. This would work regardless if the Dutch are in or out of the Union. But I cannot see how Germany could not function w/o these harbors???

You would be out of rescources for production. Rotterdam is is the gateway to your industry. All European harbours combined can't outdo Rotterdam, unloading isn't everything, it also has to be moved from there. We are in a pretty comfortable position if we say adieu to Brussels. What do you suggest you can do otherwise, making your harbours ready for the same capacity? Good luck digging to make the waterways and harbours ready. Ships need to be loaded as well where they are comming from, smaller ships, prices ^

[HoreTore]

Yeah and Norway is so very significant industry-wise. Norway is two towns sitting on oil.

Indeed.

Which means that we have to import everything we buy for the money you pay for our oil. Which again means that Malmö is a busy port ~;)

[caravel]

Cameron and Co. have no intention of leaving the EU and simply can't do it, referendum or not as it would be suicidal. This is just the same old Tory party paying lip service to the Daily Mail reading "Little Englanders" in the home counties... it's the usual case of blowing some ideological hot air on the run up to the next election.

[rvg]

The question is, would it become the 51st state or would you have to break the UK down into 4 states?

Brits don't need to join the union, they can do just fine on their own.

[Fragony]

Cameron and Co. have no intention of leaving the EU and simply can't do it, referendum or not as it would be suicidal. This is just the same old Tory party paying lip service to the Daily Mail reading "Little Englanders" in the home counties... it's the usual case of blowing some ideological hot air on the run up to the next election.

Could be, we will see. But here in the Netherlands in the polls at least the party's that want out are the biggest ones, the socialist party and the freedom party. They both are subject to a cordon sanitaire, they are both persona non grata in the establishment and they won't get along very soon, but the mix of different party's the establishment will have to make up to form a government is getting kinda hilarious. If we pull out the plug it's the end of the EU. And that is absolutily not an unthinkable scenario.

[Brenus]

If you want to upset a UKIP anti-European English you just have to agree with him. It works every time. As French, it is even better. I agree on all, they are not European, they are not part of European Culture, they are an island, even they have more links with Australia and New-Zealand and the Commonwealth and they are the best friend of the USA. It is really something to see their face going down as they realise it. I can’t stop to laugh (inside) as I have to keep my face straight.
As UK going out of the EU, Cameron’s masters won’t allowed it as the biggest market is EU, not China, not the USA. The only use of England for the markets is England is the gate to Europe. If UK leaves the EU and suddenly need passport, Amsterdam or Paris will become the hub of Europe. If the City can’t works freely within the EU, the City dies.
Cameron tries to convince he can have new deal with the countries members of the EU and rules can be different if you are out: lies. Without England, the rules will be decided then England will have to comply if she wants to trade with the EU. Simple example, the EU can decide that the English cars, having the driving wheel the wrong side, are dangerous on the EU roads. That kills immediately all European Tourism from England to EU. UK can try to retaliate, that kill the European Tourism in England. It is a loose/ loose situation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That'd be fun. A couple dozen million new voters. To be honest, we should integrate Mexico first though. Get in line Limeys.

Why would the Mexican government want that? Their economy is growing better than ours and we take care of many of their poorest through remittances that never have to be shouldered by the Mexican taxpayer. Why would they muck with that? On the other hand, we'd at least have a national language at last.

[rvg]

...leaving the EU would turn Britain into a US proxy state with almost zero leverage against us.
Care to elaborate?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

GC will speak his own piece, but I think he is referring to the impact of so many economic and social ties, the special relationship, and the coordination of our militaries. The UK would not be quite the satrapy GC alludes to (somewhat in fun) but it is easy to see the UK taking on a lot of a "sidekick" role in the eyes of too many -- on both sides of the pond.

[rvg]

I consider the special relationship to be very much a two-way street. It's not nearly as lopsided as some try to portray it.

[rvg]

The recent Syria crisis for example: the way the vote went on the British House of Commons had a huge impact on our ultimate decision not to get involved.

[Fisherking]

Elaborate? I often find myself wondering what exactly they bring to the table, outside of the war on terror (In which they admittedly play a large role, but still niggling in comparison to what the US does). A british perspective on this would be interesting too: just what do Britons think they have to offer?


The Brits have always been better at spying for one thing. Not nearly so many embarrassments in that field. Then over the years there have been little things like Ultra, chobham armor, radar, sonar, just to name a few.

So it is not exactly a one way street, even if we think we came up with all that stuff.

[rvg]

No one should doubt their past contributions, but what do they have to offer now that suggests anything other than a lopsided relationship?

Britain still has some serious weight within the Commonwealth.

[Papewaio]

Well there is the five eyes alliance which puts UK and the rest in a special level of trust. I doubt the same is happenkng between USA and Korea or Japan.

As for the EU it is spying or at least attempting to spy as much as the US and UK. I wonder if that was reported in the EU?

[rvg]

Britain is a side-kick nation with a moderate ability to project power on an international scale.
Sidekicks don't make decisions. Britain does.


Canada has closer ties with us than it does with Britain, and Australia has been making a point of going their own way in the last few years as the world turns its focus towards the Pacific.
Canada is still very much enamored with Britain, it's very British in its style of government and values. Much more British than American. As for Australia, while they do their own thing, they rarely contradict Britain.


As part of the EU, they are more valuable to us than if they weren't. They are certainly more valuable to the EU in general than they are to us. It is very hard to make the case for our special relationship being equal in any sense of the word.
As part of the EU, they made EU stronger. That was a good thing back when EU wasn't a bloated bureaucratic mess it has become. Nowadays I'm surprised it has taken Britain this long to decide to jump ship. It was very prudent of them to shun the Euro though.

[Papewaio]

The five eyes alliance consists of US-UK-NZ-Canada-AU it is a level of trust and on a world scale similar attitudes.

The economic stability in the UK helps its social stability and fund a larger military. The norm for societies is social unrest when there is a lack of bread and circuses or in more modern times fast food and TV.

[Brenus]

“What I do claim is that Britain has a stronger military than most European countries, and a stronger economy than most European countries, along with a more stable and resilient social structure than most European countries. “ Jokes. UK without EU is nothing (1 Aircraft Carrier without planes?) and thanks to Cameron, the entire British Army fits in one medium football stadium. As the stability of UK, that probably why there will be a referendum in Scotland about independence. As the economy is going, the last three years, between my wife and I we lost 1 year of employment from redundancies to agencies works. And we still earning less than 4 years ago.
“If you take the UK out of the EU, or if you make the UK have to compete with the EU, the EU loses”: Yeah, sure… You should check your figures…
“If there is ever to be an EU Military, for example, good luck doing it without Britain or having to do it in spite of Britain.” Ah yeah, France relied on the UK in Mali, Central Africa and others countries. Not that I support these interventions but at least Italy, France, Germany produce their own material, so can you tell me what Europe, if finally succeed to create a European Army (and I am against this) would miss with UK out? I can tell what UK would.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nothing wrong with the right to vote going to prisoners. Most are just unfortunate people or those who conducted mild crimes. Even though given the apathy in elections, the prisoners most likely won't care much.

