The United Kingdom; The European Union; NATO: which is the primary sense of identity?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The current resident at 1600 Penn Ave. in DC is, as nearly as I can tell, the President with a mindset closest to a pre-WW2 GOP party leader I have yet seen. This is part of why he is shaking up so many things in such a short time.

I have been mulling over a number of comments across a few of the threads here, but wanted to bring the discussion together in this one to address some musings/questions I have had.


I don't think Trump will repudiate NATO (I think it mostly bluster trying to get the EU to cough up more funds), but what WOULD the UK and EU do were the USA to withdraw from NATO? Would their be an EU army and would Britain return to the EU or move forward with an even stronger "special relationship?" What would a USA-less NATO mean for Europe?

Is the EU really drawing countries together to create a true Union in Europe, and how far will that coalescence really go? Will there be a common language, schooling choices, Europe-wide medical system? What is the EU long-term identity?

And as to identity, how do persons in Europe (and especially the UK given our "special relationship" (which is NOT entirely unidirectional, though it trends that way too often) see themselves? Is their sense of identity linked with the soil of their birth? the political collective of the EU? Quasi-anarchic familialism? Was gibt?


Just a few questions from a fellow in Florida trying to understand you lot on that side of "the pond."

[Montmorency]

If the US is uninterested in Europe, then we settle into a globalized imperial system, where spheres of influence are condoned and officially recognized: the US in the Americas, China in the West Pacific and East Asia, Russia in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Africa would have multiple centers around Nigeria, South Africa, and the Lake Victoria region. Western Europe, who cares.

It will be benign and productive. Until there is friction over supply chains and tributary states. Then you get what all multipolar regimes turn into, which is competition, because regional hegemony is only sustainable in the context of pursuing global hegemony. This would be painful for China to acknowledge.

As for identity, I'm not sure this is the right time to ask that question - our UK members have discussed it plenty, right?. And NATO isn't really something to do with civil identities, the thought reminds me of trends in science fiction of the 1980s-90s.

There's a new tome, The Great Leveler (https://www.amazon.com/Great-Leveler-Inequality-Twenty-First-Princeton/dp/0691165025) out on how mass mortality is the single most significant driving factor toward changes in economic standards (namely, equalization of wealth distribution). I don't know if the same sweeping argument makes sense with regard to identity, but we might add here that mass mortality following mass violence has high potential to transform social groups and identities.

[Brenus]

Well, a lot of questions.
I will try to answer some of them as a former French professional soldier.
First I don't think Trump will dissolve NATO as it is a good tool for US supremacy and it sell a lot of US weapons to the "allies". What Trump wants, as he said during his campaign, is US first, so the demand of an increasing budget from the Allies is just in order to buy more US equipment.

As a French, our defence is based on the horrible but efficient concept of dissuasion which means that any country attacking France will be vaporised by nuclear weapons. No proxy wars, no limited war, just war.
French projection capacity in Africa and others parts of the world where the French interests are in danger or concerned is covered by the Army, Fleet and Air Force which are (allegedly) enough for the job (i.e. Chad), big UN missions being done in cooperation with others countries (Iraq first Campaign being an example).
As a French, I think we have to be independent of others countries interests. It is not possible to use the French Nuclear firepower to protect Norway... Cooperation is possible, not subordination.
Unfortunately, under Sarkolland, France was reunited to NATO, and our capacity in making our own weapons system badly damaged.
Fortunately, with Trump demands and his comments about NATO, perhaps some European Nations having lived under the dream of the US umbrella will realise that is was just this, a dream, and start to think about building their own forces.

The EU is dead. Built as a political project it was killed by the Commission and it undemocratic political behavior, the spreading of poverty and the choice of an economical model which can't be challenged by democratic votes, by law under the actual Constitution.
EU has no respect or acknowledgment local history or traditions. Having an unique model, the EU leaders are not able to see they just go to the wall.

The French identity, as I am concerned, and some French might disagree, is based on a political contract based on the French Revolution (1789). The french Identity can not be based on territory, as it had changed, and the longest French border is with Brazil. This fact rules out "culture" as well.
It can't be based on language as a lot a French speaking are not French citizens (Quebec coming immediately in mind, but some in Louisiana as well). 29 countries have French as official languages.
It can't be based on religions, as France has all of them, and a majority being atheist.
It can't be based on ethnicities as well, for obvious historical reasons.

[Kagemusha]

Good questions Seamus. As someone from Northern periphery of Europe. I am not the best person to comment the Special relationship of UK and USA. Neither am i an expert with UK´s relations with the strongest main land European countries like Germany and France. That is too Western European for me and i am sure that are many others that are more interested and have more in-depth knowledge concerning the issues and nuance´s of the matter.

Concerning identity. I am first Finnish and second European. Being from small country and language group. I think it is important to remember my identity, while it is a non issue most of the time.
I think EU has many good things to offer for Europe and Europeans, but in its current form it is simply unsuited for trying to achieve deeper integration inside Europe. The sole reason is that EU has failed to create basic democratic institutions and checks and balances to operate as any kind of federal state. Also i think the speed which the EU ideologist´s have been trying to ram through integration is way too fast. People do not like change and even less a uncontrolled one. There should first at least be a plan created for integration, before any real actions being taken. But this really does not matter as this point as the EU cant seem to be able to even decide, if it should try to conduct at least some sort of democratic decision making or remain a coalition of individual countries, trying to achieve consensus between their representatives over issues EU should have a joint stance.

About NATO. I hail from the only "Western" country that shares a border with Russia, which is not in the NATO. Finland has deepened her cooperation with NATO and individual NATO countries like US for example in form of joint exercises and joining in NATO exercises. As another example last few years our Arctic infantry Brigade has been training US forces in arctic warfare and Last Spring we had a join exercise with Dutch and German troops at Finnish soil. Apart NATO aspect Finland and Sweden has become very tight as of late in defense issues and there is continuous talk in both countries about a formal defensive alliance.
Personally i would support Finland joining NATO, hopefully together with Sweden, but it is a clear fact that if something radical does not happen, that will not become a reality. Reason for that is that the is not enough support to join NATO for various reasons. These reasons include Nationalist pride/anger that no one has helped us in the past, so why would they now? Also folks are worried what it would do to our foreign trade as Russia is our second largest trade partner after Germany. (Well that has become reality already with EU sanctions against Russia because of Ukraine) Third large reason is reluctance to go into some distant wars for NATO, but we are already at Afghanistan for example without being at NATO.

Conclusion. I hope we can create a defensive alliance with Sweden and become a less inviting target for a large neighbor. In any case i think many times specially in Western Europe there is almost like a hysteria over Russia. I have posted about the defense spending before and the West is using so ridiculous amounts of money that there really is not real threats at least if the money would be spent with little more care. Ok. Russia is strong with its land components and tactical air force. I dont concern myself with Russian Nukes as nuking us they would kill more of themselves then us, because we are so few. In any case, if Western and central Europe would gear up for war and nukes would not be a factor, Russia would find themselves from deep end of affairs quite soon. In the end war is much about economy and logistics and the math is simple. Russia does not hold a candle compared to Europe when it comes to those issues.

[Montmorency]

A good reason for Sweden and Finland to avoid formally joining NATO is for the sake of appearances. The Baltic states are one thing, but Russia has repeatedly pointed out that it would see their accession as a direct threat disruptive to normal bilateral relations between themselves and Russia. It would indeed take serious aggression from Russia to overrule that consideration.

Recall an interesting episode (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-finland-nato-putin-idUSKCN0ZH5IV) recently:


Putin hints Russia will react if Finland joins NATO

President Vladimir Putin suggested on Friday Russia could move its troops closer to the Finnish-Russian border if Finland joins NATO and called for measures to improve conflict prevention over the Baltic.

Finnish armed forces "would become part of NATO's military infrastructure, which overnight would be at the borders of the Russian Federation", Putin said after meeting Finnish President Sauli Niinisto.

"Do you think we will keep it as it is: our troops at 1,500 (kilometers, 900 miles) away?"


Obviously that can't possibly be correct, unless Russia moved its military to Siberia at some point.


"NATO perhaps would gladly fight with Russia until the last Finnish soldier," Putin said.

"Do you guys need it? We don't. We don't want it. But it is your call."

[Kagemusha]

A good reason for Sweden and Finland to avoid formally joining NATO is for the sake of appearances. The Baltic states are one thing, but Russia has repeatedly pointed out that it would see their accession as a direct threat disruptive to normal bilateral relations between themselves and Russia. It would indeed take serious aggression from Russia to overrule that consideration.

Recall an interesting episode (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-finland-nato-putin-idUSKCN0ZH5IV) recently:



Obviously that can't possibly be correct, unless Russia moved its military to Siberia at some point.

