Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[innonimatu]

Yes, strangely enough, a lot of people believe that getting rid of the EU will get a lot of problems solved (or allow them to be solved) when most of them were already there (or the causes that would lead to them were) for decades before.

So if the problems were already there for decades before, and presumably are still there (otherwise people wouldn't be talking about those problems), the EU has contributed nothing at all to solve those problems. And may be blocking a solution. It's not unreasonable to infer the EU itself adds to the problems...

On a more general note, and to turn 6this thread towards more productive ideas than the fears about trade deals, what to you thing the goals of the European Union are?

This should be the big question, right? What is the political purpose of this new political construct? We don't ask what the goals of the UK are, the UK already is, people accept is as a fact of life. They may argue what the policies of its government should be, but they do not question its raison d'etre (except the Scots, I guess, and that matter is settled).

But the European Union is an ongoing project. A new polity. So what are the goals of this new project? What is the raison d'etre of the EU?

To create a bigger market? To better compete with other large countries in the world? I shall point out that some of these reasons have led countries down very dark paths in the recent past. European countries, countries that now claim leadership roles in this EU... so, what is the EU about? Why was it brought to be, why should it exist, why is it supposed to evolve into "ever deeper union"? To which, note, the UK would be granted an exemption, therefore confirming this ever deep union is to be applied to the rest.

I will tell you: the EU is yet another attempt at an European Empire with lebensraum. We aren't supposed to say so in polite conversation because comparing the situation with Hitler's designs is a no-no, to be dismissed wit hot giving it any thought. But the parallels in the strategic aims of the EU and Hitler's list of requirements for the greatness of Germany are striking - and frighting. What the EU does not have is a genocidal policy and (not yet) a declared willingness to get what it lacks through war.

The EU has achieved one of the requisites for "lebensraum": it as a population in the hundreds of millions, an internal market big enough to make it a world power. But it still lacks the other: control of natural resources to use this human potential unhindered by other powers. The leaders of the EU have talked a lot about trade. But increasingly they've shown themselves willing to go to war - albeit so far with a blessing from Washington. The day will come, if the EU indeed endures and "deepens" into a mega-state, that its future leaders (whomever they may be) will seek to shake off the american alliance and claim the status of a world power. Then we will have a big war for resources. Another one. It may target the east again, though Russia's nuclear arsenal will probably prevent that. Already there was an attept to pull Ukraine to the orbit of the EU and it crossed the russian red lines... so it will probably take the shape of another grab for Africa. With the excuse that the continent's states are "failed states" run by cleptocrats, or heavens for terrorists and/or pirates or whatever.
The EU is not a grantee for peace in Europe: the EU is an imperial project that will either fail at birth (due to political tensions within), or if we europeans are unlucky enough that it succeeds in creating the European Federation it aims for, bring about unnecessary, potentially world devastating, and certainly bloody, wars. And still fail in the end, because W. Europe is small, does not have that many resources, and the rest of the world is not going to stand by idly watching as the new European Empire goes on a land grab.
And the EU is and will remain by design undemocratic because this imperial project can only be put in motion undemocratically: people don't like dangerous wars, nor being exploited for the greater glory of their leaders. But that is the blueprint for the EU: construct a mega-state, a big european polity with a single government, a president or whatever that can speak in equal terms with the american one, or the chinese premier, or other leaders of major would powers. Claim a major spot in the world. And it's a path bound to require sacrifices imposed on its population, and to meet resistance from the rest of the world. A war path, with everything it entails.

Small and medium nations rarely get delusions of grandeur. They don't launch world domination bids risking ruinous wars. The EU... is not meant to be a small or medium nation. It is meant to be the opposite of that!

 

[Takhisis]

And…?

 

[Kyriakos]

And…?

Do you really want the Eu and the Us to be 'fighting over a comb'?

 

[AdrienIer]

So if the problems were already there for decades before, and presumably are still there (otherwise people wouldn't be talking about those problems), the EU has contributed nothing at all to solve those problems. And may be blocking a solution. It's not unreasonable to infer the EU itself adds to the problems...

On a more general note, and to turn 6this thread towards more productive ideas than the fears about trade deals, what to you thing the goals of the European Union are?