Though I actually approve of the court of human rights as it ensures national governments safeguard the liberties of its citizens. Because of that, it is safer to travel within Europe.

How about the principle that those who break the law should not elect legislators?

It's not as though we always denied them a vote - it was a conscious decision. It's also not true that most of them have only "conducted mild" crimes, you need to put a fair bit of effort in to get locked up for any significant period of time here. The majority will be robbers and burglars, drug dealers and traffickers in stolen goods, I would imagine.


I see the EU is busy learning you barbarian savages how a proper democracy works.

Taking away the vote for prisoners is absurd.

Says the man whose country hunts whales in contravention of treaty?

[Beskar]

Elaborate? I often find myself wondering what exactly they bring to the table, outside of the war on terror (In which they admittedly play a large role, but still niggling in comparison to what the US does). A british perspective on this would be interesting too: just what do Britons think they have to offer?

Actually, sorry to say, the treaty is awfully biased in favour of America. As such, an American can deport anyone within the UK to the USA without much of a hearing (lipservice) whilst in contrast, if an American has to be put through the American legal-system and tried there before they can be deported to the United Kingdom. There are many cases to illustrate this, such as the Gary McKinnon (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-hacker-sparked-storm) one about an autistic individually who illegally accessed the Pentagon computer systems to find traces of UFOs/Aliens, this is when the lopsided-ness of the treaty starts to become exposed. He signed a statement saying he broke UK law and he is more than happy to be sentenced and jailed within the UK, it took a lot of political wrangling at the home office and a lot of ruffled American feathers due to the public outcry of the incident.

[Tellos Athenaios]

In the short term Germany does not have any option but to use the Dutch ports. The short term being in the region of 10 to 50 years, because at the scale differences we are considering you need about 50 or so years to "buy" your way out of your supply issues, quite possibly more. Rotterdam is currently going through a major upgrade that has been in the works for the better part of my life now, to give you an idea of the timetables. Hamburg and Bremen are simply not anywhere near that scale right now -- especially considering that Germany already needs those two today to keep the goods flowing. This goes for both raw bulk materials for industry and finished products (Rotterdam) and foodstuffs (Amsterdam).

However that is not a relevant question or indeed metric by which to gauge whether or not it makes sense for the Netherlands to say bye bye. The flip side is that the Dutch economy is far, far larger than just the relatively small margins made by those two ports. (In fact that is their entire raison d' être: to be cheaper than the Germans and the Belgians.) Agriculture (feeding Germans), industry (producing raw materials for Germany, like diesel and petrol), embedded systems (embedded in German products), banking (making German lifes more miserable) etc. etc. are fairly big slices of pie too.

On the whole the Dutch economy is largely an extension of the German one at this point. Which is why you can take German consumer spending as a proxy for economic growth in the Netherlands. Which is also why it's not such a brilliant idea to artificially impose trading barriers and tariffs and other unnecessary nonsense over some vague notion of being ruled by Germans despite it really being our own local muppets doing the damage.

Much the same applies to Britain, except that British lawyers have lately figured out that things like the ECHR can be quite useful if they are in certain cases defending against overbearing government. Which the UK happens to have a lot of. By the by, the ECHR which other Brits then like to complain about is not a case of the EU imposing anything on anyone. It's 1950's stuff (the EU dates only to 1996), and membership is held by countries outside of the EU as well (such as Russia). In the case of Britain the government happens not to like those human rights very much if they get in the way of imposing more laws, but government is not quite willing to just ignore the ECHR.

Relevant: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/rest-of-europe-wants-referendum-on-britain-2014011482542

As for the UK, in my opinion they should simply decide whether they want to be "in" or "out". "In" like any other EU country or "out" like any other not-EU country. This half hearted exception-riddled compromise we have now is simply not scalable. If Britain wans the trading benefits but does not want anything to do with EU laws, they could opt to take the Swiss or Norse approach. That is closer to the trading bloc of their addled memories viewed through their rosy tinted glasses they seem to yearn for. It also means to give up their say on quite a large range of law and simply following what the EU decides to do in many cases.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As for the EU, I don't claim to be an expert on how it works or what needs to happen for it to be better or worse or whatever. What I do claim is that Britain has a stronger military than most European countries, and a stronger economy than most European countries, along with a more stable and resilient social structure than most European countries.
Which? In fact, the UK is culturally a country with very, very, weak social structure when it comes to a safety net. They were probably relatively advanced in the 1800s or so, but this is 2014. Large parts of North England are still a dump, 30 odd years on. Wales and Scotland fare better only because they've sort of convinced to let London pretend they're really the UK equivalent of East Germany and therefore deserve lots of special privileges and tax breaks and funds. Still, were Scotland to say "bye" to the UK the prospects for the Scottish economy are quite bleak since, eh, the Scottish economy is basically nonexistent. (It's pretty much in service to England, it's the English that basically pay for the Scots to have a job).

These days economic growth means that they've restarted a few coal mines 'cause that the price of coal has risen enough for that to be worthwhile. Not that they employ a similar number of people, of course, it's not nearly profitable enough.


The UK is simply more valuable to Europe than it is to the USA. Heck, Australia is more valuable to the USA right now as they are openly courting China, Japan, Canada, and us for their cooperation in that part of the world, economically.

Well of course, but let's not pretend that the growth is in the UK or that the EU can't do without the UK or that the UK can't do without the EU. The growth is in countries like Poland. Or China. For the EU, common cause with assertive emerging economies (Brazil, India, China, Indonesia) are a far better bet than Whitehall. It's simply not 1950 anymore, and not having the UK as a member of your club is not nearly as significant as it once would have been.

[Papewaio]

I can't take anything you say as worthwhile when you can't even see Scottish oil as a positive to the economy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I can't take anything you say as worthwhile when you can't even see Scottish oil as a positive to the economy.
Would that be the "Scottish" oil currently being drilled/pumped/managed by British Petroleum and KCA Deutag? With, from the looks of the company list, a fair number of Scots working as hired help.

I might have that wrong though.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Would that be the "Scottish" oil currently being drilled/pumped/managed by British Petroleum and KCA Deutag? With, from the looks of the company list, a fair number of Scots working as hired help.

I might have that wrong though.

That Scottish oil, indeed. The same oil they will need to agree with the English on how to divide post independence because the English have a claim. A rather significant one, given how the English, Welsh and Northern Irish together all outnumber the Scots. So any settlement is going to involve lots of that oil not being "Scottish" any longer, quite possibly the bulk of it.

Similarly other major employers are the British army and navy, for example to staff the bases for the trident systems. Which the English are not about to hand over to the Scottish should they choose their independence. Also the UK government has a disproportionate amount of Scottish employees because a lot of administrative work is located in Scotland.

[Beskar]

I can't take anything you say as worthwhile when you can't even see Scottish oil as a positive to the economy.