In matter of fact. That speech from Putin become a base for lots of jokes in Finnish media and amongst the population. The cause was exactly this quote: "Do you think we will keep it as it is: our troops at 1,500 (kilometers, 900 miles) away?"

From where i am sitting now. The closest Russian motor rifle brigade is situated at Kamenka Karelia near Viborg or Viipuri as the city is called in Finnish. It is less then 250 km from Finnish capital. That is some three hours driving distance with car. Dont worry i havent lost or will be loosing any sleep because of that fact. I guess Putin just had forgot about his own troop deployments and thought the entire Russian land forces were at Siberia.~D

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting questions - here's a rough diagram of how I construct my identity.

Close Family
↓
Wessex (Southern England sans Home Counties)
↓
England
↓
UK and other Crown Dominions (I have found Canadians and Aussies to be as like the English as the Scots and Welsh so the UK has no special place for me any more - it did but I'm over it. Same monarch, same law, same form of government, etc.)
↓
Europe/Commonwealth (Again, I probably have more in common with a Canadian than a German or Italian, so the Commonwealth is going to win the toss up probably more than 50% of the time. OTOH I have more in common with a German than a Pakistani).
↓
America goes here
↓
Other Christians get a spot here
↓
The rest of Humanity.

As you can see, America is quite far down the list, I can't imagine ever backing the Americans over one of the other Dominions.

As to NATO and the EU - I don't think NATO is going anywhere but the Treaty of Rome explicitly defines the purpose of the EU as "ever closer union" so it may be that NATO's current structure is eventually replaced by one closer to "US+EU+Others".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Some thoughtful contributions here. Thanks and please continue.

[Montmorency]

As you can see, America is quite far down the list, I can't imagine ever backing the Americans over one of the other Dominions.

Would you back Pakistan over America?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would you back Pakistan over America?

Pakistan isn't a Dominion.

[Montmorency]

damn

[Seamus Fermanagh]

damn

Nice try, but he gotcha. None of the subcontinent stayed in the dominion when they got rid of the Raj.

[Pannonian]

Londoner
British
European
Western (includes liberal democracies aligned with the west, especially where they're culturally not too alien, eg. Japan, Korea, etc.)

Beyond that, there are legal obligations, but no cultural identification.

[Greyblades]

British
English
Anglosphere
Western

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nice try, but he gotcha. None of the subcontinent stayed in the dominion when they got rid of the Raj.

It's "Dominions" or "Commonwealth Realms", at one time the UK might have claimed the position of Primus inter Pares but no longer - all are equal under HM Queen.

[Beskar]

Terra
Couldn't resist.

On a serious note, it is probably most accurate portrayal. Whilst I am active in my local community, this is only because of transport and logistics for me personally. There is simply too much ground for me to cover. In this sense, I feel kinship with like-minded individuals who are compassionate and want to make the world generally better.

The mindset of nation, of sphere is very limiting. Global issues concern me, because it affects the planet. Whilst some people don't care about that the Artic is disappearing before our eyes, either outright denying it, or worse, seeing it as a potentially great thing for untapped fossil fuel resources. There is that personal limitation of there is nothing I can realistically do about a situation thousands of miles away directly, and I rely on the local inhabitants to do the good thing instead.

The people I get along with, let's say Husar (Germany) & Lemur (America). I feel a lot more kinship with them than those annoying neighbours at the back of my house who love for inexpiable reasons to shine green lasers into my room at night. So my kinship is certainly not tied to a certain geography.

Similar to the fact I am going to be moving outside the UK, I already started to contact local services in the new area for networking and getting involved in local projects there. I don't have this strange desire to excessively triumph my hometown (other than sarcastically). Sure, there are some people locally like family I will miss, but you don't need to see them super-regularly and I can travel to say hello.

[Greyblades]

Oh good, casual brain drain in a time of need.

This is why neglecting and demonising the national identity was the greatest mistake of the last 3 decades.

[Husar]

Yeah, well, money has no master, it is the master.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-country-is-no-1-for-millionaire-migrants-and-its-not-the-us-2017-02-27

Who do you think wanted the selective globalization we got?

As for my identity, that's a tough one. First and foremost I'm a member of the social and intellectual world-wide elite....
*waits for people to get triggered*
Okay, everyone who is still here, it is a mixture of German and European, but also part North-Rhine-Westphalian and part world.
Philosophically, I'm a human and so are you. To some extent my identity changes based on the topic and my perception of who I am talking to, you may call me identity-fluid. :sweatdrop:

[Montmorency]

Philosophically, I'm a human and so are you. To some extent my identity changes based on the topic and my perception of who I am talking to, you may call me identity-fluid.

Jews can be my "cousins", because I am a Jew, Arabs can be my cousins because they're Semites, Russians can be my cousins because of my ancestry in the Soviet empire, or indeed any Soviet subject group, some more so than others...

Italian-Americans can be my cousins for their role in the development of New York City in the past, Chinese-Americans can be my cousins for their role in the development of New York today, Wisconsinites/Michiganians/Minnesotans can be my cousins because they were in large part settled by New Yorkers back in the day, the "West New England", Californians can be my cousins because they're coastal and New York played a large role in their settling over the years, even up to today, and there are others I probably can't think of at the moment.

Or I can just be a New Yorker. Or I can just be an American. I'm fairly spoiled for identity. The only identity I could want to develop is a personal and interpersonal one of my own.

But I can't be everyone's cousin in the same instance.

[Brenus]

Interesting points with Canadians coming from a British. I found myself very close to the Quebecois, even if technically they are Commonwealth.
In another point of view, language is as well a marker. It is funny how French and Francophone Africans can happily speak the common language in a sea of English...

[Fragony]

France already is at war and nukes are useless

[Gilrandir]

The EU is dead.


It is not, neither officially nor de facto. It is as empty a claim as the one forwarded by some people back in the day that rock'n'roll was dead.



The french Identity can not be based on territory, as it had changed, and the longest French border is with Brazil.

Explanation needed.



I dont concern myself with Russian Nukes as nuking us they would kill more of themselves then us, because we are so few.

When did it stop Russians/Soviets?



Okay, everyone who is still here, it is a mixture of German and European, but also part North-Rhine-Westphalian and part world.


You didn't mention Rhoynar, Andals and First Men.

[Kagemusha]

When did it stop Russians/Soviets?

Nuking Finland means pretty much Nuking St.Petersburg because of the fallout, which would be bit rich for Russians to do.

[Gilrandir]

Nuking Finland means pretty much Nuking St.Petersburg because of the fallout, which would be bit rich for Russians to do.

Whatever it takes for the victory.
http://www.rferl.org/a/european-remembrance-day-ukraine-little-known-ww2-tragedy/25083847.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU is dead. Built as a political project it was killed by the Commission and it undemocratic political behavior, the spreading of poverty and the choice of an economical model which can't be challenged by democratic votes, by law under the actual Constitution.
EU has no respect or acknowledgment local history or traditions. Having an unique model, the EU leaders are not able to see they just go to the wall.

That is exactly how I feel.

Weird, eh?

[Tristuskhan]

Explanation needed.


French Guyana. Kind of French Far West.

[Brenus]

That is exactly how I feel.
Weird, eh?

I evolved a lot on the subject, and some parts due to some comments on this forum... Really weird...

[Brenus]

French Guyana. Kind of French Far West.

With rocket launcher...

[Franconicus]

Seamus,

an excellent question, or rather a set of excellent questions.

My identity, well, that's me, Franconicus. I can hardly understand men feeling themselves as English, German or whatsever.
My home is my family, esp. my children.

Of course I have a culture, I come from, I have a mother tongue, and it would be stupid to ignore this.
Anyway, I certainly do not feel as a Bavarian, rather German, in the end most of all as European. What is the European identity. Just look at the common history. From Greek philosophers, Roman law and language, Christian faith to modern times - Enlightment - Democracy - Liberalism and all that stuff. There is a line from Socrates, including men like Seneca, Montesquieu, Hobbes, Morris, Kant, Marx etc.

The European Union is not perfect and the fundament is getting smaller since all the eastern countries entered the union, I think, but it would be foolish to think that anything could get better without the EU. The English will soon see that they are trying to drive on the wrong side of history.

[Greyblades]

Wrong side of history? You'd think with the amount of failed predictions last we would be past any ideas of historical determinism.

I keep seeing modern progressives declaring their string of hard won success as some sort of inevitable fate even past the point where the victories stop coming, become so trivial that they stop mattering, or even become deranged and recieve pushback from the very people they once called allies. Yet they keep clinging to a nebulous idea of progress like martyrs and preach it's eventual success as priests do a faith.

