Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

Well, money and trade are important aspects of the EU but what has caused the dislike within Britain as much as anything has been the freedom to move within the union that has led to a lot of, particularly Eastern Europeans, moving to Britain. I did read the other day that apparently the second most common language in England is now Polish.

 

What the British seem not to want to acknowledge, or at least those wanting an exit, is that most of those Poles seem to be working, and not only that but in jobs the Brits don't want to do.

 

They also seem to overlook that a lot of the British retire to places such as Spain where the weather is good and the cost of living comfortably low.

 

In other words as can too often be the case in Britain they want their cake and to eat it as well.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chrisg said:

To dismiss the EU would be more than akin to "throwing out the baby" it would be plain damn stupid, if you do not give Europe a common place to bicker and agree or even agree to disagree then you invite the possibility, again, of increased tension and future war.


NATO could be extended to provide exactly such a forum.

 

The only argument you could really make for the EU is the market power one. Outside increased market power the EU offers no benefits that make up for the loss of sovereignty.

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

What the British seem not to want to acknowledge, or at least those wanting an exit, is that most of those Poles seem to be working, and not only that but in jobs the Brits don't want to do.

 

They also seem to overlook that a lot of the British retire to places such as Spain where the weather is good and the cost of living comfortably low.


None of these things require an EU in its current overbearing form.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NATO is and has been a very successful organisation of defense for Europe in total but it is not a forum for anything outside of defense. The EU is not at all concerned with defense, they are two completely separate bodies.

 

The EU is indeed overbearing, I think it had to be to some degree to enforce the assimilation of such different nationalities otherwise it really was not going to work - getting the Germans and the French to agree on matters then the English then the Italians is a herculean task.

 

The problem of course lies in knowing when to ease off - as the nationalistic barriers come down things can become more easy-going but humans dislike power being taken away from them once they have acquired it. The key in that is probably Germany which makes it difficult with Merkel stepping down.  Germany has demonstrated the greatest of transformations overall out of all the nations that make up the EU, not least assimilating East Germany back into itself but also in not throwing its weight around the way it did before two world wars beat that out of the country.

 

The EU is much like the US in many ways, an ongoing social experiment but run under very different rules.

 

There is a very strong need for caution, to break Europe apart again would invite future conflict and the sub-continent has seen quite enough of that for centuries.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain wanting out should not mean the end of the EU. But then of course if that ( disbanding of EU ) is a concern then it explains  why the desperation of trying to hold on to the UK.

Seems to me the EU has lost sight of it's apparent reason for being

Edited by eveln
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

NATO is and has been a very successful organisation of defense for Europe in total but it is not a forum for anything outside of defense. The EU is not at all concerned with defense, they are two completely separate bodies.


Two seconds ago you were worried about there not being a forum for Europe to talk and this potentially causing a war.

 

Now you’re against using NATO which is designed to prevent infra-European wars as well as wars against Europe in general - as a forum for Europe to talk about not killing each other?

1 hour ago, chrisg said:

There is a very strong need for caution, to break Europe apart again would invite future conflict and the sub-continent has seen quite enough of that for centuries.


You can do that without the EU by following the following certified two-step program:

1. Don’t have absolute monarchies

2. Don’t elect Adolf Hitler

19 minutes ago, eveln said:

the EU has lost sight of it's apparent reason for bein


That being a European requirement to employ more naval gazers in jobs they are utterly unsuited for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it should not, the EU was in place long before it finally agreed to admit Britain.

 

I don't know about it losing sight, it has been in damage control for a number of years what with the Greek crisis et al but I do think they are regretting letting in some of the former Warsaw Pact States so easily when they made it so hard for Britain.

 

For the record I do not think Britain should leave but if the do it will not be the end of the world.

 

Britain remains a very staunch member of NATO which of itself contributes strongly to making any future European War very moot - France by contrast waxes and wanes over being or not being a member of NATO, although in a crisis they would undoubtedly align with NATO they can't make their mind up if they want to be in or out.

 

However strong mutual trade relations, low barriers, if any and open borders define what the EU has been wanting to achieve - being the largest Island member of the EU and the one connected by a tunnel walking out does leave a mess.

 

In short Britain is looking a gift horse in the mouth, it practically went on bended knee to get it, it has in the main benefited well from the membership but now, mostly because of a poorly run under endorsed referendum it has been creating chaos for years for no good reason.

 

If the country really wants to leave then fine, but that is far from clear, just do not expect to ever be invited back.