It is technically 'British Oil', since they are actually outside the zones under international law and only granted to Britain due to historical reasons and "We were here first before the law", so one of those legal exceptions. Since Scotland is leaving the Union, it would be entitled to what is given under international law and the oil fields are further away than that and granted to Britain, so they would lose all right even though Scotland is closer to said fields than England.

Scotland does benefit financially from the Union as well. In terms of 'Tax paid' and 'Tax-income received', Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are Net-receivers. Under the current system, everyone pays into the 'same pot' then receive an equal share. England pays the most in taxes.. as such.. you understand.

Scotland has a very nice and cushion position within the Union with their own parliament and own rules. Independence will start to bring some serious issues to the table. Apparently Spain is going to attempt to veto Euro-membership, if they do join the EU (due to own internal issues with Catalonia and Basque's), it would be as a new member meaning they have to adopt the Euro and have none of the exceptions that Britain currently enjoys. Also issue of setting up their own armed forces, security branches and other operations of the state.

There is quite a lot to the debate that is overlooked. Scotland leaving the Union will be a negative to the country, however, which is more important, sovereignty of a nation-state or the benefits to the people? That is what the vote is between.

As a non-Londoner, Scotland leaving the Union would make things worse for us as well.

[Papewaio]

Yes it is British oil, but the region that allows that claim to the area is Scotland. If historically Scotland wasn't part of the UK the oil would be either International or Scottish it would be very hard for England to lay a claim to it given the geographical location.

Now if the oil was then inherited by Scotland they would need the EU about as much as Norway does. They would also be able to convince HQs for oil companies and their stock listing to transfer from England to Scotland.

What would be the impact to London and thereby England if the highly improbable but not impossible happening went all Scotland's way? Loss of oil fields, banks, oil companies etc? Would England really be better off or would it be at a loss?

You would also have the Royals in England all year round. Surely that is a cost to far.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes it is British oil, but the region that allows that claim to the area is Scotland. If historically Scotland wasn't part of the UK the oil would be either International or Scottish it would be very hard for England to lay a claim to it given the geographical location.

Now if the oil was then inherited by Scotland they would need the EU about as much as Norway does.

Which is, as you should have guessed: rather a lot. Oil may make you hypothetically very rich but there's not an awful lot of jobs in actually getting the oil out (though granted there are not that many Scots either). Fishing alone is a bigger source of employment in Norway, IIRC.

So with all the large employers having a strong incentive to move operations south of the border (UK government) or at least stop hiring the Scots, to whom would the Scots look for their next pay check?


They would also be able to convince HQs for oil companies and their stock listing to transfer from England to Scotland.

What would be the impact to London and thereby England if the highly improbable but not impossible happening went all Scotland's way? Loss of oil fields, banks, oil companies etc? Would England really be better off or would it be at a loss?


Question: are the English really going to let the Scots walk away with all that? In any case this what-if scenario is critically dependent on an awful factors being decided in Scotland's favour and even then it cannot happen without at least tacit approval and criminal incompetence on the part of the English government. As for the last part, if you put it that way it doesn't sound entirely impossible but to me it seems highly unlikely that the English won't get at least a fair chunk of those oil fields.

[InsaneApache]

You would also have the Royals in England all year round. Surely that is a cost to far.

As you are well aware she's also the Queen of Scotland.

Interesting perspectives from our American friends on Canada and Australia. I wonder if you are aware that there are a lot of immediate family ties from the UK to both of those countries. I have first cousins in both countries, my wife has family in Oz, my ex has family in Canada. In fact nearly everyone I know has relatives in either or both countries.

They really are our cousins.

This is part of the problem. The UK has always looked outward. Probably because we are an island race. The day we ditched the commonwealth in favour of the EU was a disgrace.

One thing though. Given the democratic record of the EU, if we do get a referendum and we vote the 'wrong way', will we have to keep having referenda until we give the 'right' result?

Time for a cuppa. :smoking:

[HoreTore]

Which is, as you should have guessed: rather a lot. Oil may make you hypothetically very rich but there's not an awful lot of jobs in actually getting the oil out (though granted there are not that many Scots either). Fishing alone is a bigger source of employment in Norway, IIRC.

Depends on how it's done. If all you do is pump up the oil, then no, there's not a lot of jobs coming from that. If you establish an oil industry as well(ie. making platforms and such), then there's a lot of jobs.

But yeah, the EU is still needed regardless of the oil. The standardization work the EU does is very important for small countries like Norway and Scotland.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Question: are the English really going to let the Scots walk away with all that? In any case this what-if scenario is critically dependent on an awful factors being decided in Scotland's favour and even then it cannot happen without at least tacit approval and criminal incompetence on the part of the English government. As for the last part, if you put it that way it doesn't sound entirely impossible but to me it seems highly unlikely that the English won't get at least a fair chunk of those oil fields.

I suppose we'll have to ask the Welsh and the Irish, but no I don't think so. The Scottish National Party want a lot of things, oil being only one of them, and they'll need to compromise on some of them.

If they get all the oil, they'll have to accept a full share of the UK's National Debt, along with the Euro and having to reapply to the EU.

Salmond has created apathy in the rest of the UK towards Scotland, though (as per his plan) so we no longer really care.

[gaelic cowboy]

The European Court of Human Rights - which is tied to the EU today - has told the British Government that it MUST give prisoners the vote.

Imposing restrictions on the franchise is core right of a sovereign government - taking that away from the UK Parliament is the definition of foreign rule.

this one came up before a few years back and I still think denying anyone who has reached the predetermined voting age is wrong.

bad enough your liberty is denied in prison but now ye wanna keep them from voting also to me thats dictatorship.


The Brits have always been better at spying for one thing. Not nearly so many embarrassments in that field. Then over the years there have been little things like Ultra, chobham armor, radar, sonar, just to name a few.

So it is not exactly a one way street, even if we think we came up with all that stuff.


Actually a quick wiki says they were just as useless at spying as anyone.

To many communists in there aristocracy apparently.





On the actual OP I think the EU referendum will be fought tooth and nail by the establishment.

All those british banks an other financial companies stand to lose billions if they leave.

[Pannonian]

this one came up before a few years back and I still think denying anyone who has reached the predetermined voting age is wrong.

bad enough your liberty is denied in prison but now ye wanna keep them from voting also to me thats dictatorship.

I'm not quite sure how someone sent to prison by trial by jury is the victim of a dictatorship. I know from experience that jurors can have any opinion they like, and the default tendency is to screw the establishment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

this one came up before a few years back and I still think denying anyone who has reached the predetermined voting age is wrong.

bad enough your liberty is denied in prison but now ye wanna keep them from voting also to me thats dictatorship.

They're criminals - they broke the law, and Parliament makes the law.

That hardly feels like "dictatorship" unless you already believe that the UK is a legally corrupt state - i.e. that the people in prison should not be there because the law is unjust.