This should be the big question, right? What is the political purpose of this new political construct? We don't ask what the goals of the UK are, the UK already is, people accept is as a fact of life. They may argue what the policies of its government should be, but they do not question its raison d'etre (except the Scots, I guess, and that matter is settled).

But the European Union is an ongoing project. A new polity. So what are the goals of this new project? What is the raison d'etre of the EU?

To create a bigger market? To better compete with other large countries in the world? I shall point out that some of these reasons have led countries down very dark paths in the recent past. European countries, countries that now claim leadership roles in this EU... so, what is the EU about? Why was it brought to be, why should it exist, why is it supposed to evolve into "ever deeper union"? To which, note, the UK would be granted an exemption, therefore confirming this ever deep union is to be applied to the rest.

I will tell you: the EU is yet another attempt at an European Empire with lebensraum. We aren't supposed to say so in polite conversation because comparing the situation with Hitler's designs is a no-no, to be dismissed wit hot giving it any thought. But the parallels in the strategic aims of the EU and Hitler's list of requirements for the greatness of Germany are striking - and frighting. What the EU does not have is a genocidal policy and (not yet) a declared willingness to get what it lacks through war.

The EU has achieved one of the requisites for "lebensraum": it as a population in the hundreds of millions, an internal market big enough to make it a world power. But it still lacks the other: control of natural resources to use this human potential unhindered by other powers. The leaders of the EU have talked a lot about trade. But increasingly they've shown themselves willing to go to war - albeit so far with a blessing from Washington. The day will come, if the EU indeed endures and "deepens" into a mega-state, that its future leaders (whomever they may be) will seek to shake off the american alliance and claim the status of a world power. Then we will have a big war for resources. Another one. It may target the east again, though Russia's nuclear arsenal will probably prevent that. Already there was an attept to pull Ukraine to the orbit of the EU and it crossed the russian red lines... so it will probably take the shape of another grab for Africa. With the excuse that the continent's states are "failed states" run by cleptocrats, or heavens for terrorists and/or pirates or whatever.
The EU is not a grantee for peace in Europe: the EU is an imperial project that will either fail at birth (due to political tensions within), or if we europeans are unlucky enough that it succeeds in creating the European Federation it aims for, bring about unnecessary, potentially world devastating, and certainly bloody, wars. And still fail in the end, because W. Europe is small, does not have that many resources, and the rest of the world is not going to stand by idly watching as the new European Empire goes on a land grab.
And the EU is and will remain by design undemocratic because this imperial project can only be put in motion undemocratically: people don't like dangerous wars, nor being exploited for the greater glory of their leaders. But that is the blueprint for the EU: construct a mega-state, a big european polity with a single government, a president or whatever that can speak in equal terms with the american one, or the chinese premier, or other leaders of major would powers. Claim a major spot in the world. And it's a path bound to require sacrifices imposed on its population, and to meet resistance from the rest of the world. A war path, with everything it entails.

Small and medium nations rarely get delusions of grandeur. They don't launch world domination bids risking ruinous wars. The EU... is not meant to be a small or medium nation. It is meant to be the opposite of that!

Aaaaah I finally understand. You have no idea why the EU was formed and what its purpose was and is, that's why you're so militant against it.

The first purpose of the EU was to put an end to wars in Europe. After 3 wars in 80 years France and Germany decided it was time to stop the nonsense and make peace, first through economic treaties, and then once people got excited by the project through a more integrated political entity. Of course the other European countries were invited because the project was exciting. It was a natural step forward.

The eastward "expansion" of the EU was too ambitious, and included countries that weren't ready for their inclusion into the EU. But most of western Europe is ready for the next step. The next step is obviously an "ever closer union" into a kind of United States of Europe. But no one is going to force anyone into it. Certainly no one is going to force the UK into it. And it won't be a "war path" no. The proof of that is how the US reacts when something bad happens to the EU (like the UK referendum) : they want a stronger European partner. Only Russia sees it as a threat, but alone they can't do much.

Building the US of E through peace, diplomacy and with the consent and support of the people is the long term goal of the EU. Right now it has lost the support (although maybe the consent is still there) so it's not moving forward. But I hope that eventually it will.