The tenacity reminds me of doomsday cults. They reach their apocalypse dates and find them uneventful but the members find themselves too invested in the idea of the oncoming end. So they declare new end times, and after that fails another date is decided upon in a cycle of dissapointment that only ends with the group disbanding or engaging in a suicde pact.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus,

an excellent question, or rather a set of excellent questions.

My identity, well, that's me, Franconicus. I can hardly understand men feeling themselves as English, German or whatsever.
My home is my family, esp. my children.

Of course I have a culture, I come from, I have a mother tongue, and it would be stupid to ignore this.
Anyway, I certainly do not feel as a Bavarian, rather German, in the end most of all as European. What is the European identity. Just look at the common history. From Greek philosophers, Roman law and language, Christian faith to modern times - Enlightment - Democracy - Liberalism and all that stuff. There is a line from Socrates, including men like Seneca, Montesquieu, Hobbes, Morris, Kant, Marx etc.

The European Union is not perfect and the fundament is getting smaller since all the eastern countries entered the union, I think, but it would be foolish to think that anything could get better without the EU. The English will soon see that they are trying to drive on the wrong side of history.

Is there some larger entity, aside from your close family and friends, for whom you would make, or at least risk, significant sacrifice?

[Pannonian]

Wrong side of history? You'd think with the amount of failed predictions last we would be past any ideas of historical determinism.

I keep seeing modern progressives declaring their string of hard won success as some sort of inevitable fate even past the point where the victories stop coming, become so trivial that they stop mattering, or even become deranged and recieve pushback from the very people they once called allies. Yet they keep clinging to a nebulous idea of progress like martyrs and preach it's eventual success as priests do a faith.

The tenacity reminds me of doomsday cults. They reach their apocalypse dates and find them uneventful but the members find themselves too invested in the idea of the oncoming end. So they declare new end times, and after that fails another date is decided upon in a cycle of dissapointment that only ends with the group disbanding or engaging in a suicde pact.

Some of us like the EU because we're conservative with a small c, and would like tomorrow to be pretty much like today, instead of jumping off the edge with no plan in sight. What Brexit do you have envisaged? I'm pretty sure it's quite different from the one Philippus assured me was the most likely scenario, which Boris Johnson and all the other chief campaigners also said was going to be the case.

[Husar]

The English will soon see that they are trying to drive on the wrong side of history.

And this after they've been driving on the wrong side of the road for decades... :laugh4:

[Beskar]

And this after they've been driving on the wrong side of the road for decades... :laugh4:

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.

[Beskar]

Some of us like the EU because we're conservative with a small c, and would like tomorrow to be pretty much like today, instead of jumping off the edge with no plan in sight. What Brexit do you have envisaged? I'm pretty sure it's quite different from the one Philippus assured me was the most likely scenario, which Boris Johnson and all the other chief campaigners also said was going to be the case.

This was my mothers reason for voting Brexit.
https://i.imgur.com/QmuJ7iu.jpg

We know how that went...

[Brenus]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
.
Interesting theory.
Bit of contradiction as Napoleon sold the Louisiana to US so how Louisiana could have imposed the Napoleonic standard?
The 2nd problem is in no official painting Napoleon is shown as left handed, as far as I know...
It seems that the right was indeed used in France. The reason I found, without any certainty, is the use of the 6 horses coach, with 1 postilion riding the head left horse.

[Pannonian]

This was my mothers reason for voting Brexit.
https://i.imgur.com/QmuJ7iu.jpg

We know how that went...

Does she now know that was a lie?

[Husar]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.

That only seems to be partially true. Especially the comment of Napoleon wanting an advantage in road rage incidents made me very suspicious so I looked it up:

http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/

It says that in France, the US and also Russia, driving on the right became more common before Napoleon. In France it became the norm after the revolution because freedom, and the US adopted it to celebrate freedom from Britian. It further notes that the only countries to still drive on the left today are Britain and the ones that kept it as a remnant from their slavery to British imperialism. Which basically boils down to free people driving on the right while monarchists/their victims drive on the left. :sweatdrop: :creep:

Also:

The trend among nations over the years has been toward driving on the right, but Britain has done its best to stave off global homogenisation.

And this is why you have Brexit, everything is linked somehow... :creep:

[Beskar]

Does she now know that was a lie?

Yes, was very disappointed, felt lied to and cheated.

I said as much at the time, but she put it down as me being Partisan and ignoring the reality of the bus. After all, i must be purposefully ignoring the truth as they stuck it on the side of the bus.

Didn't help that my Uncle was a big Brexiteer either.

Was a trend in my family that me and my cousins all voted for remain, whilst our parents all voted for Brexit.

[Gilrandir]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.

Conclusion: this is the whole world who are driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Pannonian]

Yes, was very disappointed, felt lied to and cheated.

I said as much at the time, but she put it down as me being Partisan and ignoring the reality of the bus. After all, i must be purposefully ignoring the truth as they stuck it on the side of the bus.

Didn't help that my Uncle was a big Brexiteer either.

Was a trend in my family that me and my cousins all voted for remain, whilst our parents all voted for Brexit.

Any others recognising they were lied to?

[Beskar]

Any others recognising they were lied to?

Some people were simply Brexit in that jingo patriotic sense, so regardless of being lied to they got what they wanted.

Bash EU, make Britain Great Again.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Californians can be my cousins because they're coastal and New York played a large role in their settling over the years, even up to today,

I love you too Monty.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.


Interesting theory.
Bit of contradiction as Napoleon sold the Louisiana to US so how Louisiana could have imposed the Napoleonic standard?
The 2nd problem is in no official painting Napoleon is shown as left handed, as far as I know...
It seems that the right was indeed used in France. The reason I found, without any certainty, is the use of the 6 horses coach, with 1 postilion riding the head left horse.


That only seems to be partially true. Especially the comment of Napoleon wanting an advantage in road rage incidents made me very suspicious so I looked it up:

http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/

It says that in France, the US and also Russia, driving on the right became more common before Napoleon. In France it became the norm after the revolution because freedom, and the US adopted it to celebrate freedom from Britian. It further notes that the only countries to still drive on the left today are Britain and the ones that kept it as a remnant from their slavery to British imperialism. Which basically boils down to free people driving on the right while monarchists/their victims drive on the left. :sweatdrop: :creep:

Also:


And this is why you have Brexit, everything is linked somehow... :creep:

*Cracks historic knuckles*

Ow...

Anyway, the likelihood is that the reason for driving on the left is more prosaic. For one thing, it would originally have been driving and walking, because originally all traffic would go the same way. As to the why, the most likely explanation is actually that it allowed two men to great each other by shaking hands and had little to nothing to do with needing to "whip out your sword".

For one thing, the majority of people did not habitually carry swords, historically. Most people who met on the road would carry a staff, Sheppard's crook or similar.

[Beskar]

I admit, I made mine up to make it sound like I knew stuff. I thought it was pretty convincing at least!

[Furunculus]

Hi all, long time no see!

I don't think the US has any intention of leaving NATO, at least not insomuch as wanting to leave NATO.
As someone else said; NATO is a fantastic vehicle for US ambitions.
Trump appears to want what I want (and there the shared purpose ends): For collective defence to mean something real.
It is not sufficient for the US (and a few honourable exceptions) to be the only one to 'give' to the system, knowing that the rest have atrophied their capability (and public will) to the point where they could not (and would not) give back. That is where we are right now: going to war without belgium is like going to war without your accordian (credit:some famous general).
This is a kick in the pants. What really matters is how europe responds. If they truly intend to meet the Cardiff promise to reach 2.0% within a decade, then all well and good. If not...

As to my identity:
I'm British.
Then Crown Dominion.
Then Commonwealth/Western.
Then World Citizen.

The EU doesn't really factor into it. I'm european, but not in any political sense where i recognise a common-weal, and thus assent to common governance.
The EU is simply an institution, and thus I view it with the same sentimentality as the department of business, innovation and skills (hasn't that been disbanded?).

So, lacking an emotional EUropean identity, what do I think of it as an institution?

1. I think it is insufficiently representative of the British common-weal; in tending to take a more collective view of society than I wish for, and I believe the Country as a whole would accept. This is expressed principally as a function of taxation and regulation. I also think it is insufficiently war'ry, in that it has largely lost its appetite for elective warfare in pursuit of a common good. I understand why this is the case, but I don't agree with it.

2. It is because I am a democrat that the above bothers me; as EU acquires more competences we share a collective governance, as is only proper. This means the majority achiev the consensus compromise, but I cannot accept the outcomes of those compromises as that consensus is too far removed from my priorities. It is not the Britain I want, and the EU feels like a form of gerrymandering to my mind: Achieving an outcome that would not naturally arrive from the British electorate alone.