 

It is ridiculous for the UK to think it can have closer ties to its old Commonwealth and to the US than it does to its immediate neighbours. once again it stinks of Rule Britannia but that ship sailed long ago - I guess Boris never received the memo...

 

Leo, sometimes I think you are deliberately even dumber than you make yourself look of late - it is an Holistic requirement, NATO has nothing to do with trade or even international agreements, it is a union for defense, nothing more. There is nothing in its charter that permits it to do anything but coordinate multiple nations forces to pivot upon any enemy that threatens it or any individual member. That is quite enough to be doing without worrying about trade agreements which the EU seeks to dissolve in the same way that trade between the United States works - although overall rather better than the US manages. (The States and their varying tax implications make Europe look simple sometimes.)

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chrisg, sometimes I think you are deliberately sprouting contradictory posts  of late  <<  in the young and the old that sort of behaviour is usually a sign of attention getting

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, eveln said:

chrisg, sometimes I think you are deliberately sprouting contradictory posts  of late  <<  in the young and the old that sort of behaviour is usually a sign of attention getting

 

He's turning agnostic and  having a bet each   way!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chrisg said:

Leo, sometimes I think you are deliberately even dumber than you make yourself look of late - it is an Holistic requirement, NATO has nothing to do with trade or even international agreements


Is there something in the water you and scruffy have been drinking of late? Why are the both of you continually misrepresenting what I say?

 

You said Europe needs a place to talk or they’ll end up going to war against each other again.

 

I made the point that NATO was designed to prevent European wars and wars against Europe. Making it a forum to talk about contentious topics that could lead to war is no big stretch.

 

The point of the matter is that if you break down the key elements of why the EU is great for the Remainers - all of that can be achieved without the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo, NATO has nothing to do with the political situation of its member states, actually I'd have to refresh myself on the charter but it has nothing much to do with internal disputes between members at all, it is totally focused outwards to the united defense of all of its' members.

 

It is purely and ( often not) simply a military organisation, the military, in Europe at least, do not much like getting involved in domestic matters, it is none of their business.

 

The cross-over between politics and the military has always been independent of the day to day running of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg is the current chief secretary but he is not the military face of NATO, I'm not sure that he has ever even served, it would be irrelevant anyway. NATO exists to stand united against Russia but whilst not at war provides forces in many disparate roles around the globe on relief operations and just in general wherever assistance might be required.

 

The fool currently occupying the White House thinks NATO is obsolete, or his puppet master in Russia has told him to say that, but actually NATO is more relevant now than it has ever been, that's why its membership has grown particularly with former Warsaw Pact countries, a decided thorn in the side of any Moscow aspirations to retake old USSR states.

 

Perhaps the most non- political aspect of NATO is that all agreements are by consensus, that might, often does, involve some agreeing to disagree, but without consensus it does not move forward - except in time of war then the military takes authority.

 

That is diametrically opposed to any political structure within its membership.

 

At the top of NATO there is indeed a civilian body but that is purely for peace-time guidance and consensus, vital it may be but if a military issue appears it is their duty to step aside and let the military deal with it.

 

You really do not want an organisation like NATO getting involved in domestic politics, it has enough to do as it is.

 

You are focusing on my contention that the EU is a healthy entity because it keeps the nations of Europe away from each other's throats and builds unity, I stand by that but NATO is not set up to operate internally at all it is first and foremost designed to protect Europe from Russia or any other foe that may arise, ISIS for example.

 

That is precisely where fuckwit-in-chief loses the plot, NATO was and is designed to protect, not to nurture.

 

The EU in contrast is internal, a meeting of minds to lower trade barriers, loosen borders etc - much disagreement doubtless goes on.

 

I will reiterate, it is currently top heavy, I believe even the organisation itself recognises that, the number of committees etc is somewhat mind boggling, but I'm not sure there is another way to unite Europe.  Sorting out the disparate nations that comprise Europe is a generational task, not one you achieve with the stroke of a pen.

 

I don't think you could even map NATO over the top of the EU anyway, the memberships are different, not that it matters, one is about defense the other is about trade.

 

For some reason  you seem determined to break apart an evolving unity of nations and roll everything back to pre WWII Europe.

 

Why is beyond me, it is far better to have an unwieldy evolving movement towards unity than it is to go back to the fortress mentality of old.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chrisg said:

Leo, NATO has nothing to do with the political situation of its member states, actually I'd have to refresh myself on the charter but it has nothing much to do with internal disputes between members at all, it is totally focused outwards to the united defense of all of its' members.