About the UK's situation, they don't want to enter this future hypothetical USE. Which means they'll be stuck in the middle of the two USs in an awkward situation. That's not a great future, but I believe that there will remain several layers of partnership with the central body (like it is now with the EU and its partners). The economic union can remain in some form, and the UK, Norway etc can stay partners of the larger entity without entering it, if they so choose. So the UK's choice, in the long term, is between refusing diplomacy with the future USE (leave it now and make an enemy of the rest of Europe) or accepting to stay a strong partner even if they don't want the ever closer union.

In the long term I don't think the first choice is viable, and they'll be forced to give in (and no one wants to force them into it so that's a lose-lose). The second choice probably is.

The goal of the EU has never been to conquer and dominate, but to unite the people. The European leaders made a huge mistake with the treaty of Lisbon and now many people equate the EU with tyranny. It's a step backwards, but I think it's not irreversible.

 

[Wastl]

The idea that the EU could be into "Lebensraum" is utterly hilarious, it makes no sense whatsoever and has nothing to do with the goals of the EU.

That beign said, the idea of a "United States of Europe" isn't any better. Maybe it's something you can think about in a few centuries or so, but right now everyone who pushes that way (and it's mostly people from countries who got all patriotism beaten out of them a few decades ago) are harming the fundamental idea of the EU more than anything. Even before this current crisis began, you would have been hard pressed to find a majority of such a united Europe in any country apart from maybe one or two. It's an idea that is mostly present in a few politicians who sit in an ivory tower and have little connection to reality. Not to mention that those politicians are usually the second rate ones anyway, as no one with any ambitions really considered getting himself elected for EU-posts.

What should happen, is that the politicians finally realise that forcing things upon the people of Europe will never lead to a successful outcome. The EU is a loose union of European states with in some cases drastically different cultures and ideas. Focus on that, have a common market, attempt to keep Schengen to what it is about - which is taking away the internal borders in favour of protecting the external ones, not the free for all that it shortly turned into, not having closely controlled external borders beats the entire purpose of Schengen, as there is no difference left between being inside or outside the Schengen area if you do not control the borders - find common ground for a few vital issues, without forcing nonsensical regulations onto everyone. All that is what the EU is about, all that can lead to a successful EU, unlike the current ideas that amount to "lets force the issues towards an ever closer union, the people are just too dump to understand what is good for them".

It would also be nice if rules would actually apply, and not be ignored whenever it fits, and that includes not handing out exceptions to countries like the UK like free candy. Either they want to be part of the union or not, they can't just pick out the best parts and ignore the rest. Not that the idea to hand some of the powers back to the nations is wrong, the EU really took over more and more things it wasn't supposed to have any power over.

 

[Arakhor]

Not only that but lebensraum inevitably sounds like a dog-whistle for not invoking those guys beginning with N.

 

[Kyriakos]

What do you care, Arak, you will soon not be in an EU country anyway

That the Eu benefited Germany most of any other country is rather obvious, they even were allowed to annex their eastern bit which so sadly was taken away from them due to a little war. Nor were they ever penalised for not following Eu monetary rules. Nor did they have to pay their debt to others.
Too bad they had to go ape after that for yet another time.

 

[Arakhor]

There's no soon about it. Even if the UK votes to leave, Parliament has to pass the necessary laws and it will be months or even years before it happens.

Besides, people comparing everything they don't like to the Nazis got way too old decades ago.

 

[Kyriakos]

There's no soon about it. Even if the UK votes to leave, Parliament has to pass the necessary laws and it will be months or even years before it happens.

Besides, people comparing everything they don't like to the Nazis got way too old decades ago.

When did the BBC (i recall Serbia 1999, but this is something else...) turn into the voice of NorseFire?

"Who wants the UK to stay in the EU?

Prime Minister David Cameron wants Britain to stay in the EU, now he has got some powers back from it. Sixteen members of his cabinet also back staying in. The Conservative Party has pledged to be neutral in the campaign - but the Labour Party, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems are all in favour of staying in. US president Barack Obama also wants Britain to remain in the EU, as do other EU nations such as France and Germany. As mentioned above, according to polls, the British public seems pretty evenly split on the issue."