3. I feel it is a poor form of governance, in seeking to preserve a baseline of harmonisation - in aspic - as a necessary pre-condition for consensus based compromise between different peoples. It is the same reason I like FPTP and parliamentary sovereignty, along with an uncodified constitution, and a lack of any constitutional barriers to change. Everything is there to be challenged, nothing safe from a little creative destruction.

4. In failing to be representative of it constituent peoples, I feel that it is particularly destructive form of governance, particularly for those smaller nations and more vulnerable least able to argue forcefully for their opinion. Mechanisms such as the Euro are used to crush dissent.

So what do I want?

a) well, an essentially sovereign Britain for a start - and I'd have been quite okay with that being as an EU member, but Cameron's failed renegotiation put paid to that.
b) an essentially sovereign Poland/Sweden/CountryX, if that is what they want, but Belgium et-al made sure that even Cameron's meagre concessions would apply to Britain only, and not anyone else.
c) as essentially content collection of EU nations, within the EU, and optionally within a federal Eurozone if that is their wish.
d) happy relations between Britain and the nations of the EU, including a federal entity known as Eurozoneland.

Item b) matters particularly, because it represented an insurance policy in that Britain could always organise a blocking minority to ensure objective a) is not undermined by further moves to QMV with an ECJ that practices judicial activism. Yes, I want the best for them too, but my principal motivation was to achieve a vehicle to perpetuate British sovereignty.

[lars573]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
Actually in Ancient Regime France foot traffic kept right, carriages kept left. Canada converted by province (save British Columbia which went in stages over 3 years) in the 20's, and Newfoundland converted on their own in 1947.

[Greyblades]

Some of us like the EU because we're conservative with a small c, and would like tomorrow to be pretty much like today, instead of jumping off the edge with no plan in sight. What Brexit do you have envisaged? I'm pretty sure it's quite different from the one Philippus assured me was the most likely scenario, which Boris Johnson and all the other chief campaigners also said was going to be the case.

You only wanted tomorrow to be like today because you live in the comfort of the London bubble with your curtains drawn and your prospects global.

Less conservative with a small c but an ostritch with a soft bed.

I saw Brexit as a sharp decline followed by a lengthy recovery. Infinitely Preferable to the gradual decline of remaining to fund a sequence of greek, portugese and spanish bailouts as europe rots. The only hope to be unshackled from the listing ship, that doesnt require the 40 year obtusive streak of the EU comission to spontaniously end, would be the EU Banks finally giving up the ghost and even then we end up in the same place we are now, sans a healthy stock market.

This was my mothers reason for voting Brexit.
https://i.imgur.com/QmuJ7iu.jpg

We know how that went...

The same way the "western political civilisation would be destroyed" brigade went?

Though in the case of your mother at least she can know that there is a possibility that pledge can be fulfilled if we vote in a party that isnt the conservatives.

No membership change will even come close to proving the remainers claim.



As an aside, does anyone actually remember any promises of the Remain's that wasnt continuation, doomsaying? Brexiteers proclaimed the benefits of being free of the crimson tape but all the good I remeber the remain camp promising was destruction if we left and business as usual if we stayed.

Always seemed odd to tout an equilibrium that was becoming increasingly intollerable as a desireable outcome.

[Husar]

As to the why, the most likely explanation is actually that it allowed two men to great each other by shaking hands and had little to nothing to do with needing to "whip out your sword".

For one thing, the majority of people did not habitually carry swords, historically. Most people who met on the road would carry a staff, Sheppard's crook or similar.

Lies, one only needs to watch asian martial arts movies to see that staffs are also used to fight everyone else on the road. :clown:

After playing a number of medieval RPGs life simulators I'm also fully convinced that everyone in Medieval times wore at least chain mail and a 5-500 dps sword after running a few errands and killing some bandits for the commander of the local garrison. :stare:

[Franconicus]

Is there some larger entity, aside from your close family and friends, for whom you would make, or at least risk, significant sacrifice?

Europe, of course.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Europe, of course.

Not humanity at large and not the land of your birth?

And how do you define "Europe?"

Culturally? Geographically?

[Beskar]

As an aside, does anyone actually remember any promises of the Remain's that wasnt continuation, doomsaying? Brexiteers proclaimed the benefits of being free of the crimson tape but all the good I remeber the remain camp promising was destruction if we left and business as usual if we stayed.

Well, "remain" cannot fundamentally promise anything, since it was a choice between status quo and brexit. There are advantages to staying within the EU, but a lot of people do not understand the complexities or even care about them to bother, so it ends up being redundant.

For example, people say "If we leave the EU, we will get rid of red-tape!" ... nope, it is still there and it still applies when trading with the European Union. But saying nonsense like that makes it sound good like a good thing, even if the facts are non-existent. Reality is, EU reduced red-tape, as instead of 27 countries, each with their unique and different standards, there was a singular EU standard.

[Furunculus]

For example, people say "If we leave the EU, we will get rid of red-tape!" ... nope, it is still there and it still applies when trading with the European Union. But saying nonsense like that makes it sound good like a good thing, even if the facts are non-existent. Reality is, EU reduced red-tape, as instead of 27 countries, each with their unique and different standards, there was a singular EU standard.

That is true in a narrow sense, if you are looking at exports, but:
About 85% of the economy is not engaged in exports, and about two thirds of what remains is for the export in Services for which there has never been a real 'single' market. And less than half of that goes to the EU rather than the RoW. So, all this for 2.5% of the economy!

Fine, that may still be acceptable if you come from a high-regulation society; you at worst be trading one set of regulations for a harmonised other. But what if you came from a society that had a traditionally laisez-faire attitude to business regulation, at least compared to our big continental neighbours?

What we got is the right to massively regulate all of our society, in order that we're compliant for the 2.5% of the economy that deals with the trade in Goods to the EU.
In reality, we get the benefit of the EU by trading with the single regulatory zone that is the EU - rather than being members thereof - as we have one set of regulations to comply with. The EU has done the hard work for us.

Of course, if you are a fan of greater regulation and 'management' of the economy then EU membership is a good thing. But that is a different argument altogether...

[Montmorency]

That is true in a narrow sense, if you are looking at exports, but:
About 85% of the economy is not engaged in exports, and about two thirds of what remains is for the export in Services for which there has never been a real 'single' market. And less than half of that goes to the EU rather than the RoW. So, all this for 2.5% of the economy!

Fine, that may still be acceptable if you come from a high-regulation society; you at worst be trading one set of regulations for a harmonised other. But what if you came from a society that had a traditionally laisez-faire attitude to business regulation, at least compared to our big continental neighbours?

What we got is the right to massively regulate all of our society, in order that we're compliant for the 2.5% of the economy that deals with the trade in Goods to the EU.
In reality, we get the benefit of the EU by trading with the single regulatory zone that is the EU - rather than being members thereof - as we have one set of regulations to comply with.

Of course, if you are a fan of greater regulation and 'management' of the economy then EU membership is a good thing. But that is a different argument altogether...

One thing to note, the 15% figure seems to apply to non-service exports, if $470,000 million/$2,750,000 million.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

[Furunculus]

470m would be total exports, not exports of goods.

[Montmorency]

470m would be total exports, not exports of goods.

No, that is not correct.

OECD International Trade in Goods (http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/economics/oecd-factbook-2015-2016/international-trade-in-goods_factbook-2015-table55-en#.WMcWgYMrKHs): $511 billion for UK in 2014
OECD International Trade in Services (http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/trade/oecd-statistics-on-international-trade-in-services-volume-2016-issue-2_sits-v2016-2-en#.WMcUmYMrKHs#page136): $215 billion for UK in 2014

[Furunculus]

the difference between the net balance of imports and exports?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/abs/annual-business-survey/exporters-and-importers-in-great-britain--2014/sty-exporters-and-importers.html

[Franconicus]

Well, two comments:

Blaming Napoleon for British extraordinariness is unfair, I guess. He worked hard to spread civilisation even to the islands in the far west. :yes:

Why should right-handed men walk on the left side to protect themselves. Didn't you protect yourself with a shield on the left and attack with the right.

I wonder if the Americans will change to left-drive. This will give better opportunities to use the gun to fire at other drivers and - without a doubt - lead to more safety in traffic. :hmg:

[Husar]

the difference between the net balance of imports and exports?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/abs/annual-business-survey/exporters-and-importers-in-great-britain--2014/sty-exporters-and-importers.html

The what? Sounds like the trade balance: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments

In your link the closest I find to the mentioned figures is:

The latest statistics from the Annual Business Survey (ABS) reveal that 15.2%, a total of 310,800 businesses in the Non-Financial Business Economy in Great Britain (GB) engaged in international trade in 2014.