 

It is purely and ( often not) simply a military organisation, the military, in Europe at least, do not much like getting involved in domestic matters, it is none of their business.

 

I really think you should refresh your reading of the charter and recent geo-political events.

 

NATO has spent countless meetings discussing Turkey’s internal situation vis-a-vis the S400 purchase from the Russkies. And on the internal discord this has caused.

 

Recently NATO discussed the European response to Venezuela and there was an internal rebuke of the Italians for backing Madura.

 

Furthermore, NATO was formed not just to create a European defence alliance, but also acceptance of the NATO charter means you cannot attack a NATO member state. This is why Greece lobbied so furiously to be accepted with Turkey in 1952.

 

The argument that NATO has nothing to do with the political situation of member states is at the very least an obfuscation.

7 hours ago, chrisg said:

You really do not want an organisation like NATO getting involved in domestic politics, it has enough to do as it is.

 

I don’t want ANY supra-national organisations getting involved in domestic politics/policies. That is why the EU’s HQ in Brussels should be bulldozed and replaced with a brothel.

 

If you’re going to have gaping assholes, at least make them productive ones.

Edited by Leonid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, putting  a " like " to your response just above, was not quite enough sooo, Well Fucking Said Dude !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh,

 

 The Turkish S400 buy is a military choice that is causing some significant rumbles within NATO being it is one of the few missiles that might have a chance at knocking down an F-35 and Turkey is a signed up member of the F-35 consortium. That is not a political involvement it is a military discussion. Turkey sits in a position straddling Europe and Asia and overlooks the Black sea including Crimea which Russia has taken back from Ukraine. As such it would be rather uncomfortable for NATO to have Turkey cosying up to Russia which is exactly what it is doing with the potential that they may leave the -35 programme and buy Russian aircraft as well.

 

That leaves their standing in NATO rather moot but it is again a military situation, not political at all. NATO has to decide if it can trust Turkey or not but there is as you say the matter of Greece and the long simmering animosity between the two nations to take into account. Again, a potential military situation, and one that is keeping people awake at SHAPE. NATO would doubtless like Erdogan to just go away.

 

Similarly with Venezuela, the Russians are getting very friendly down there so NATO wants solidarity within its membership.

 

These are military concerns, a long, long way from getting involved in trade talks which is way outside of NATO's remit.

 

NATO has kept the peace, in terms of keeping first the USSR and now Russia from hostile acts against the European nations for a very long time. It has been involved in the Balkans, a very uncomfortable situation that was pretty much a proxy war and lately in Syria which is again a proxy situation. Pragmatically it did not want to be involved in either, even less so Syria but its hand was forced by your pal Putin. I'm of the opinion they should not have been involved there at all, Israel is much better positioned to deal with it, but I don't get a say.

 

Brussels was I believe chosen as the site for NATO HQ both because it is very central in European terms and because Belgium is a pretty inoffensive member. It seems to have worked out very well. The same logic presumably applied to the location for EU HQ.

 

You do realise of course that without the Alliance the USSR and now Russia would feel considerably more emboldened to provoke Europe ?

 

That's why so many of the old Warsaw Pact countries have joined, to come under the umbrella of Article Five, which ties Putin's hands rather well and possibly explains his courting of Turkey to attempt to destabilise the organisation.

 

I needed to check the exact wording of the charter on non-hostility between members because there most certainly has been between Turkey and Greece as you note, on Cyprus in particular.

 

That is however about the only inter-state animosity that exists. Many within SHAPE would be perfectly happy to kick Turkey out but as you have said that is complicated.

 

Regardless NATO is about defending Europe and supporting its members, it is not about Trade discussions.

 

I have not had much of anything to do with the organisation since I got out of uniform but it has certainly lived up to its Charter better than most ever really expected.

 

I don't often agree with much that Trump says or does but I did agree with him that the member states needed to pull more of their own weight - I did not agree with him on raising the contributions to 4% of GDP, that is not sustainable by any member.

 

I do not think however that the moron ever understood how the 2% is arrived at, it is not simply a case of cash.

 

Taking the UK for example it has always, in real terms, been above the 2% with its commitments to BAOR and RAF Germany plus its contribution to SHAPE and the backing it provides through all of its armed forces, not least the Royal Navy as one of three nuclear member states in the Alliance.

 

However, NATO is, to repeat, not about trade, or borders, it is about defense, the EU is the body that deals with those. Supra national it may be but it is in my opinion a vital part of Europe going forward that has by and large put an end to inter country machinations that have been the under-current of Europe for centuries.