[Pannonian]

They're criminals - they broke the law, and Parliament makes the law.

That hardly feels like "dictatorship" unless you already believe that the UK is a legally corrupt state - i.e. that the people in prison should not be there because the law is unjust.

And if juries feel the law is unjust, they're free to ignore any compulsion to convict. It takes just 3 dissenters, and there is no conviction.

[gaelic cowboy]

They're criminals - they broke the law, and Parliament makes the law.

That hardly feels like "dictatorship" unless you already believe that the UK is a legally corrupt state - i.e. that the people in prison should not be there because the law is unjust.

Politicians have enough control over who gets to vote without giving them the ability to remove a franchise.

If you have the ability to remove the vote then your playing with fire.

[rvg]

They're criminals - they broke the law, and Parliament makes the law.

Here felons lose both their right to vote and to bear arms. For life. Strangely enough, they are still allowed to run for office even from prison.

[Pannonian]

Politicians have enough control over who gets to vote without giving them the ability to remove a franchise.

If you have the ability to remove the vote then your playing with fire.

Voters, if they are motivated enough, have enough control over their votes to stymie any attempts at control by politicians. Post-1997 elections have proved that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Politicians have enough control over who gets to vote without giving them the ability to remove a franchise.

If you have the ability to remove the vote then your playing with fire.

OK - so that sounds like a "yes" to my question. That being the case, the UK has bigger problems than the rights of prisoners.

[HoreTore]

OK - so that sounds like a "yes" to my question. That being the case, the UK has bigger problems than the rights of prisoners.

Britain has bigger problems than the rights of British citizens?

Your prime minister seems to agree with that....

[Sir Moody]

Honestly I don't get what is such a big deal about prisoners not having the vote...

They are incarcerated because they are being punished for crimes against their fellow citizens and part of that punishment is a suspension of their rights until they are released...

I can see the problems with removing their rights permanently - but temporarily while serving their sentence?

[HoreTore]

Honestly I don't get what is such a big deal about prisoners not having the vote...

They are incarcerated because they are being punished for crimes against their fellow citizens and part of that punishment is a suspension of their rights until they are released...

I can see the problems with removing their rights permanently - but temporarily while serving their sentence?

The strength of democracy is that it draws on the experience, insights and abilities of all citizens. This is used for two main purposes. Firstly, to determine the most effective way of going forward in accordance with the majority of the affected. Secondly, to reduce tensions and conflict in society by enabling all voices to be heard.

Removing elements of society from the vote undermines both of those. Especially the last one, since it can be reasonably assumed that prisoners are more likely than the rest of society to be in conflict with established society. Thus, it is extra important that their concerns are heard.

The reasoning for taking their vote away is rubbish at best, with little more than different variations of "politicians will enable crime" and other such fearmongering nonsense.

[rvg]

The strength of democracy is that it draws on the experience, insights and abilities of all citizens. This is used for two main purposes. Firstly, to determine the most effective way of going forward in accordance with the majority of the affected. Secondly, to reduce tensions and conflict in society by enabling all voices to be heard.
All citizens? No. In fact, never. Prisoners don't get to vote, and there's nothing wrong with that. Kids don't get to vote either. Not everyone's voice is equally valuable in every situation.


Removing elements of society from the vote undermines both of those. Especially the last one, since it can be reasonably assumed that prisoners are more likely than the rest of society to be in conflict with established society. Thus, it is extra important that their concerns are heard.Ex-cons are supposed to adapt to the society, not the other way around. If an ex-con goes on to re-offend because he's been disenfranchised, then clearly he deserves to go back to prison.


The reasoning for taking their vote away is rubbish at best, with little more than different variations of "politicians will enable crime" and other such fearmongering nonsense.
The reason for taking their vote away is punitive. Not that their vote would have made any difference anyway, but it's just another way of reminding them that they screwed up.

[HoreTore]

Ex-cons are supposed to adapt to the society, not the other way around.

I think you have to be a conservative to be able to misunderstand things so completely. Hearing the voices of the prisoners(or any other group for that matter), does the opposite of this. It adapts the prisoner to society, it doesn't adapt society to the prisoner.

If you fail to understand this, I see very little point further discussion.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think you have to be a conservative to be able to misunderstand things so completely. Hearing the voices of the prisoners(or any other group for that matter), does the opposite of this. It adapts the prisoner to society, it doesn't adapt society to the prisoner.

If you fail to understand this, I see very little point further discussion.

This exchange is, on some level, a differend (sorry to go all Lyotardian on ya!).

Both of you are invoking utterly different value frameworks that are at odds over this instance.

Framework One: All persons who are not mentally unsound/undeveloped (due to illness or youthfulness) should have a voice in self governance. In this framework, a person's criminality is dealt with through incarceration/rehabilitation but their right to a "voice" should not be stifled -- their opinion is of no lesser worth than before they committed and were caught in committing a crime.

Framework Two: Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The franchise is the ultimate right/privilege of citizenship in a community. Persons who have demonstrably acted against the greater good -- failing to meet their responsibilities -- have thereby demonstrated that they cannot discharge responsibilities correctly, so they should not be afforded the privilege of the franchise until they have atoned and demonstrated their willingness to accept responsibility.

Neither of these frameworks is without value, but on this issue at least they can easily "speak past" one another.

[Pannonian]

I think you have to be a conservative to be able to misunderstand things so completely. Hearing the voices of the prisoners(or any other group for that matter), does the opposite of this. It adapts the prisoner to society, it doesn't adapt society to the prisoner.

If you fail to understand this, I see very little point further discussion.

I suppose Britain tends towards conservatism and the approval of the community, rather than building on grand principles. Conviction is done by the community, and once you're convicted, few outsiders care about your theoretical well being in order to uphold some high principle.

[HoreTore]

Neither of these frameworks is without value, but on this issue at least they can easily "speak past" one another.

Indeed, and as such I don't see any point in having a "wall of nonsense"-discussion where neither of us really engage with the arguments of the other, which is why I said I didn't have much interest in discussing it further.

I do realize it may have come off as more cross than I intended it to be.


I suppose Britain tends towards conservatism and the approval of the community, rather than building on grand principles. Conviction is done by the community, and once you're convicted, few outsiders care about your theoretical well being in order to uphold some high principle.

It is not the "right of the individual"(the prisoner) I care about. I care about the larger community. Why on earth should a pinko-commie like myself care about the rights of an individual? Lenin focused on class and state, nothing else!

[Pannonian]

It is not the "right of the individual"(the prisoner) I care about. I care about the larger community. Why on earth should a pinko-commie like myself care about the rights of an individual? Lenin focused on class and state, nothing else!

In which case, once the community has passed its verdict, why should the prisoner have a voice in how the community conducts its affairs? If they want a voice, let them air it after they're out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Britain has bigger problems than the rights of British citizens?

Your prime minister seems to agree with that....

Her her


I suppose Britain tends towards conservatism and the approval of the community, rather than building on grand principles. Conviction is done by the community, and once you're convicted, few outsiders care about your theoretical well being in order to uphold some high principle.