But engaging in international trade would refer to both imports and exports and it does not say anything about trade volume or percentage of economy, but businesses regardless of size and trade volume it would seem.

[Furunculus]

good catch, you're right. circa 15% of businesses rather than 15% of GDP by value.

https://data.oecd.org/trade/trade-in-goods-and-services.htm#indicator-chart

in more detail (pages 4&5):

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32106/11-805-international-trade-investment-rationale-for-support.pdf

export of services ~11%

[Idaho]

Identity is an interesting thing. It's a fabrication, but one based on actual experience. For some, identity is a declaration of how they want the world to be. See for example those Muslims who identify themselves as primarily Muslim and overlook the huge differences within this category. Also see British. It's a declaration that Scottish islanders and residents of Croydon are one united people.

As well as ambition and intent, identity describes people's feelings of commonality. Who they feel culturally comfortable with. See above for examples.

Personally I have cultural ambitions that lead me to enthuse about our global commonality. While at the same time I'm suspicious of local macro commonality such as Britain, the German-speaking-people, Eastern European, etc.

I identify as English, not British. The Scots and Welsh are a little bit different. I'm a southerner too (whose family were northerners... Part of which makes me recognise my southerness).

[Franconicus]

Not humanity at large and not the land of your birth?

And how do you define "Europe?"

Culturally? Geographically?

Culturally, of course. There is only one thing missing to give Europe the identity you ask for - a war, or better a civil war.

I once attended a presentation of Google and they showed that they had scanned and investigated billions of documents from all time. They showed on result: up to the American Civil War the name UNITED STAES OF AMERICA was used in plural (the USA are ...). After the CW things changed rapidly and soon it was used in singular (the USA is ...). So I hope you see what I am saying.

Well, the succession of Britain is a wonderful opportunity ... :inquisitive:

Jokes aside, nobody in the EU wants to force the English to stay in the EU.

The European Unity stands for freedom, independency, wealth and peace. the fundament is (or should be) humanism.
I work side by side with people from Spain, France and Italy. Some of my neighbours are Poles, Italians, Greek, Turks and so on. It does not matter. We all have a lot in common.

Regarding independency: The English want to gain independency fro EU as far as I understood. Now the British prime minister was the first one to visit Trump, because the Brits desperately need a good agreement with the US, while Trump has only little ambitions to help them. Only benefit would be to weaken the EU. On the other side, the US government asked Germany to negotiate the "unfair" trade conditions between our countries. The German government had to reply that negotiations about trade can only be made with the EU.

For me it seems to be better to be an dependent part of the EU as to be as independent as Britain.

[Greyblades]

The European Unity stands for freedom, independency, wealth and peace.

Presumably this is why the EU dictates law from above, pushes for an ever closer union, keeps greece in perpetual debt and tried to avoid having to vet likely terrorists.

~:rolleyes:

[Husar]

Presumably this is why the EU dictates law from above

Lies, your government does the same thing essentially.
In fact even Merkel isn't elected directly, might as well join Erdogan and call her a dictator.

[Franconicus]

Presumably this is why the EU dictates law from above, pushes for an ever closer union, keeps greece in perpetual debt and tried to avoid having to vet likely terrorists.

~:rolleyes:

Hi Greyblades,

blame it on my bad English, but I really do not understand what you`re saying.

The EU has only the power the countries gave her. But I agree that there should be a parliament, directly elected by the people which elects the EU government. Then I would be pleased to get rid of the government in Berlin. But that I something the English want to avoid, right?The problem is not the power or weakness of Europe, the problem lies within the national governments.
By the way, I know a Scot who would say that London dictates laws from above.

Regarding Greece I guess the problem is a bit more tricky and although I do not agree with all that Germany or the EU did, I have to admit that they tried a lot to help Greece from ruin. By the way, what did GB do to help Greece?

Beside that all the EU is still essential for peace. Look what is happening now. GB is still in the EU and the old wounds already begin to ache again. Scotland wants to leave the UK, London vetoes that, there will be a hard border through Ireland which may cause a lot of trouble again. The old issue regarding Gibraltar pops up again. All those little local conflicts, which calmed down in the EU, are back again.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Culturally, of course. There is only one thing missing to give Europe the identity you ask for - a war, or better a civil war.

War can also break countries, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Austria-Hungary...


Well, the succession of Britain is a wonderful opportunity ... :inquisitive:

Jokes aside, nobody in the EU wants to force the English to stay in the EU.

But you'll force the Welsh? If you can't tell the difference then neither of us belong in the EU.


The European Unity stands for freedom, independency, wealth and peace. the fundament is (or should be) humanism.
I work side by side with people from Spain, France and Italy. Some of my neighbours are Poles, Italians, Greek, Turks and so on. It does not matter. We all have a lot in common.

It is supposed to stand for those things but it is not an End in itself, or it should not be. If the EU no longer advances those ideals it should be discarded.

[Greyblades]

Hi Greyblades,

blame it on my bad English, but I really do not understand what you`re saying.
I'm saying that your assertion that the EU stands for freedom, independency, wealth and peace is not consistent with thier recent actions; it has made it's component parts less free, independant, wealthy and peaceful as exhibited in my examples.


The problem is not the power or weakness of Europe, the problem lies within the national governments. Europe clinging to the EU by their own voulition does not invalidate the EU's problems anymore than america's adoption of Obamacare invalidates it's problems.

The EU is flawed, it's actions the origin of many of it's member's woes and it's operators are obstinant and hostile to attempts at reform.


By the way, I know a Scot who would say that London dictates laws from above.And I know an american who says washington is run by lizardmen.

Westminster repeatedly devolving power to edinburgh proves your scot's accusations hollow.


Regarding Greece I guess the problem is a bit more tricky and although I do not agree with all that Germany or the EU did, I have to admit that they tried a lot to help Greece from ruin. By the way, what did GB do to help Greece?
If by try to help you mean force the greeks into self destruction through austerity. GB isnt the one who turned a greek nationalist party into a mewling lapdog.

Beside that all the EU is still essential for peace. Look what is happening now. GB is still in the EU and the old wounds already begin to ache again. Scotland wants to leave the UK, London vetoes that, there will be a hard border through Ireland which may cause a lot of trouble again. The old issue regarding Gibraltar pops up again. All those little local conflicts, which calmed down in the EU, are back again. The rise of seperatism is nowhere near the violation of the peace the incursion of terrorist networks are, incursions the EU's stubborn clinging to freedom of movement facilitated.

Lies, your government does the same thing essentially.
In fact even Merkel isn't elected directly, might as well join Erdogan and call her a dictator. Neither is my Prime minister, but my legislative body is elected; the EU's is appointed.

The EU's laws are leashed by the whims of an unelected and unaccountable beaurocrat; laws dicated from an above.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU has only the power the countries gave her. But I agree that there should be a parliament, directly elected by the people which elects the EU government. Then I would be pleased to get rid of the government in Berlin. But that I something the English want to avoid, right?The problem is not the power or weakness of Europe, the problem lies within the national governments.
By the way, I know a Scot who would say that London dictates laws from above.

The standard British objection is that we did not vote to surrender power to Brussels, only to join the EEC. Our Freedom from the Tyranny of well-meaning zealots was hard-won in several Civil Wars and we are touchy about giving it up. That is why more people voted out than in.


Regarding Greece I guess the problem is a bit more tricky and although I do not agree with all that Germany or the EU did, I have to admit that they tried a lot to help Greece from ruin. By the way, what did GB do to help Greece?

The EU allowed Greece to join the Euro despite it not meeting the prerequisite economic conditions, they then imposed regime change as a condition of a bailout when the Greek economy collapsed. When the Greeks later regained a democratically elected government they held a Referendum rejecting the punishing terms of the bailout so that the EU and IMF then imposed even more punishing terms as a condition of continuing Aid monies which were glossed as a loan.

Many in britain repeatedly argued this was immoral but were told to shut up as we aren't part of the Euro. Whilst we did not give Greece any strings-free Aid we DID give the Irish a "loan" which irrc had such flaccid terms of repayment it might as well have been aid.


Beside that all the EU is still essential for peace. Look what is happening now. GB is still in the EU and the old wounds already begin to ache again. Scotland wants to leave the UK, London vetoes that, there will be a hard border through Ireland which may cause a lot of trouble again. The old issue regarding Gibraltar pops up again. All those little local conflicts, which calmed down in the EU, are back again.

The EU is not essential for peace, unless the alternative is Germany enforcing its political and economic hegemony by force.

