Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry got to call you out on some of the utter tosh you're peddling here.

 Ketara wrote:
..... On immigration? Try and outsource the problem to Turkey....

Not quite outsourcing. The agreement was designed to reduce the attractiveness of risking the sea crossing from Turkey to Greece for Syrian migrants, by sending them straight back to Turkey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Turkey_relations#EU-Turkey_Deal_on_Migrant_Crisis

 Ketara wrote:
whilst pushing for a joint EU border force. Military spending? Unification to cut costs (see the merging of the Dutch and German armies currently). Etc, etc.

Are you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._German/Dutch_Corps
In 1991 the defence ministers of The Netherlands and Germany decided to establish a binational unit to replace one German and one Dutch corps. In 1993 a treaty between the two countries was signed which resulted in two previously independent corps being amalgamated to form 1 (German/Netherlands) Corps or 1 (GE/NL) Corps consisting of one German and one Dutch division.
That's got nothing to do with the EU, it's a private National decision made between 2 Nations.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm not pretending that Leave necessarily had a good plan,

That's good, unless by good plan you mean No plan whatsoever. Which interestingly doesnt stop IDS et all demanding that we leap Now! Now godammit before someone changes their minds!

 Ketara wrote:
but the reason DC and the rest didn't try and promote a positive future vision/plan of the EU was because there isn't one that would be perceived as 'positive' within the UK.

I mean, let's be real here, everyone knew DC's agreement with the EU was subject to subsequent ratification and discounting by the EU later, and he asked for nothing and got half that to begin with.

That's politics, because, lets be fair, no one thought we'd be stupid enough to go through with it. Besides, it seemed that the benefits of being part of the single market seemed to be self evident. Obviously that wasn't the case, as it turns out one third of the country either didn't understand what the EU was about, or just didn't give a gak, and wanted to get rid of immigrants.

 Ketara wrote:
The reason Greece is struggling so badly right now is because they can't control the basic fiscal levers of their economy because they reside in Brussels and Berlin. The people sitting in Brussels and Berlin, however, don't want to exercise those levers on Greece's part, because they would have a detrimental effect across the rest of the Eurozone. So they keep slapping financial band-aids on the problem and wait.

The Greeks were in the gak because until the global financial crisis they were spending like billy-o, and were taking terrible tax receipts.

 Ketara wrote:

the refugee crisis would be a disaster as countries looked to their own well being first completely.

I guarantee you that if every country had a sealed border, not even a third of the immigrants currently sitting in Calais would get that far.

Whirlwind wrote:

Also we're not the only areas being affected by the Syria crisis. South Africa has just as much of a problem of migrants entering the Country from places like Syria. People just buy a one way ticket, destroy their IDs on the flight out and then claim asylum when they get there. So being out of the EU does not solve the problem.

More. Europe get's pittances in terms of refugees. If Finland would take as much as countries who are in REAL trouble(scaled to population) we would be talking 1.5 million. Not 30k most who are sent back to country finland doesn't even consider safe...


Europe thinks they have it bad but miss the real crisis.

Whirlwind wrote:

Ah, so you admit there was a plan and policy's in place as before you said "In all fairness, the Remain side were just as vulnerable to charges of not having a positive future plan". Whether that plan was positive and whether you agree with the policies is a different issue because it comes down to personal perspective.

The plan wasn't positive, therefore the side didn't 'have' (or possess) it to deploy when the referendum was being debated. They didn't mention it all. That's the point. It wasn't 'positive' from the angle that most of the population would most likely have not regarded it as 'positive'. It's got nothing to do with my personal outlook here, unless you genuinely believe people would find British absorption into a superstate a 'positive' thing. In which case I'll have to beg to differ.

Not to mention that I doubt Cameron wants a superstate either, so it's not exactly a 'plan' per se, so much as a political movement in Brussels which has resulted in certain treaties being formed the way they have. I think Cameron's 'plan' extended about as far as 'Hope I win, finish my term, then piss off to the lecture circuit and leave someone else to carry on squabbling in Europe'. I'm not sure you can transfer the 'plan' of a number of people in Brussels to being the 'Plan' for the remain campaign.

You do also realise that the UK and France are sharing armed forces at the moment as well? The idea of sharing resources from a military perspective is not a bad idea. Do we think the Falklands would have happened if there was thought that they would only be fighting the UK but also 27 other nation states?