This is the kind of thing that makes us sound despotic - there is a principle at work here - and it's a very important one. Namely, that those who break the law should not have a voice in the making of the law.


Indeed, and as such I don't see any point in having a "wall of nonsense"-discussion where neither of us really engage with the arguments of the other, which is why I said I didn't have much interest in discussing it further.

I do realize it may have come off as more cross than I intended it to be.

It is not the "right of the individual"(the prisoner) I care about. I care about the larger community. Why on earth should a pinko-commie like myself care about the rights of an individual? Lenin focused on class and state, nothing else!

The Norwegian model appears to largely work for Norway at the moment - but it is predicated on a small population and relatively high homogeneity. The population of Norway is roughly 70% of the population of London, spread over a much wider area. That means smaller communities where you're more likely to know people, and hence the pressure of offenders to reform within their commies much higher. Added to that, homogeneity means that the reaction of felons will be similar across the country AND you have stronger communities which apply pressure on the individual to reform.

A few Norwegian expats I have met have highlighted the pressure to conform as a reason for leaving the country - which tells you how strong it is. You get similar responses from Swedish and French expats too.

Now - after hundreds of years of immigration, especially over the last 150 years,the UK is both densely populated and heterogeneous. Communal pressure to conform to national laws is relatively weak, and in some instances whole communities willfully uncooperative with the national government - up to the point of waging sustained terror campaigns in order to force central government to accede to their demands.

In our society, the rule of Law is NOT vested in the community as it is in Norway, it is vested in the national government which has to manage competing demands from antagonistic factions. This being so, the government cannot allow those who break the law to vote. Consider - when a few hundred or a thousand prisoners are incarcerated in a city ward, their votes could determine who is elected to the local Council. The prisoners are there to be punished by they could potentially disenfranchise the law abiding citizens who live in the ward.

This may not have a practically adverse affect on those people, but that does not make the situation less repugnant to our democracy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And you wonder why we have so much trouble getting a consistent rule of law in America? I'll be quoting your post liberally the next time we have a gun debate.

I don't actually believe America is "governable" in the technical sense - it holds together for the moment but I keep waiting for it to fly apart in another Civil War.

My issue with the gun debate isn't the difficulty in implementing laws - same with your healthcare system - I get that. What I don't get is the opinion of the average American *about* Guns and healthcare - that's what I think is nuts.

[Pannonian]

This is the kind of thing that makes us sound despotic - there is a principle at work here - and it's a very important one. Namely, that those who break the law should not have a voice in the making of the law.

My point was that, whatever the scare stories about corrupt governments dictating politicised law and so on, people are in prison after a trial by jury. Juries are free to disregard the law if they feel it is unjust, and it takes just 3 out of 12 to make a conviction impossible. If there are problems with the justice system, it lies not with the political process, but with the police who provide the evidence. The vote has nothing to do with the fair representation of the convicted; the community has already spoken, in sending them to prison.

[HoreTore]

In which case, once the community has passed its verdict, why should the prisoner have a voice in how the community conducts its affairs? If they want a voice, let them air it after they're out.

Again: I argue for prisoner votes because it is beneficial for society that they vote(discounting the fact that they won't anyway). I do not argue on the grounds of any benefit/right/whathaveyou on behalf of the prisoner.



In our society, the rule of Law is NOT vested in the community as it is in Norway, it is vested in the national government which has to manage competing demands from antagonistic factions. This being so, the government cannot allow those who break the law to vote. Consider - when a few hundred or a thousand prisoners are incarcerated in a city ward, their votes could determine who is elected to the local Council. The prisoners are there to be punished by they could potentially disenfranchise the law abiding citizens who live in the ward.

I'd say your voting structure is a valid counter-argument*, as having inmates vote in the local elections where the prison is situated could create havoc. The solution is extremely simple, though: have the prisoner stay registered in the same district they were registered in prior to imprisonment.

*I won't touch the hetero/homo and density arguments....

[a completely inoffensive name]

If another civil war was needed to make a congress that was actually productive, people would line up for miles to vote on which state to attack first.

[Fragony]

Kewl, a calculation of Capital Economics, certainly not the least, says leaving the EU is a smashing good idea for the Netherlands. Quality newspapers and state-media couldn't wait to discredit Capital Economics (it isn't even out yet), but they are no small fry. Up to 10% of growth without having to deal with a Flemisf ferrest who looks like an owl who fell out of his tree, a German booksalesman and his Portugese waiter? Gimme. Not to mention that ugly chimpette Ashton and that Swedish hippie Maelstrøm. Yes I wrote that wrong on purpose.

[Husar]

Fragony has two choices:

a) make some completely unsubstantiated claims about the EU

b) provide any evidence for what he says

what will he choose?


Apparently the article can be downloaded as a pdf if anyone wants to read it:

https://www.capitaleconomics.com/highlights/nexit-assessing-the-economic-impact-of-the-netherlands-leaving-the-european-union.html

[Fragony]

Fragony has two choices:

a) make some completely unsubstantiated claims about the EU

b) provide any evidence for what he says

what will he choose?

Apparently the article can be downloaded as a pdf if anyone wants to read it:

https://www.capitaleconomics.com/highlights/nexit-assessing-the-economic-impact-of-the-netherlands-leaving-the-european-union.html

Haven't read it yet. But europhiles are screaming the usual nonense, it just came out so they haven't read it either. But the usual fearmonging 'WE NEED TEH EUROPEAN MARKUT!!!'. Yeah true, but it's a falafy, we don't need the Brussels to trade with EUrope. Rhetorical trick. Tell me, how are you going to build stuff if you will suffer a 30/40% access to materials? The Netherlands is also the biggest food exporternin the world, second only to the US (last year's numbers, hear France is now #2). If you expand your harbours the waterways will have to be deeper. Who are you going to call for that? Exactly, us. Waste of money no. As TA pointed out earlier, it will take decades before you can compete with us, and it will cost billions and billions (TA didn't say the latter but it's pretty obvious it will)

[HoreTore]

The Netherlands is also the biggest food exporternin the world, second only to the US

Wat?

[Husar]

Wat?

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-agricultural-exporters-map.html


Haven't read it yet. But europhiles are screaming the usual nonense, it just came out so they haven't read it either. But the usual fearmonging 'WE NEED TEH EUROPEAN MARKUT!!!'. Yeah true, but it's a falafy, we don't need the Brussels to trade with EUrope. Rhetorical trick. Tell me, how are you going to build stuff if you will suffer a 30/40% access to materials? The Netherlands is also the biggest food exporternin the world, second only to the US (last year's numbers, hear France is now #2). If you expand your harbours the waterways will have to be deeper. Who are you going to call for that? Exactly, us. Waste of money no. As TA pointed out earlier, it will take decades before you can compete with us, and it will cost billions and billions (TA didn't say the latter but it's pretty obvious it will)

I'm not sure who you are arguing with and why, it just bothers me because you quoted me first.