"Didn't David Cameron try and change the rules of the UK's EU membership?

Yes. This was the big news back in January and February as David Cameron sought an agreement with other European Union leaders to change the terms of Britain's membership. He says the deal, which will take effect immediately if the UK votes to remain in the EU, gives Britain "special" status within the 28 nation club, and will help sort out some of the things British people say they don't like about the EU, such as high levels of immigration and giving up the ability to run our own affairs.

Critics say his deal will make little difference and falls well short of what he had promised when he announced his plan for a referendum. Read more: What Cameron wanted v what he got"

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

W T F? Is this logical to be presented as the line of an 'independent' news source? It reads more like some pal of Cameron defending him with any little way he can.

 

[Arakhor]

NorseFire?? The fascist organisation from V for Vendetta? What?

 

[innonimatu]

The first purpose of the EU was to put an end to wars in Europe. After 3 wars in 80 years France and Germany decided it was time to stop the nonsense and make peace, first through economic treaties, and then once people got excited by the project through a more integrated political entity.

If we are going to look back at history to justify the EU, we should look a little further back. What brought about those three wars? German unifications. Which started as an economic union, but became an "increasingly deeper union", towards an empire. The new Germany became Europe's most powerful state, and sought an international status to match that reality. It's competitors were not willing to give in, so war it was...

That union started with a limited political aim of defending against any new Napoleon, and with a customs union that was supposed to respect the sovereign of the states that joined it. Which kept their own political systems, armies, etc. And yet they all marched to world war a few decades later, feverish believers in an imperial project!

The EU stands a very real likelihood, should it endure (and I'm not to worried because that seems now unlikely) to keep emulating the history of German unifications. And it's not just Germany. Italy too was unified in the late 19th century... and jumped right in to WW1 for the sake of nationalism and expansion, to get "its place in the sun". And mind you, the EU has run out of space to expand peacefully. Everywhere around there are states either too different, culturally, or too powerful to be brought in and assimilated.

I don't trust the promises made now that there won't be any "deeper" political integration: it's either that or dissolution, of course the people who are invested in the EU will push for deeper integration: a common foreign policy, a common army... and common external enemies to turn attentions away from internal problems! Time-honored methods to attempt to strengthen central power in new federations. It'll start with a few new colonial expeditions to Africa. Libya is already an ongoing rehearsal, and the americas were nice enough to help instead of being alarmed. But it won't stay that way. I was not that alarmed about this until it happened, I had only noticed the EU problem of lack of democracy - now I'm convinces that is just regarded as a feature by those who believe themselves the "fathers of Europe" and are calling policy in the EU.

 

[Dachs]

If we are going to look back at history to justify the EU, we should look a little further back. What brought about those three wars? German unifications. Which started as an economic union, but became an "increasingly deeper union", towards an empire. The new Germany became Europe's most powerful state, and sought an international status to match that reality. It's competitors were not willing to give in, so war it was...

That union started with a limited political aim of defending against any new Napoleon, and with a customs union that was supposed to respect the sovereign of the states that joined it. Which kept their own political systems, armies, etc. And yet they all marched to world war a few decades later, feverish believers in an imperial project!

Since it wasn't German aggression that started either the 1870 war or the 1914 war, I'm not sure that this comparison makes the point that you wanted to. Bolding is relevant here.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Really? What mysterious panacea can be applied to reduce the power of the Prime Minister, if only we leave the EU?

The House of Commons might elect the Ministers of State.

If anything, being in the EU already applies checks to the power of the Prime Minister, as decisions made by his government should be in line with existing EU regulations and certain matters can be appealed to the ECJ and ECHR.

Your justification for being in the EU seems to be that the EU will itself prevent the UK government from governing. Why are you so hostile to UK self determination?

 

[Arakhor]

The House of Commons might elect the Ministers of State.

Has such an idea ever been suggested? Why would leaving the EU be required for this?

Your justification for being in the EU seems to be that the EU will itself prevent the UK government from governing. Why are you so hostile to UK self determination?

That's totally what I said. Oh wait, it wasn't.

 

[Takhisis]

Elected ministers? In what modern polity is that done?