Funnily enough, we were a member of NATO then too. The whole point of the Falklands was that they thought nobody would fight, us included. If they had thought we'd dispatch a task force, they probably wouldn't have done it.

You're also jumping the gun, and ascribing positions to me I haven't assumed. Relax.

 Ketara wrote:

My understanding that the EU thought the opposite and was bringing back the Kitchen sink. I reality it was probably somewhere in between.

As far as the EU were concerned, any concession was a bad precedent. So they deliberately set it up in such a way that practically all concessions of consequence had to be ratified post-referendum by the EU. I don't believe for a minute most of them would have survived if we'd voted to remain.

 Ketara wrote:
The Euro?
On that basis the Euro would have caused their economy to collapse when they joined in 2002. No, Greece's issues arise because it took the money from day one and then assumed it would never have to pay anything back. In essence they stuck everything on the credit card and ignored the due dates. They could have closed loop holes in their tax system to bring it to some semblance of order during those years (such as changing house property tax so that leaving a bit of the building unfinished exempts you from tax forever). Even if they had stayed out of the Euro but kept the same strategy then they would still be in debt up to their eyeballs and even devaluing their currency wouldn't have stopped this. All that does is encourage people to spend more money there because it is cheap, it's trying to resolve the issue rather after the event. In some ways you can understand Germany and France being a bit peeved because some countries raided the candy store and now they have to clear up the mess as they throw up everywhere.

I hate to say it, but you're mixing up cause and effect here, and then throwing in a dose of misunderstanding to confuse it.

The reason Greece was able to borrow so much was because when they joined the Euro, they were essentially able to borrow far in excess of what they were capable of paying back, the obfuscation of the financial securities around the euro meant they were, in effect, borrowing using Germany and France's credit rating. The politicians then proceeded to run up huge debts, because as far as they could see, it would go on forever, and elections are more important than the financial health of the nation. Had they remained outside the Euro, they would never have had the werewithal to spend so far beyond their means as they did to begin with.

Generally speaking, in economics, when an economy crashes a government has certain fiscal tools available to it. Mass quantitative easing permits the deflation of currency, boosting exports, increasing tourism, the devaluing of debt, encouraging spending, employment on public works to stave off unemployment, and so on. It's generally regarded as the equaliser to these sorts of situations, an economic pressure valve, if you will. It's usually quite painful for savers and investors, but in the mid-term, it's able to undo the sort of hole Greece found themselves in.

Being in the euro however, Greece cannot do this. It quite literally does not control its own currency. That means that its economy is pegged to strong economies like Germany, which have absolutely no interest in allowing the euro to hit rock bottom. This has resulted in Greece being tied to ruinously high repayment rates, a curtailing of the Government's ability to exercise its spending discretion (the EU effectively decides Greece's budget at the moment), large scale unemployment, and so on.

This is an example of how being in the euro/EU is not necessarily a positive thing. The thing about the Euro is that it was a political project, if you'd suggested to an economist in the 1980's that you tie together so many disparate economies with no centralised fiscal control, they'd have laughed at you. Heck, they'd laugh at you now. It's a terrible idea, but like Schengen, it was conceived of as a political goal.

Sods law though, it would be a right bastard to unravel now. The only two options they have left are either scrapping the whole thing and letting the european market rebalance naturally, or centralising fiscal control. And if you follow the EU Five President's report, they've settled on the latter. Integration is the watchword of the day.

Strange last time there was such a large wave of migration due to conflict was WW2. Unsurprisingly borders didn't seem to hamper movement then. I find this idea a bit naïve to be honest, once there are sufficient numbers of people there's going to no chance to stop the movement ...

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, I was commenting on the basis that the more countries with sealed borders you have to cross, the more border guards you encounter and the higher odds there are of being halted, confined, and deported. Countries don't generally like unregistered people wandering around. If Schengen wasn't there, it would be more difficult to reach the UK on that basis.

That's all I was saying.

Again that seems cynical and a bit naïve. I don't think anyone 10 years ago would have predicted that Syria would have gone into melt down

Milton Friedman saw the euro crisis coming back in 1997. That was more what I had in mind.

 Ketara wrote:

I think you are mixing up some individuals views and the direction the EU would like to be. The idea of a Federal Europe has been diminishing fro some time now because as you say the populace don't really support it (and we are too divided as nations to achieve it). Everyone has policies that they would like to put in place but like with all things compromises have to be made so it at least try and works for the best for everyone. Surprisingly the EU isn't a dictatorship and few people with their views does not make a reality.