[HoreTore]

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-agricultural-exporters-map.html

And this map explains how you can be the largest as well as the second largest at the same time?

[Husar]

And this map explains how you can be the largest as well as the second largest at the same time?

I don't do reading maps.
Can't help you.

I just saw that the table confirms what Fragony says about the Netherlands being third now.

[HoreTore]

I don't do reading maps.
Can't help you.

I just saw that the table confirms what Fragony says about the Netherlands being third now.

Fragony stated that "The Netherlands is the largest, but the US is larger"... Conflicting terms, and I'm being a nazi ~;)

[Sigurd]

Which is, as you should have guessed: rather a lot. Oil may make you hypothetically very rich but there's not an awful lot of jobs in actually getting the oil out (though granted there are not that many Scots either). Fishing alone is a bigger source of employment in Norway, IIRC.



Depends on how it's done. If all you do is pump up the oil, then no, there's not a lot of jobs coming from that. If you establish an oil industry as well(ie. making platforms and such), then there's a lot of jobs.

Even if you don't have yards building platforms - you still need depots for the oil/gas and perhaps refineries.
You need rotation crews on all 24/7 installations. With 2 weeks on and 4 weeks off you need 3 people for every position. You separate operation and function i.e drilling.
You need logistics - equipment from and to installations (land, sea) and depots for this (ship yards to build rugged north sea ships - lorries you import from sweden).
You need maintenance - installations on-shore for repairing machinery and pipe tools, inspection, modifications (stuff wear out quickly in the north sea). Extreme conditions and high operation levels (stuff shouldn't break down) demands high intervals on preventive maintenance.
You might need equipment manufacturers - If you are on a technology edge - innovation and manufacturing "needs" to be close at hand.
Least but not last - a bloated bureaucratic organisation to run all this - with heavy back end IT solutions which needs - maintenance, support, modifications etc (could be outsourced to India, but you still need locals with industry understanding).

[Fragony]

Fragony stated that "The Netherlands is the largest, but the US is larger"... Conflicting terms, and I'm being a nazi ~;)

second only to, no contradiction, that means we are second.

[Greyblades]

*sigh* we really are a vestigial nation, we cant even stay the topic of a thread for 100 posts.

[Beskar]

Fragony stated that "The Netherlands is the largest, but the US is larger"... Conflicting terms, and I'm being a nazi ~;)

Largest within the European Union.
United States (who is not part of the European Union) is larger.

Easily explained.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

*sigh* we really are a vestigial nation, we cant even stay the topic of a thread for 100 posts.

So write down that unwritten constitution, group up the counties into a few territories, downgrade the royals to rich celebs, and come in as states 51 through 54. You even start off with a meaningful voting block in the Senate. What's not to love?

[Greyblades]

And have American News networks pollute British airwaves? I'd sooner we become part of France, than suffer your torrents of political advertising.

[Kagemusha]

Haven't read it yet. But europhiles are screaming the usual nonense, it just came out so they haven't read it either. But the usual fearmonging 'WE NEED TEH EUROPEAN MARKUT!!!'. Yeah true, but it's a falafy, we don't need the Brussels to trade with EUrope. Rhetorical trick. Tell me, how are you going to build stuff if you will suffer a 30/40% access to materials? The Netherlands is also the biggest food exporternin the world, second only to the US (last year's numbers, hear France is now #2). If you expand your harbours the waterways will have to be deeper. Who are you going to call for that? Exactly, us. Waste of money no. As TA pointed out earlier, it will take decades before you can compete with us, and it will cost billions and billions (TA didn't say the latter but it's pretty obvious it will)

Frags, Good idea but it is too late. You have been had. As exemplary vassal state for the Germans. We Finns bought your entire Armour fleet of Leopard 2A6 last month, with much of your AT missiles..so you can witness the Kraut Panzers roll in the Amsterdam any day now. Soon you can till the fields and work the docks as much as you like without bothering with nonsense like politics.. ~;)

[HoreTore]

second only to, no contradiction, that means we are second.

Yes, and since you're the second largest, you're not the largest one, are you? ~;)

[Husar]

Frags, Good idea but it is too late. You have been had. As exemplary vassal state for the Germans. We Finns bought your entire Armour fleet of Leopard 2A6 last month, with much of your AT missiles..so you can witness the Kraut Panzers roll in the Amsterdam any day now. Soon you can till the fields and work the docks as much as you like without bothering with nonsense like politics.. ~;)

You mean Finland will invade the Netherlands with the Kraut Panzers Finland just bought from the Netherlands? That's clever, but Germany won't let this happen. ~;)

[Kagemusha]

You mean Finland will invade the Netherlands with the Kraut Panzers Finland just bought from the Netherlands? That's clever, but Germany won't let this happen. ~;)

There goes another finely tuned plan down the toilet...Hmmmpphh.Maybe our time will come when the Norse disband their army as Horetore suggests...:quiet:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There goes another finely tuned plan down the toilet...Hmmmpphh.Maybe our time will come when the Norse disband their army as Horetore suggests...:quiet:

You live in Finland and aspire to conquer Norway? Clearly it is way too cold up there for positive thinking.

Try conquering Cuba or Puerto Rico or someplace with a decent beach and drinking tradition that involves teeny umbrellas.

[Pannonian]

You live in Finland and aspire to conquer Norway? Clearly it is way too cold up there for positive thinking.


It's revenge for that time when Horetore and his boys invaded Finland.

[Kagemusha]

You live in Finland and aspire to conquer Norway? Clearly it is way too cold up there for positive thinking.

Try conquering Cuba or Puerto Rico or someplace with a decent beach and drinking tradition that involves teeny umbrellas.

Just between you and me confidentially.. The plan is not to conquer, but to invade and immediately surrender. Then once we have become happy Norse with lots of oil, instead miserable drunken Finns, living at frozen swamp. We can start all raising social benefits from the Norse Valhalla and spend the rest of our days being drunk and miserable at some beach at lot warmer latitude...~;)

[HoreTore]

There goes another finely tuned plan down the toilet...Hmmmpphh.Maybe our time will come when the Norse disband their army as Horetore suggests...:quiet:

You want the North?

Take it. I'll pay you for it. Please.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You want the North?

Take it. I'll pay you for it. Please.

Oh you're just still bitter about that evening in Trondheim with the three Llaps and the goat....

[HoreTore]

Oh you're just still bitter about that evening in Trondheim with the three Llaps and the goat....

I'll give you credit for the joke, but alas Trondheim is not a part of the North ~;)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'll give you credit for the joke, but alas Trondheim is not a part of the North ~;)

I was rushing. Should've said Narvik or somewhere up there where all directions are south.

[Fragony]

Yes, and since you're the second largest, you're not the largest one, are you? ~;)

Hence second only to

[Beskar]

I'll give you credit for the joke, but alas Trondheim is not a part of the North ~;)

Where do you draw the North? Looking at a map, Trondheim looks to be in the Northern part of main Norway, but is still within that big oval/head shape if you think of Norway looking like a big sperm.