As to Scotland - the breakup of the UK is inevitable now, a unified United Kingdom died when the Labour Government of the Day created Devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland. In the Westminster System devolution has always proceeded Independence and Independence was the ultimate aim of demanding Devolution in Scotland. In fact, the Scottish demand that Scotland remain in the Single Market amounts to a demand for functional Independence from Westminster of the type enjoyed by the Channel Islands and Mann. This is why the demand for a Referendum is being rejected right now - because the SNP is basically threatening to hold a referndum on Independence if they don't get Independence.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Culturally, of course. There is only one thing missing to give Europe the identity you ask for - a war, or better a civil war.

I once attended a presentation of Google and they showed that they had scanned and investigated billions of documents from all time. They showed on result: up to the American Civil War the name UNITED STAES OF AMERICA was used in plural (the USA are ...). After the CW things changed rapidly and soon it was used in singular (the USA is ...). So I hope you see what I am saying.

Well, the succession of Britain is a wonderful opportunity ... :inquisitive:

Jokes aside, nobody in the EU wants to force the English to stay in the EU.

The European Unity stands for freedom, independency, wealth and peace. the fundament is (or should be) humanism.
I work side by side with people from Spain, France and Italy. Some of my neighbours are Poles, Italians, Greek, Turks and so on. It does not matter. We all have a lot in common.

Regarding independency: The English want to gain independency fro EU as far as I understood. Now the British prime minister was the first one to visit Trump, because the Brits desperately need a good agreement with the US, while Trump has only little ambitions to help them. Only benefit would be to weaken the EU. On the other side, the US government asked Germany to negotiate the "unfair" trade conditions between our countries. The German government had to reply that negotiations about trade can only be made with the EU.

For me it seems to be better to be an dependent part of the EU as to be as independent as Britain.

Better explication, thanks.

I'm one of those who misses a bit of our earlier version of federalism, but your point is well taken.

[Husar]

Neither is my Prime minister, but my legislative body is elected; the EU's is appointed.

The EU's laws are leashed by the whims of an unelected and unaccountable beaurocrat; laws dicated from an above.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00004/Legislative-powers


The ordinary legislative procedure gives the same weight to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on a wide range of areas (for example, economic governance, immigration, energy, transport, the environment and consumer protection). The vast majority of European laws are adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council.

What's really strange either way though, is that the EU was formed this way by the member countries. It's not like Juncker announced the EU one day and then forced all of Europe to bow to its will. The European Council consists of people sent by the member states, probably chosen in the same way your prime minister or his ministers/secretaries are chosen. Going by how the link above states that the parliament got a bit more power with every new treaty, and by how the people reacted to the lisbon treaty, I would assume the same people who complain about the MEPs not having enough power are also the first to complain if their country wants to ratify a trety giving them more power. The current state of the EU seems like a weird compromise between the desire to centralize and the reluctance to give away national power...
Take for example the council members, who would appoint them if we scrapped national governments? The simplest replacement would be a direct vote by the people of the former nations.
Of course we could just scrap the thing or hope it can be more centralized once a few countries have left.

[Franconicus]

The EU allowed Greece to join the Euro despite it not meeting the prerequisite economic conditions, they then imposed regime change as a condition of a bailout when the Greek economy collapsed. When the Greeks later regained a democratically elected government they held a Referendum rejecting the punishing terms of the bailout so that the EU and IMF then imposed even more punishing terms as a condition of continuing Aid monies which were glossed as a loan.

Isn't it funny that the same people who say that the EU has too much control are also blaming the EU for believing the Greek numbers. :wall:
I am not saying that the way the EU or Germany acted was good, but the root of the problems lies within Greece. And it is a simple facts that if your borrow money you give away freedom.


The EU is not essential for peace, unless the alternative is Germany enforcing its political and economic hegemony by force.


It is.
Last thing Germany wants is to become leader in Europe. However, it has the biggest population, the strongest economy and lays right in the middle. Germany really hesitated to lead in the financial crisis and was driven by the others. Now it is blamed for everything that is not good.
One of the reason the EU was founded and still has to be is that the EU is a system of balance between the big countries and the smaller ones. Without the EU that would not work and Germany would dominate - something nobody wishes.

[Franconicus]

I'm saying that your assertion that the EU stands for freedom, independency, wealth and peace is not consistent with thier recent actions; it has made it's component parts less free, independant, wealthy and peaceful as exhibited in my examples.

Europe clinging to the EU by their own voulition does not invalidate the EU's problems anymore than america's adoption of Obamacare invalidates it's problems.

The EU is flawed, it's actions the origin of many of it's member's woes and it's operators are obstinant and hostile to attempts at reform.

And I know an american who says washington is run by lizardmen.

Westminster repeatedly devolving power to edinburgh proves your scot's accusations hollow.


If by try to help you mean force the greeks into self destruction through austerity. GB isnt the one who turned a greek nationalist party into a mewling lapdog.
The rise of seperatism is nowhere near the violation of the peace the incursion of terrorist networks are, incursions the EU's stubborn clinging to freedom of movement facilitated.
Neither is my Prime minister, but my legislative body is elected; the EU's is appointed.

The EU's laws are leashed by the whims of an unelected and unaccountable beaurocrat; laws dicated from an above.

I think I understand your point of view, which seems to be shared by many English and I agree with you that BREXIT is something good and should be executed rapidly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Isn't it funny that the same people who say that the EU has too much control are also blaming the EU for believing the Greek numbers. :wall:
I am not saying that the way the EU or Germany acted was good, but the root of the problems lies within Greece. And it is a simple facts that if your borrow money you give away freedom.

If I sell you a knockoff watch on a street corner, that's my fault - if you go to your wife and tell her it's the real thing, that's your fault.

Now go take a look a Greece's employment figures for the last decade - ask yourself why it hasn't recovered, then own up to the fact its because Greece is in a currency union with Germany.


It is.
Last thing Germany wants is to become leader in Europe. However, it has the biggest population, the strongest economy and lays right in the middle. Germany really hesitated to lead in the financial crisis and was driven by the others. Now it is blamed for everything that is not good.
One of the reason the EU was founded and still has to be is that the EU is a system of balance between the big countries and the smaller ones. Without the EU that would not work and Germany would dominate - something nobody wishes.

Germany rules over Europe, by accident or design you have effectively recreated Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire. However, Germany continues to claim it does not want over-lordship and as a result refuses to take responsibility for the EU's structural problems, refuses to lead in fixing them.

Since the financial crash the structures of the EU have impeded recovery in Southern Europe, leading to the emergence of radical far-Right and far-Left groups in countries such as Greece and Portugal whilst the open borders and slew of terrorist attacks have undermined the EU's claim to promote peace.

[Husar]

If I sell you a knockoff watch on a street corner, that's my fault - if you go to your wife and tell her it's the real thing, that's your fault.

Now go take a look a Greece's employment figures for the last decade - ask yourself why it hasn't recovered, then own up to the fact its because Greece is in a currency union with Germany.

And why is that so?
Were they forced into that union or did they perchance even fix their numbers to get in when they really shouldn't have gotten in?


Germany rules over Europe, by accident or design you have effectively recreated Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire. However, Germany continues to claim it does not want over-lordship and as a result refuses to take responsibility for the EU's structural problems, refuses to lead in fixing them.

Since the financial crash the structures of the EU have impeded recovery in Southern Europe, leading to the emergence of radical far-Right and far-Left groups in countries such as Greece and Portugal whilst the open borders and slew of terrorist attacks have undermined the EU's claim to promote peace.

Funny how Germany is supposed to lead more, and that's coming from the country that left because it felt like it didn't have enough control... If Germany openly steps up to lead the EU, it will be the only country left in the EU after a few years. Might as well blame the other countries for refusing to go anywhere together. Your demand of quasi German dictatorship is really just funny when "EU dictatorship" is why you left. You can't have both a fairer/more representative EU and one led singlehandedly by Germany's iron fist.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And why is that so?
Were they forced into that union or did they perchance even fix their numbers to get in when they really shouldn't have gotten in?

The ECC knew the numbers were fixed - they were as fictitious as the EU's accounts.


Funny how Germany is supposed to lead more, and that's coming from the country that left because it felt like it didn't have enough control... If Germany openly steps up to lead the EU, it will be the only country left in the EU after a few years. Might as well blame the other countries for refusing to go anywhere together. Your demand of quasi German dictatorship is really just funny when "EU dictatorship" is why you left. You can't have both a fairer/more representative EU and one led singlehandedly by Germany's iron fist.

Currently Germany controls the EU by having a bigger economy and more money than anyone else. The only way the EU progresses is if Germany leads instead of rules.

Or you can let the EU fall apart, as you said - I voted to leave, I don't have a personal stake.

[Husar]

The ECC knew the numbers were fixed - they were as fictitious as the EU's accounts.

And? Doesn't change the fact that Greece wanted in really bad. Are they toddlers who aren't responsible for their choices?