 

You may not like it but it is far better than the fragmented alternative.

 

Cheers

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chrisg said:

These are military concerns, a long, long way from getting involved in trade talks which is way outside of NATO's remit.

 

Again.

1. You don't need the EU for trade talks.

2. If your concern is discusssion to prevent war, NATO can be the forum for that. And prevents that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Applying simplicity to complex things again, like fighting climate change by limiting ya' flatulence 😎

 

Edit: or put 'simply', ignoring complexities.

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

Applying simplicity to complex things again, like fighting climate change by limiting ya' flatulence 😎

 

Edit: or put 'simply', ignoring complexities.


There are no complexities here. If the EU grew out of a body that had no powers to what it is now, then NATO can grow to discuss defence matters.

 

It’s something they already do.

 

It ain’t that fucken hard.

 

Your argument runs something along the lines of “The Marines can’t have jets because the Air Force has jets”.

 

Its a dumbass argument because the marines already have jets. Just different ones.

 

NATO and the EU both operate in the defence space. Saying that NATO can’t take the full scope defence portfolio from the EU is just BS.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chrisg said:

from getting involved in trade talks which is way outside of NATO's remit.

... which somewhere a few posts earlier you said was only a small portion of what the EU is about, but now it's important cos you say it's not in NATO's remit. It occurs to me that if NATO manages to keep countries cool then trade and talk will naturally be evolving out of the  calm created ... although I'm sure if NATO should evolve as the EU has then it's likely another behemoth will face it's inevitable downfall too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s almost like free trade is impossible without EU.

 

Except of course we’re not in the EU and have free trade agreements.

 

And then there are free trade agreement blocs like Mercosur which manage to create inter-state relaxed trade rules without the need for gaping assholes to run roughshod over sovereignty.

 

Its an amazing concept to deal with but I’m going to lay it out: Europe hasn’t been to a significant war since 1945 and the EU as a sovereign entity isn’t responsible for that.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Leonid said:


There are no complexities here. If the EU grew out of a body that had no powers to what it is now, then NATO can grow to discuss defence matters.

 

It’s something they already do.

 

It ain’t that fucken hard.

 

Your argument runs something along the lines of “The Marines can’t have jets because the Air Force has jets”.

 

Its a dumbass argument because the marines already have jets. Just different ones.

 

NATO and the EU both operate in the defence space. Saying that NATO can’t take the full scope defence portfolio from the EU is just BS.

Peace is more complex, defense is just one aspect that contributes to it.

 

Dumbass! 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

Peace is more complex, defense is just one aspect that contributes to it.

 

Dumbass! 😁


Well I suppose that explains all the wars between Australia and New Zealand.

 

If only we had a supranational theocratic state of gaping assholes over us to keep the peace...

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Leonid said:


Well I suppose that explains all the wars between Australia and New Zealand.

 

If only we had a supranational theocratic state of gaping assholes over us to keep the peace...

Two countries that are so similar It's crazy, this is not so often with countries bordering one another in Europe/the EU.

 

You so often seem to view a world of many shades of gray in black n white.

 

Edit: you want to make NATO one of many hats, often that means less effective at any single thing, better that they work within what they do now as effectively as they can.

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

Two countries that are so similar It's crazy, this is not so often with countries bordering one another in Europe/the EU.

 

You so often seem to view a world of many shades of gray in black n white.


The Europeans are so similar it’s crazy. All their royal families - the source of most wars, have shared ancestry.

 

Admittedly the Greeks and the English have almost nothing in common yet they’ve never gone to significant war against each other.

 

Most of the wars in Europe boil down to land capture wars by absolute monarchies. The ONLY exception to this is Hitler. 
 

The age of monarchies is over. Not electing Hitler is a work in progress. The argument that the EU and ONLY the EU is capable of stopping intra-European wars is fucken dumb.

 

You keep saying that sort of shit and I’ll get DMB back in here to tell you all how it’s impossible to be moral without Lawd Jaysus, Our Lawd and Saviah!

Edited by Leonid
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Lets ask the obvious question.


Which catastrophist here reckons that removing the EU as a supranational government and keeping the original European Communities mandate of free trade between states leads to an imminent World War 3 situation?

 

Come on - hands up?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Leonid said:


Lets ask the obvious question.


Which catastrophist here reckons that removing the EU as a supranational government and keeping the original European Communities mandate of free trade between states leads to an imminent World War 3 situation?

 

Come on - hands up?

 

Do you have to have world war 3 to be worse off? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×