I can literally point to the Five President's plan as future intent in that direction, and Lisbon and further back as historical precedent. I'm not saying that 'everyone in the Europe wants a European superstate'. But I can say, 'The most powerful figures in the EU bureaucracy are proponents of ever-closer integration, and have been steadily working towards that goal with success' and I am neither lying nor exaggerating. The historical record and documentary evidence supports that statement on every level. Trying to characterise it as some fringe opinion held by a handful of unimportant people that will never get anywhere is downright incorrect.

 Ketara wrote:

But then that would have been an outright lie as there are no plans for this and we wouldn't expect our politicians to lie to the populace...oh wait the Leave campaign, I forget....

Seriously, do some research. There is no 'SUPER TOP SECRET PLAN FOR EU SUPERSTATE HAHAHA' file in Juncker's office. Nobody is claiming there is. But there is a very clear intent, a lot of paperwork, and a large number of people working towards integration indefinitely. At every stage, when one treaty has been signed, the formulation of another which cedes another fraction of power or authority to the EU begins. The office of EU President didn't come out of nowhere.

 r_squared wrote:
Sorry got to call you out on some of the utter tosh you're peddling here.

You're welcome to try. Something many people seem to forget in online debates is that the exchange of information is a good thing. If I can be proven wrong on something, I'm happy for that to be the case. Means I learned something.

Not quite outsourcing. The agreement was designed to reduce the attractiveness of risking the sea crossing from Turkey to Greece for Syrian migrants, by sending them straight back to Turkey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Turkey_relations#EU-Turkey_Deal_on_Migrant_Crisis

Precisely. It's a band aid to try and ignore the problems of the porous EU border and Schengen zone. Not all immigrants come through Turkey, and all it takes is a crisis somewhere not on the other side of Turkey and there'll be equivalent wave that the Turkey treaty does nothing for.

The point here is that the Turkey treaty is a temporary band-aid political agreement whilst the underlying issue, that of open borders without political unification, remains untouched.

Are you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._German/Dutch_Corps
In 1991 the defence ministers of The Netherlands and Germany decided to establish a binational unit to replace one German and one Dutch corps. In 1993 a treaty between the two countries was signed which resulted in two previously independent corps being amalgamated to form 1 (German/Netherlands) Corps or 1 (GE/NL) Corps consisting of one German and one Dutch division.
That's got nothing to do with the EU, it's a private National decision made between 2 Nations.

The Dutch army has precisely three corps, two of which are now integrated into the German armed forces. There's been a stated intent to merge the Navies of the two by 2018. This is seen as a first step by all involved. Don't worry, I'll substantiate.

Firstly, there's an extremely recent Germany white paper which involves pushing for a unified EU army. The full article is in the FT here:-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173,Authorised=false.html?siteedition=uk&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fe90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibtimes.co.uk%2F375860aed7b61ca2963cdf570eb6b4a1&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app#axzz47ZnQdFwu

The EU's foreign Affairs chief, the German Elmar Brok recently said (IIRC) that there needed to be a central EU military headquarters set up, and there's been talk recently of the Czech's getting involved in the existing integration between Germany and the Netherlands.

Here's an interesting report from the EU published in June.
http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf

Some interesting parts include:-

Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, to acquire and maintain many of these capabilities, defence cooperation must become the norm. The EU will systematically encourage defence cooperation and strive to create a solid European defence industry, which is critical for Europe’s autonomy of decision and action....When it comes to collective defence, NATO remains the primary framework for most Member States. At the same time, EU-NATO relations shall not prejudice the security and defence policy of those Members which are not in NATO.... The EU needs to be strengthened as a security community: European security and defence efforts should enable the EU to act autonomously while also contributing to and undertaking actions in cooperation with NATO...While defence policy and spending remain national prerogatives, no Member State can afford to do this individually: this requires a concerted and cooperative effort. Deeper defence cooperation engenders interoperability, effectiveness, efficiency and trust: it increases the output of defence spending. Developing and maintaining defence capabilities requires both investments
and optimising the use of national resources through deeper cooperation....Member States will need to move towards defence cooperation as the norm. Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, nationally-oriented defence programmes are insufficient to address capability shortfalls...

I could post more, but the general gist is one of deeper integration on a military level both on a procurement level and on a strategic level.