The 'North' in England is defined as 'North of the Watford Gap' as shown in this image:
https://i.imgur.com/mxkl8G8.jpg

Usually due to examples such as population, culture, other various factors. Scotland has its 'Highlands and Lowlands'

[HoreTore]

Hence second only to

The appropriate sentence would read "The Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world, with only the US ahead." ~;)

[HoreTore]

Where do you draw the North? Looking at a map, Trondheim looks to be in the Northern part.

"The North" consists of Nordland, Troms and Finnmark.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And have American News networks pollute British airwaves? I'd sooner we become part of France, than suffer your torrents of political advertising.

I wouldn't mind being part of a pan-Nordic government, though, we could break English down into 6-10 historic units if they'd let us join.

[Kagemusha]

Where do you draw the North? Looking at a map, Trondheim looks to be in the Northern part of main Norway, but is still within that big oval/head shape if you think of Norway looking like a big sperm.

The 'North' in England is defined as 'North of the Watford Gap' as shown in this image:
https://i.imgur.com/mxkl8G8.jpg

Usually due to examples such as population, culture, other various factors. Scotland has its 'Highlands and Lowlands'

If you want to extend your knowledge concerning the Nordic countries and bit from other countries as well. Here is your ultimate source for any information needed::beam:

http://satwcomic.com/sweden-denmark-and-norway

[Beskar]

"The North" consists of Nordland, Troms and Finnmark.

Thought so, you were referring to the 'tail' part of Norway.

[Beskar]

If you want to extend your knowledge concerning the Nordic countries and bit from other countries as well. Here is your ultimate source for any information needed::beam:

http://satwcomic.com/sweden-denmark-and-norway

I already have read that! It is very good and handy.

I like this one, ashame it doesn't include Jorvik and the North of England. :sad:
http://satwcomic.com/new-nordic

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you want to extend your knowledge concerning the Nordic countries and bit from other countries as well. Here is your ultimate source for any information needed::beam:

http://satwcomic.com/sweden-denmark-and-norway

Those were not the Regions I was looking for.

Was think more of breaking it down by Duchy, which makes more sense, and doesn't leave an orphan "South Central" region.

[Greyblades]

It's kinda depressing knowing that the scots want to go; they're the only member of this union that joined semi willingly.

[gaelic cowboy]

It's kinda depressing knowing that the scots want to go; they're the only member of this union that joined semi willingly.

they wont vote for it, however it wont be decisive enough to make the issue go away





Anyway if the sorta can join semi-willingly then the reverse has to be applicable

[Fragony]

The appropriate sentence would read "The Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world, with only the US ahead." ~;)

How I wrote it is perfectly fine

[InsaneApache]

It's kinda depressing knowing that the scots want to go; they're the only member of this union that joined semi willingly.

Well there was rioting in Scotland and Scots beaten up in London. It's just the other way around these days. :creep:

[Fisherking]

Stay with UK, Cameron tells Scotland!

Is that double speak?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A big part of what I consider social stability is the society-wide sense of inevitable governance. A habit of civilization, if you will. The sense that revolution, civil war, or true large-scale disorder is not only doomed to failure but more or less impossible, even if it is desirable. While it is true that the UK has problems, I think the idea of revolution or civil war is just as far-fetched there as it is here--something that resides purely in the realm of fiction. A strong safety net is negligible compared to that.

There's some real merit in this.

Theoretically, France has a better democracy, but the French are wont to "go to the barricades" over anything they don't like - which makes the country rather harder to govern than the UK.

[Brenus]

"the French are wont to "go to the barricades" over anything they don't like - which makes the country rather harder to govern than the UK." Agree. That makes things more difficult to a French Government to impose laws restraining freedom than in UK. You tell a British striker the strike is illegal he goes home, you tell a French he just will tell it will be one more thing to negotiate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

"the French are wont to "go to the barricades" over anything they don't like - which makes the country rather harder to govern than the UK." Agree. That makes things more difficult to a French Government to impose laws restraining freedom than in UK. You tell a British striker the strike is illegal he goes home, you tell a French he just will tell it will be one more thing to negotiate.

The definition of lip service is a Frenchman talking about liberty.

When was the negotiation on whether Muslims could dress according to their will? I am eager to read the transcript on that.

[Brenus]

“When was the negotiation on whether Muslims could dress according to their will? I am eager to read the transcript on that.” No problem:
1st, the hijab is not an Islamic clothing (this was confirm by the French Muslim Council) and it is not in the Koran.
2nd, you cannot wear what you want where you want, as you cannot be naked in the street, or wear a helmet when coming in a bank.
3rd: In France there is no “Communities”, so you don’t negotiate with specific groups but you vote in an elected Parliament the laws for all citizens.
Perhaps this concept is not familiar to you, it is called Democracy. It is not without flaws, but it works.
You did notice it was not muslin exodus after this law, so apparently, the Muslim “community” is happy with this law.

In term of ideology, you can agree that there is a second class citizen (women) in a religion and they have to wear specific clothing, and walk behind men, and not allowed to open their mouth. However, in France, in the constitution is not an opinion, it is an offence to be against equality in front of the law. And don’t give me the “they agree to wear a portable jail” thing. It is not because you had happy slaves that slavery is acceptable. Masochism is not a reason to accept torture (hey, they agree to be tortured…).

[a completely inoffensive name]

“When was the negotiation on whether Muslims could dress according to their will? I am eager to read the transcript on that.” No problem:
1st, the hijab is not an Islamic clothing (this was confirm by the French Muslim Council) and it is not in the Koran.
2nd, you cannot wear what you want where you want, as you cannot be naked in the street, or wear a helmet when coming in a bank.
3rd: In France there is no “Communities”, so you don’t negotiate with specific groups but you vote in an elected Parliament the laws for all citizens.
Perhaps this concept is not familiar to you, it is called Democracy. It is not without flaws, but it works.
You did notice it was not muslin exodus after this law, so apparently, the Muslim “community” is happy with this law.

In term of ideology, you can agree that there is a second class citizen (women) in a religion and they have to wear specific clothing, and walk behind men, and not allowed to open their mouth. However, in France, in the constitution is not an opinion, it is an offence to be against equality in front of the law. And don’t give me the “they agree to wear a portable jail” thing. It is not because you had happy slaves that slavery is acceptable. Masochism is not a reason to accept torture (hey, they agree to be tortured…).

You can't say that the hijab is not a piece of Islamic clothing in order to deflect the religious component and then admit later on that Islamic customs dictate that women have to wear specific clothing. The hijab might not be uniquely Islamic per se, but obviously it's part of the dress code for it (for women), which bounds it up in religious expression.

My response to #2 is....why not? I would be mad if nude beaches were banned, because it's a form of expression as with anything else and the only reasons to deny nudity as expression is sexual puritanism.