Currently Germany controls the EU by having a bigger economy and more money than anyone else. The only way the EU progresses is if Germany leads instead of rules.

Or you can let the EU fall apart, as you said - I voted to leave, I don't have a personal stake.

Explain how having a bigger economy and more money translates into more control in this case. Are we buying corrupt MEPs? Do we get more seats in the council?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And? Doesn't change the fact that Greece wanted in really bad. Are they toddlers who aren't responsible for their choices?

No, it also doesn't change the fact that the rest of the Eurozone were desperate to expand the currency, for ideological reasons, and were willing to overlook the dodgy accounting in the belief there would never be a Bust; because the EU ensures prosperity.


Explain how having a bigger economy and more money translates into more control in this case. Are we buying corrupt MEPs? Do we get more seats in the council?

Primarily because Germany is paying for everything. In the current structure of the EU the European Parliament functions as the "revising chamber". Actual decisions are, in the first instance, made by the Council of Ministers and the Commission.

When Mario Draghi was was appointed head of the ECC more than one commentator said he would "need to discover some German ancestry." By dint of being so much bigger you drag everyone along with you, you don't even realise it because you assume the German perspective is normative and everything else is abhorrent.

[Kagemusha]

No, it also doesn't change the fact that the rest of the Eurozone were desperate to expand the currency, for ideological reasons, and were willing to overlook the dodgy accounting in the belief there would never be a Bust; because the EU ensures prosperity.



Primarily because Germany is paying for everything. In the current structure of the EU the European Parliament functions as the "revising chamber". Actual decisions are, in the first instance, made by the Council of Ministers and the Commission.

When Mario Draghi was was appointed head of the ECC more than one commentator said he would "need to discover some German ancestry." By dint of being so much bigger you drag everyone along with you, you don't even realise it because you assume the German perspective is normative and everything else is abhorrent.

so is Germany too strong for EU, or whats the problem? Britain has a special relationship with US which is mammoth compared to Britain and with Brexit you will become more and more dependant on US compared to your ex EU partner Germany, which is economically only moderately stronger then you.

[Husar]

No, it also doesn't change the fact that the rest of the Eurozone were desperate to expand the currency, for ideological reasons, and were willing to overlook the dodgy accounting in the belief there would never be a Bust; because the EU ensures prosperity.

Yes, but that only means all sides are to blame.


Primarily because Germany is paying for everything. In the current structure of the EU the European Parliament functions as the "revising chamber". Actual decisions are, in the first instance, made by the Council of Ministers and the Commission.

When Mario Draghi was was appointed head of the ECC more than one commentator said he would "need to discover some German ancestry."

People are projecting a lot due to their own weakness. Juncker is from Luxembourg and is quite powerful within the EU. Then we had plenty of other powerful figures in powerful positions within the EU. I could see how the German position is easiest to get a consensus on because Germany is so successful, but then that wouldn't be a bad thing and not require German leadership either. It would merely be the EU trying to adopt the most successful model for everyone. The Council of Ministers and the Commission are made up by members from all member states and Germany does not have any more votes than the others.
Again, from a British POV, your country basically complained about paying too much and not having enough say. Now you blame Germany for paying "everything" and having too much say. It doesn't really compute because if that were true, your country would have had a lot of influence in the EU due to its enormous contributions.


By dint of being so much bigger you drag everyone along with you, you don't even realise it because you assume the German perspective is normative and everything else is abhorrent.

Germany has around 82 million inhabitants, France and the UK have around 60 million each. Poland is almost at 40 million. Germany has 80 million of a total of 500 million and Luxembourg gets as amany council members (and votes) as Germany does. It's a very arbitrary point that you're making where we basically command around several countries the accumulated populations of which outnumber ours and which also have a lot more council seats. If other countries agree with us then maybe our perceived normative position is normative due to the widespread support it gets within the EU?
What kind of structure would you propose for the EU to make it fairer? IIRC a lot of British people wanted representation according to payments made, that would be exactly the kind of representation where Germany, France, UK and Netherlands would have dominated the entire union.

[rory_20_uk]

Here in the "UK" we have the insanity of the Scottish, Northern Irish, (less so the Welsh) wanting an equal say with England - and no not have this is "undemocratic". And this is on top of England the only nation in the UK not to have its own parliament.

Germany is a massive economic powerhouse. Germany desperately tries to not upset everyone by being as powerful as its population and economy would suggest.

Germany pays a fortune to the EU and in some respects unsurprisingly gets envious glances from everyone else - especially France who is still adjusting to loosing out to Prussia.

I personally view the EU like the Millennium Dome - a structure that came about due to political demands with reality as an afterthought and unsurprisingly by trying to please everyone, pleased no one. Rather than starting small with a fixed structure that others could join they have added vast numbers of countries and are left in a mess where even the capital isn't in one place.

In terms of what I identify with, NATO is purely a military construct, the EU is a political gestalt and the UK is undergoing apotosis. England? Perhaps - but is one allowed to identify with that any more?

~:smoking:

[Husar]

https://www.facebook.com/eucouncil/videos/1289328251116827/

edit: fixed that:

Here in the "EU" we have the insanity of the English wanting an equal say with Germany - and no not have this is "undemocratic". And this is on top of England being allowed to have its own parliament and vassal states.

London is a massive economic powerhouse. London desperately tries to not upset everyone by being as powerful as its population and economy would suggest.

London pays a fortune to the UK and in some respects unsurprisingly gets envious glances from everyone else - especially Nottingham who is still adjusting to loosing out to Robin Hood.

:clown:

[rory_20_uk]

https://www.facebook.com/eucouncil/videos/1289328251116827/

Most amusing:
Trade deals can be undertaken by a simple trade treaty. Well, I say "simple" but with the EU's processes, very long and complicated.
Freedom of movement can be under a treaty. Y'know, how the Irish travelled to the UK? Blocked if the UK leaves the EU.
The EU no more gives aid than the Trump Foundation does - they take money from the countries and then give it.
It is democratic because the decisions are made by democratically elected leaders - in essence the leaders are given carte blanche to do whatever they want behind closed doors without the voters knowing and can blame it on the EU later on.
Biggest trade group - so what?


But more importantly - just because it does something doesn't stop it being obsolete!!!

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Most amusing:
Trade deals can be undertaken by a simple trade treaty. Well, I say "simple" but with the EU's processes, very long and complicated.
Freedom of movement can be under a treaty. Y'know, how the Irish travelled to the UK? Blocked if the UK leaves the EU.
The EU no more gives aid than the Trump Foundation does - they take money from the countries and then give it.
It is democratic because the decisions are made by democratically elected leaders - in essence the leaders are given carte blanche to do whatever they want behind closed doors without the voters knowing and can blame it on the EU later on.
Biggest trade group - so what?


But more importantly - just because it does something doesn't stop it being obsolete!!!

~:smoking:

But the EU, being more socialist in approach than the UK, makes sure regions don't lose out simply because they're of little political importance. I made this point about Cornwall immediately after the referendum, predicting that Westminster will, as is its wont, concentrate funding on London projects whilst neglecting the peripheries. And true to form, a several billion pound project has been approved for London, while Cornwall's post-Brexit replacement for the current 100m pa EU grant will be 10m. The UK won't be sending money to the EU any more to be redistributed as EU grants, but intra-UK spending will be overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the commuter belt.

[rory_20_uk]

But the EU, being more socialist in approach than the UK, makes sure regions don't lose out simply because they're of little political importance. I made this point about Cornwall immediately after the referendum, predicting that Westminster will, as is its wont, concentrate funding on London projects whilst neglecting the peripheries. And true to form, a several billion pound project has been approved for London, while Cornwall's post-Brexit replacement for the current 100m pa EU grant will be 10m. The UK won't be sending money to the EU any more to be redistributed as EU grants, but intra-UK spending will be overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the commuter belt.

Political importance, or low population density and very difficult to increase economic productivity? Giving hand outs isn't the answer - it created odd distortions in the market place. And projects do cost more in London and there are a lot of people who live in the South East.

Crossrail is a sensible idea that helps ship people to where they want to be. HS2 isn't since it mainly ships people to where they have no interest in being - having Manchester 30 minutes closer to London will not suddenly mean everyone wants to move up there.

There are things that could / should be done to rein in distortions in the South East:

A council tax as a percentage of the worth of property - would most likely massively reduce prices.
No council tax relief for empty dwellings; second homes taxed higher, not lower - with the above, investing in london homes by leaving them empty becomes uneconomic.
Equally, remove council houses from the most expensive areas - sorry, most of us can't live in large swathes of London and have to leave. I don't see why some should be subsidised.

I'd move a lot / most of the Civil Service to Birmingham to boot.