That's good, unless by good plan you mean No plan whatsoever. Which interestingly doesnt stop IDS et all demanding that we leap Now! Now godammit before someone changes their minds!

Doesn't know when to retire, does he?

The Greeks were in the gak because until the global financial crisis they were spending like billy-o, and were taking terrible tax receipts.

I answered this above, but to reiterate, that's the reason the Greeks landed in the gak. The euro is the reason they've stayed wading around in it.

Is that the only thing that matters? That immigrants shouldn't be able to get to Britain? We should just let our partners closest to these tragedies deal with it, because we're all right Jack sat at the back?

You're projecting a position onto me here. I was just responding to a point. That point being that if the EU didn't exist, the refugee crisis would be worse here.

Of course, everyone just ignores crisis', because it's easy to spot them coming, but no one gives the slightest gak about loss of life, or financial apocalypse.

Sometimes they do, when political principles are stake, or the times are so good now nobody wants to contemplate them getting worse. A sad recurrence throughout history.

So you believe that the EU just allows these Crisis' to happen to slowly eke power from nation states? That they somehow orchestrate these events? That's tinfoil hattery territory. Either that or you are actually Nigel Farage.

Oh God no. I don't think they're 'allowing' them, or orchestrating them. But I do think that the only way they could prevent them would be to dissolve the more integrated aspects of the EU, or to integrate fully. The former is unthinkable, and the latter vastly unpopular. So they just keep slapping temporary solutions on whatever problems show up, and keep integrating as fast they can. Eventually, the point will be reached where such problems stop occurring, because sufficient power is joined up in centralised EU hands, but it'll take another few decades at least to get there (I'd wager four or five personally).

I got to thinking about the fishing industry today. Scotland's in particular. If the Tories had any sense they'd give Scotland this simple choice; stay within the UK and enjoy devolved control over your fishing industry again, or go down the SNP route and let the EU take it over completely and quite likely make a balls up out of it. And if the former is chosen but the EU try to close the markets out of spite simply threaten German cars with a tariff along with similar measures. It amazes me how few politicians today actually know how to do politics.

I'm jumping the gun though. Article 50 comes first.

 Ketara wrote:

It's got nothing to do with my personal outlook here, unless you genuinely believe people would find British absorption into a superstate a 'positive' thing. In which case I'll have to beg to differ.

I'm a bit confused with your argument below you state there is no plan for a superstate yet here you say this is what the Remain plan is, so which is it. Regardless the remain did have a roadmap plan for the future. It presented plenty of documents as to where we would go; provided definitive proposals for staying in...the leave camp gave us a bus slogan that is a lie. I never intended to imply that the uks remain plan was the same as the EUs strategy, only that remain ar least had a plan in how to take forward the country's future in the EU. The leave camp had no idea what they would do and afterwards responded by saying it was the remain camps responsibility.

You're also jumping the gun, and ascribing positions to me I haven't assumed. Relax.

Never intended to be, just noting that I think that the negative implications of sharing armed forces is just wrong.

 Ketara wrote:

As far as the EU were concerned, any concession was a bad precedent. So they deliberately set it up in such a way that practically all concessions of consequence had to be ratified post-referendum by the EU. I don't believe for a minute most of them would have survived if we'd voted to remain.

I believe the opposite, suddenly changing the game afterwards would have shown the world that trusting the EU is risky, never mind all the court cases that would be heard. No, having worked in contract law myself the simple case will be that there was simply not enough time to ratify the agreement. I've worked on contract variations that were 'agreed' in principle years previously but the actual writing of the conditions takes years as you have to consider the links to other parts to ensure you're not breaking anything fundamentally or worse creating conflicting elements. It takes time to get these things right, but the principles will all have been set.

 Ketara wrote:

Had they remained outside the Euro, they would never have had the werewithal to spend so far beyond their means as they did to begin with.

This is an assumption, we don't know what would have happened if he stayed out of the Euro. They may still have been financed just as readily because of the rather gung Ho approach of the banks then (from consumers to governments). Iceland did a similar thing by quite happily taking unsustainable financial banking tax and spent it and they were never in the Euro. You could even level the same accusation at the UK that it was spending way beyond its means. In reality Germany has taken over Greeces finances because Greece has shown its incapable of doing so; a bit of fiscal prudence in the last 15 years on their part would have gone a long way, they acted like kids in a candy store, you reap what you sow.