 

[Tahuti]

Since it wasn't German aggression that started either the 1870 war or the 1914 war, I'm not sure that this comparison makes the point that you wanted to. Bolding is relevant here.

Bigger states fight bigger wars. Regardless whether those are on the defending or attacking side.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Here is a bit of what Boris has to say in the Telegraph today.

Boris:
In the last week we have had amazing testimonials from two of the biggest heroes of modern British manufacturing. I was thrilled when they spoke out, because I know the kind of pressure that all UK business leaders are facing from Project Fear. In their optimism, their vigour and their belief in this country, they sum up what the Leave campaign is all about. They are (Lord) Anthony Bamford, of the mighty digger firm JCB, and James Dyson the billionaire entrepreneur and inventor.
Now these people make machines: beautiful, complex, cutting-edge bits of technology. You might have thought that it was precisely for them – and their kind – that the “single market” was invented, so that their vacuum cleaners and backhoe loaders can circulate freely across the 510-million strong territory. You might have imagined that they would be passionate advocates of the system.
On the contrary – they both export colossal quantities to EU markets, and will continue to do so; but they both think we should get out of the EU, and that the whole thing is going in the wrong direction. Dyson is the No 1 brand leader in the German vacuum-cleaner market. Does he worry about tariffs, if we left? Of course not. The Germans would not dream of it: we Brits buy 820,000 German cars every year, worth about 20 billion euros. In fact we buy one fifth of Germany’s entire car output. As Dyson points out, tariffs would mean the Germans would be cutting their own throats. It won’t happen.

That is my emboldening of course.
Given that we buy one fifth of Germany’s entire car output, do people here still not see how, soon after we left the EU, Germany and Britain would relatively quickly agree on a new trade deal? (And btw - I can’t prove it, but I am absolutely certain that German car manufacturers make more profit per car from us than anyone else.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-single-market-you-dont-have-to-be-in-it-to/

 

[Dachs]

Bigger states fight bigger wars. Regardless whether those are on the defending or attacking side.

They might also fight more wars, or fewer wars. One of the bloodiest conflicts of the last century (and, therefore, in world history) was fought by a large number of dirt-poor African nations, most of whom were only allied to each other out of convenience and who regularly swapped allegiances as circumstances dictated; "bigger states" really doesn't apply to them.

Point is, saying that "German unification" brought about the World Wars is correct in the sense that they could not have happened without it, but that's no different than saying the same of the construction of the British and Russian Empires, the development of the Industrial Revolutions, the mobilization of mass political parties, the Meiji Restoration, the existence of the Bonaparte Emperors, and the Christian victory at the Battle of Vienna. It's a causative link that is tenuous enough to qualify most of world history at the same level.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Yeah, here's the thing about the EU: You can't negotiate a trade treaty with Germany. You have to deal with the union. There are over two dozen countries that don't care how many German cars you buy. That's one of the main reasons why the German government doesn't want the UK to leave, but Germany doesn't decide alone.

 

[Yeekim]

But you know what? There are people sufficiently crazy in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels to open another front, against Britain. I mean, they lighted North Africa on fire to the south, got a war going in eastern europe by supporting a coup in Ukraine (so much for "the EU brings peace"...), turned big eastern neighbor (Russia) hostile, poured fuel into the Middle East fires, and now woke up to the fact that Turkey in the southeast will be an enemy also.

Libyans start an uprising against a dictator?
"EU lights North Africa on fire"!
Russian tanks roll into Ukraine?
"EU got a war going in Eastern Europe!"
Turkey having an autocratic streak?
"Gotta blame the EU again, somehow..."

I remember a time when your criticism against EU was grounded on reality.
Did it prove too constraining?

I will tell you: the EU is yet another attempt at an European Empire with lebensraum. We aren't supposed to say so in polite conversation because comparing the situation with Hitler's designs is a no-no, to be dismissed wit hot giving it any thought. But the parallels in the strategic aims of the EU and Hitler's list of requirements for the greatness of Germany are striking - and frighting. What the EU does not have is a genocidal policy and (not yet) a declared willingness to get what it lacks through war.

"If you remove anything that was bad about Hitler, he looks frighteningly similar to Juncker. They are both carbon-based life forms, for example!"