But giving grants to areas isn't going to help.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

By the way, this is a map of Europe with every separatist movement getting what it wants:

19550

[Montmorency]

A council tax as a percentage of the worth of property - would most likely massively reduce prices.


When you say prices, do you mean tax payouts or property prices, and how come?


Equally, remove council houses from the most expensive areas - sorry, most of us can't live in large swathes of London and have to leave. I don't see why some should be subsidised.

I think one of the reasons public housing is spread throughout a municipality is to prevent ghettoization and loss of access to services.

[rory_20_uk]

When you say prices, do you mean tax payouts or property prices, and how come?
I think one of the reasons public housing is spread throughout a municipality is to prevent ghettoization and loss of access to services.

Property prices - the more the house is worth, the more to pay.

That is the theory - but fails abysmally. The "right to buy" means that the lucky few can in short order flip their houses for a large profit, leaving the state having to create more. And there are no wonderful mixed estates where people of different societies are all living in harmony. People like to be with those they view as similar.

~:smoking:

[Tristuskhan]

Very nice map...


Comments (and every country should be checked by a native) about France:

- Normandy, absolutely never heard about it.
- Numbers 7 and 9. I live there for thirteen years, those are really non-existant. 9 is more about the Principalty of Montbeliard than Jura. I know some who are autonomists. 7? Maybe it should jump over the frontier and include swiss jura, there were some autonomists forty years ago. But today, none.
- Savoie and Nice, dunno (dislike either places and people), but anecdotic at best.
- Occitania is more about poetics than politics (and that's nice)
- The rest is accurate: Corsice, Basques, Alsace and Brittany. I've not been in Euzkadi for years so I can't say how lively is the nationalist movement. Alsace and Corsica have nationalists, but it's most about full (and horrible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc2zVHGTDww , dare!) folklore in Alsace and about underworld and plain racism in Corsica. Brittany was dormant when I leaved it thirteen years ago but I'll soon find out: going back there once and for all this summer!

Last thing about France's internal "nationalisms". Some are clearly leaning left (Bretons, Occitans), others really leaning right (Corsica, Alsace). Basques are some other matter.

Last thing: I'm almost certain there must be some thracian nationalists in european Turkey. At least as "strong" as nationalists in Franche-Comté... And what about Crete?

[Montmorency]

Property prices - the more the house is worth, the more to pay.

That is the theory - but fails abysmally. The "right to buy" means that the lucky few can in short order flip their houses for a large profit, leaving the state having to create more. And there are no wonderful mixed estates where people of different societies are all living in harmony. People like to be with those they view as similar.

~:smoking:

But - so is it a hindrance to real estate speculation, or not? If not, then how would the change in tax lower prices, or affect any pricing trend beyond a flat fluctuation during initial adoption? And how does negative gearing come into it?

[Kagemusha]

By the way, this is a map of Europe with every separatist movement getting what it wants:

19550

Concerning the map in the same sense as Tristuskhan went trough France.Never heard of Kainuu separatism. Concerning the Sapmi. If they wanted to to have an independent state. I would not have anything against it.

[Greyblades]

But the EU, being more socialist in approach than the UK, makes sure regions don't lose out simply because they're of little political importance. I made this point about Cornwall immediately after the referendum, predicting that Westminster will, as is its wont, concentrate funding on London projects whilst neglecting the peripheries. And true to form, a several billion pound project has been approved for London, while Cornwall's post-Brexit replacement for the current 100m pa EU grant will be 10m.
Ah, I read about that, for a 3 year period starting a few months ago britain will only give cornwall 18 million.

I notice you forgot to mention that for the majority of those three years the EU funding wont be interrupted by brexit.

Any UK funding for those three years would be adding extra on top of the 60 million the EU will give it each year.

[Husar]

I think the map I posted took every seperatist movement they could find, with no regard to the amount of militancy the separatists employ.
The Bavarian separatism is not comparable to the catalonian one I think and the other ones in Germany seem to be based on similarly frail movements I never heard about before.
To me it looks like three people made it for a university course, going by the names and quotation style, etc. I'm assuming the accuracy also begins to lack a bit outside of Europe, Kurdistan is really an easy one.
I posted it as a funny what if, to show how divided Europe really could be if everyone who speaks up got their own country. Just look at how divided the UK is on that map. The point is that the whole "the central government in XY is not taking us seriously/not giving us enough representation" and so on works on many levels and nations are similar social constructs to the EU, they're just older and usually more settled in.

[Greyblades]

I want to see the map with the overlap included. There's no way indulging every movement in europe would divide europe so cleanly.

[Montmorency]

I want to see the map with the overlap included. There's no way indulging every movement in europe would divide europe so cleanly.

That's clean division?

To the point, that's what war is for. Westfailure 2.0*

*I don't regret this

[Husar]

I want to see the map with the overlap included. There's no way indulging every movement in europe would divide europe so cleanly.

As Monty says, this map is obviously after the great separatist wars of 2025. I haven't seen a map with the overlapping territorial demands, so I guess you're free to make one.

[Kagemusha]

As Monty says, this map is obviously after the great separatist wars of 2025. I haven't seen a map with the overlapping territorial demands, so I guess you're free to make one.

That would be the map of the great nationalistis war of 2030.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By the way, this is a map of Europe with every separatist movement getting what it wants:

19550

Why is Winchester outside Wessex?

One day, when we are free of the Norman Yoke Alfred's holy city will once more be our capital.

[Husar]

Why is Winchester outside Wessex?

I think it is only on the map as the capital of Wessex, has to be so close to the border that it almost appears to be outside.

[Pannonian]

Why is Winchester outside Wessex?

One day, when we are free of the Norman Yoke Alfred's holy city will once more be our capital.

It's a map from 2025/2030. So Winchester is a suburb of London, which is part of England. If you don't like it, you can move to Colchester, which is a northern suburb of London, or Canterbury, which is a southern suburb.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a map from 2025/2030. So Winchester is a suburb of London, which is part of England. If you don't like it, you can move to Colchester, which is a northern suburb of London, or Canterbury, which is a southern suburb.

There will be no London, we shall burn it to the ground.

[Pannonian]

There will be no London, we shall burn it to the ground.

Are you a baker, perchance?

[Husar]

Looks like the EU might be coming back before it was even gone: http://www.zeit.de/politik/2017-03/european-union-politics-crisis-populism-future-economics


But a few weeks ago, the Pulse of Europe appeared in public squares for the first time. It is a pro-European, grass-roots movement that now has presence in 60 cities – above all in Germany, but also in the Netherlands, France, Portugal and even Great Britain. Its advocates – tens of thousands as of late – meet regularly on Sundays in Freiburg, Berlin and Bad Kreuznach, as well as Lyon and Lisbon. And in Frankfurt, where everything began.
[...]
So Europe’s advocates have adopted the following argument: In a world where developing countries are becoming richer and more powerful, European states will soon be too small to survive. Only through joint European effort can outside countries be precluded from deciding the fate of Europe. Jean Monnet made the same point long ago. "Our countries have become too small for today’s world," wrote the pioneer of European integration in 1954. The argument may even be more accurate in the 21st century than in the previous, but it didn’t stick. The idea that the E.U. is a collection pot for enfeebled nation states in the era of globalization became a small-minded, defensive narrative incapable of capturing anyone’s imagination. Not E.U. skeptics – because in that sort of hostile world, they were particularly determined to depend solely on the citizens of their own countries. Not the pro-Europeans – because they bemoaned the lack of grandeur and sublimity. And finally, not the level-headed pragmatics – because shoulder-to-shoulder with America, things just couldn’t get so bad.

I've made that last argument for a while already, Monnet was obviously a very clever man. The little-ism of division and seccession will bite people in the arse sooner or later.


The European Union is in a much better condition than Europeans want to believe. Ms. Mogherini speaks about human rights, adherence to the law, dependability, equal rights, the fight against climate change. In all these areas, the E.U. is admired by others. She hears this repeatedly from her conversation partners outside Europe. Proud of the E.U.? Admiration for Europe? Take only a single step beyond its borders, she says, and the perspective changes.

And it keeps on giving:


If they were allowed to vote on the membership of their country in the E.U., 70 percent of all E.U. citizens would decide in favor of the institution. This is the finding of a study recently published by the Bertelsmann Foundation. In March 2016, before the British referendum on the E.U., the figure was 65 percent. The change of heart is even more apparent in another question: 66 percent of all E.U. citizens report that friends or colleagues speak positively about the E.U. Before Brexit, it was only 47 percent.
[...]
But this fundamental support for the E.U. is no free ride and certainly not a return to the old doctrine of an ever closer union. This is also apparent from the Bertelsmann study. In spite of the esteem in which many hold the E.U., support for further political and economic integration has declined in most countries.