This is an example of how being in the euro/EU is not necessarily a positive thing. The thing about the Euro is that it was a political project, if you'd suggested to an economist in the 1980's that you tie together so many disparate economies with no centralised fiscal control, they'd have laughed at you. Heck, they'd laugh at you now. It's a terrible idea, but like Schengen, it was conceived of as a political goal.

You can say the same about the dollar though and yet that works. If you look at the economic outputs from the us they are likely to be just as varied as is across the EU.

Sods law though, it would be a right bastard to unravel now. The only two options they have left are either scrapping the whole thing and letting the european market rebalance naturally, or centralising fiscal control. And if you follow the EU Five President's report, they've settled on the latter. Integration is the watchword of the day.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, I was commenting on the basis that the more countries with sealed borders you have to cross, the more border guards you encounter and the higher odds there are of being halted, confined, and deported. Countries don't generally like unregistered people wandering around. If Schengen wasn't there, it would be more difficult to reach the UK on that basis.

To where though? People just destroy their ID, they are told to do it by the gangs. There's nowhere to deport them to then this already happens. You can't then just return people to somewhere random on the basis of what they look like. In these cases it will be much easier then to put them on plane for their final destination and let that country deal with them.

Again that seems cynical and a bit naïve. I don't think anyone 10 years ago would have predicted that Syria would have gone into melt down
Milton Friedman saw the euro crisis coming back in 1997. That was more what I had in mind.

So, some people predicted the world would end in 2012, I predicted the housing crash, does that make me a genius or just lucky. The point being that statistically someone will guess right, for every person that predicted a crash, there'll be others that didn't. The difficulty is which ones you can predict. That's the issue with a crisis they are almost impossible to predict in terms of timing and scale.

 Ketara wrote:


I can literally point to the Five President's plan as future intent in that direction, and Lisbon and further back as historical precedent. I'm not saying that 'everyone in the Europe wants a European superstate'. But I can say, 'The most powerful figures in the EU bureaucracy are proponents of ever-closer integration, and have been steadily working towards that goal with success' and I am neither lying nor exaggerating. The historical record and documentary evidence supports that statement on every level. Trying to characterise it as some fringe opinion held by a handful of unimportant people that will never get anywhere is downright incorrect.

And yet the agreed changes the uk got were a reverse of this. Surely if these powerful had such sway then it would never have been agreed? You can have a plan and strategy of individuals but it doesn't mean that is the overall superstate you will get to. Maybe, just maybe countries agreed certain things because they felt it made them stronger overall. Claiming the only inevitable outcome is a superstate is just wrong because you are working on the principle that will only ever be the direction of travel.

 Ketara wrote:

Seriously, do some research. There is no 'SUPER TOP SECRET PLAN FOR EU SUPERSTATE HAHAHA' file in Juncker's office. Nobody is claiming there is. But there is a very clear intent, a lot of paperwork, and a large number of people working towards integration indefinitely. At every stage, when one treaty has been signed, the formulation of another which cedes another fraction of power or authority to the EU begins. The office of EU President didn't come out of nowhere.

But that doesn't make a superstate an inevitability does it? So they have a figurehead for the Eu, so what? Any future changes still have to be agreed by all members. Again the assumption is that because some powers have been ceded in the past then this will always happen and it is the only inevitable conclusion a more likely scenario is you will hit a point where the amount of power ceded satisfies everyone generally and there is no real appetite to cede powers further or conversely hand back those powers already ceded because it is more effective that way.

 Ketara wrote:

The Dutch army has precisely three corps, two of which are now integrated into the German armed forces. There's been a stated intent to merge the Navies of the two by 2018. This is seen as a first step by all involved. Don't worry, I'll substantiate.

Firstly, there's an extremely recent Germany white paper which involves pushing for a unified EU army. The full article is in the FT here:-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173,Authorised=false.html?siteedition=uk&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fe90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibtimes.co.uk%2F375860aed7b61ca2963cdf570eb6b4a1&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app#axzz47ZnQdFwu

The EU's foreign Affairs chief, the German Elmar Brok recently said (IIRC) that there needed to be a central EU military headquarters set up, and there's been talk recently of the Czech's getting involved in the existing integration between Germany and the Netherlands.