#3 made me laugh, and it's a fair enough point. However, when you say that there has been no "muslim exodus" that is disingenuous. They left their home country to live in the West in the first place, I don't think they would be willing to give up the French standard of living despite their wives not covering their face. Complacency isn't the same as being happy with an outcome.

As to how women are typically treated, I agree. They are treated as second class citizens under Islamic society (typically). However, the fact is that the wives are not second class citizens under French law and it is up to them to decide to have such standards practiced at home. Here in the US, we don't make hate speech illegal because although it promotes a view of inequality, it is antithetical to liberty for government to pick "the right" opinion. You undermine the French Constitution's goal of equality when you single out and punish those who have a different opinion from the Constitution.

[Kagemusha]

The definition of lip service is a Frenchman talking about liberty.

When was the negotiation on whether Muslims could dress according to their will? I am eager to read the transcript on that.

And with this day and time why should an American comment about anything concerning liberty if we walk down that road? With passing of Patriot act you have pretty much given the finger for liberty in order to enhance security. :shrug:

[a completely inoffensive name]

And with this day and time why should an American comment about anything concerning liberty if we walk down that road? With passing of Patriot act you have pretty much given the finger for liberty in order to enhance security. :shrug:

And I completely agree with you. Doesn't detract from my original statement. Lots of disappointment all around.

[Brenus]

“You can't say that the hijab is not a piece of Islamic clothing in order to deflect the religious component and then admit later on that Islamic customs dictate that women have to wear specific clothing. The hijab might not be uniquely Islamic per se, but obviously it's part of the dress code for it (for women), which bounds it up in religious expression.”
I can. Hijab, according to the Doctors of the Islamic Faith in France, is not a part of a religious obligation. So, you can’t say it is part of a Religious Obligation (note that in France this wouldn’t be a valid point as we have a law separating State and Religions: we don’t swear oaths on a “holly” books in Court, we don’t pray in schools, uniforms are uniforms etc.) to put it on. So it is a political statement of a stream that promotes inequality in gender, inequality between religions and openly calls to slaughter the pagans (where Jews and Christians become dhimmis, or slaves, as you choose to translate it). This particular dress is design to highlight (at the moment) a practice of Islam that is against the values of the Republic, encourages segregation. In doing this these extremists break the law, so their symbols and flags can be banned, as Nazi symbols are. It might surprise you, but it is illegal in France to wear a Nazi Uniform (a part for Films and others entertainment as historical reconstructions).

“is....why not?” Not the subject. You are saying that clothing is up to individuals and I am showing you that it is not, and that each society has its own codes and habits. So, in most of the countries, you are not allowed to walk naked, painted in red or not, in front of a school or in public spaces. So, why the hijab should be exempt of it?

“Complacency isn't the same as being happy with an outcome.” I think you don’t understand. They are happy with the law. The girls are happy that the State protects them from the abuses of the extremists and to be able to wear really what they want (not big black bags). The men are happy that they can drink, eat and smoke and looking the girls without a big black bag during the Ramadan, without being subject to insult and threats. I had a lot of Muslim friends when in University (not all from France). Yes, this law is a protection from the extremists abuses, not a restrain of freedom, how to get freedom. A county where a Muslim can be atheist, THE dream comes true for most of them, no “community leaders” but a real and individual choice.

[Tuuvi]

Are we talking about the burqa or the hijab? Banning the burqa I can understand. The hijab not so much.

[Brenus]

Burqa. Veil on hairs were never a problem...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

““Complacency isn't the same as being happy with an outcome.” I think you don’t understand. They are happy with the law. The girls are happy that the State protects them from the abuses of the extremists and to be able to wear really what they want (not big black bags). The men are happy that they can drink, eat and smoke and looking the girls without a big black bag during the Ramadan, without being subject to insult and threats. I had a lot of Muslim friends when in University (not all from France). Yes, this law is a protection from the extremists abuses, not a restrain of freedom, how to get freedom. A county where a Muslim can be atheist, THE dream comes true for most of them, no “community leaders” but a real and individual choice.

This is, actually, a profound statement regarding culture and human freedom.

[a completely inoffensive name]

“Complacency isn't the same as being happy with an outcome.” I think you don’t understand. They are happy with the law. The girls are happy that the State protects them from the abuses of the extremists and to be able to wear really what they want (not big black bags). The men are happy that they can drink, eat and smoke and looking the girls without a big black bag during the Ramadan, without being subject to insult and threats. I had a lot of Muslim friends when in University (not all from France). Yes, this law is a protection from the extremists abuses, not a restrain of freedom, how to get freedom. A county where a Muslim can be atheist, THE dream comes true for most of them, no “community leaders” but a real and individual choice.

The poor in the US are unhealthy because the cheapest food is the most unhealthy. We should make them happy and liberate them from this socio-economic tyranny by banning junk food.

Those muslims could have done everything you have pointed out without a ban on type of clothing, they just choose not to because they are too afraid to challenge their parents culture. You have taken away their individual responsibility to demand better conditions for women in Islamic culture and instead have allowed nanny France to become the scape goat. Of course you have made lot of Muslims happy, you have given them an excuse to tell their relatives back home and have killed any chance of a real cultural upheaval among the Islamic world. They are not moderate muslims by choice but by law.

[Brenus]

“Those muslims could have done everything you have pointed out without a ban on type of clothing, they just choose not to because they are too afraid to challenge their parents culture.”
You still don’t get it. It is not part of the “Muslim” culture, or from the Maghrebian Culture… You are probably aware that the other side of the Mediterranean Sea was part of the French second Colonial Empire, and that Algeria was even considered as part of France (department) before its independence. So, the French have really, really, a good idea of what is genuine cultural clothing and a political statement. The parents of those “too afraid” were French, or under French rules. Their parents choose to come to France for a better life (some just after having fighting France for Independence) and knew what France is. If they came, it was as well to enjoy the French way of life as they knew it and the freedom from Religious totalitarism.
In the 80’-90’s it was even to escape from death from it, when some Algerian Former Independence Fighters (females mostly but not exclusively) came to find shelter in a Country they fought years ago.

You still think that the burquas’ wearers are the expression on Islam. They are the terror of Islam. They are the fascist of Islam. They want (and partially succeeded before the law) to impose their Islam to some parts of the French Territory by fear and intimidation (and rapes). Now, they can’t. We have taken back from them the right for individual to wear and to do what they want. And, again, there were NO big demonstration of the “Muslims” in France against this law. Few individuals got in trouble in order to challenge the law, failed, paid the fine, and done.
Burquas are the uniform by which the Muslim Extremists want to send a message: submit to our view of inequality, racism and discrimination.
The French law against Burqua just tell them: No, we won’t. You will not subject the French Muslim to terror; you will not part the French Population following Religious Borders.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hmmm. Well, while I still disagree with the method, obviously there is a lot I don't know about France's relationship with it's former territories. I guess it ultimately comes down to the results, which have been positive. So I will think about what you have said some more and reevaluate my position.