There are some misconceptions there. The Dutch army has only one army corps, and the Germans have three (both include the joined 1st Dutch German army corps). In fact the whole strength of the Dutch army is just three brigades, which makes it a bit tough to justify an army HQ that can control several divisions. Hence the cooperation with the Germans, it's a paper merger of forces that allows both countries a headquarters that looks impressive on paper in NATO (and provides 400 cushy jobs for officers), but don't tell the Americans. The armed forces themselves remain separate.

As for the naval merger: the Dutch MoD sold off the army's last remaining tanks, but then found out that soldiers missed having them around on peace keeping missions, so they leased a few from the Germans, in exchange for the Dutch Navy providing taxi services for the new German marine force (Seebattallion).

 Whirlwind wrote:

I'm a bit confused with your argument below you state there is no plan for a superstate yet here you say this is what the Remain plan is, so which is it.

I'll be frank, I think there was a miscommunication over the original phrasing several quotes back, so I'll try again.

The 'Leave campaign' had no future vision for what would be post-referendum. But equally, the 'Leave campaign' projected no future vision as to what remaining in the EU would entail beyond the status quo. This is because if one attempts to envision the future of the EU, one is forced to rely upon documents outlining further integration, and a historical trend towards 'ever-closer integration. There isn't really a 'UK future vision of the EU' (our politicians have been sorely lacking that regard in Europe), and even a 'future vision of the UK's role within the EU' would automatically be subservient to 'ever-closer integration' vision.

The result being that neither party had a plan or vision for the future feature in their campaign, one because they hadn't a clue, and the other because they most likely feared that it would drive people away.

Does that help to clarify?

Never intended to be, just noting that I think that the negative implications of sharing armed forces is just wrong.

I think the negative implications of clearly defined joint command structures aren't too bad personally, NATO has shown how it can be made to work (although there's been plenty of bumps along that road!). Sharing armed forces Netherlands/Germany style though? I think that's a bad move without general political union. YMMV.

I believe the opposite, suddenly changing the game afterwards would have shown the world that trusting the EU is risky, never mind all the court cases that would be heard.No, having worked in contract law myself the simple case will be that there was simply not enough time to ratify the agreement.

Half and half. Cameron's agreement had to be ratified by a specific congregation of various officials, which wasn't scheduled to take place until after the EU referendum. But they very deliberately left themselves a contractual backdoor whereby it could be easily be watered down.

Which, considering it was half of nothing, would have effectively meant nothing was really gained to begin with. Cameron's initial requirements for future UK participation were pretty meek.

This is an assumption, we don't know what would have happened if he stayed out of the Euro. They may still have been financed just as readily because of the rather gung Ho approach of the banks then (from consumers to governments). Iceland did a similar thing by quite happily taking unsustainable financial banking tax and spent it and they were never in the Euro.

Unlikely, but without writing a convoluted essay on the functioning of the european currency and it's relationships to international investors and suchlike, I doubt I'll convince you otherwise. And as I'm painting a tournament army whilst typing this, I can't quite be bothered.

You could even level the same accusation at the UK that it was spending way beyond its means. In reality Germany has taken over Greeces finances because Greece has shown its incapable of doing so; a bit of fiscal prudence in the last 15 years on their part would have gone a long way, they acted like kids in a candy store, you reap what you sow.

Eh. It was more that they told Greece that they were screwed, but if they tried to leave the EU, they'd be even more screwed and deliberately so by the EU. They slapped a financial band aid over the problem, waved a few carrots, gestured at a few large sticks menacingly and waited for the plebs to stop rioting. Greece is in a bad place now one way or the other, but if they'd never joined the Euro, they'd be in a better place now, that much is certain.

You can say the same about the dollar though and yet that works. If you look at the economic outputs from the us they are likely to be just as varied as is across the EU.

There are a few key differences, the primary one being political union.

To where though? People just destroy their ID, they are told to do it by the gangs. There's nowhere to deport them to then this already happens. You can't then just return people to somewhere random on the basis of what they look like. In these cases it will be much easier then to put them on plane for their final destination and let that country deal with them.

Who knows? My original point was just a counter to your assertion that were the borders not as soft as they were, immigration would be worse here (in the UK).

So, some people predicted the world would end in 2012, I predicted the housing crash, does that make me a genius or just lucky.

Puts you in the same bracket as Vince Cable.

The point being that statistically someone will guess right, for every person that predicted a crash, there'll be others that didn't. The difficulty is which ones you can predict. That's the issue with a crisis they are almost impossible to predict in terms of timing and scale.

I'd give Friedman a bit more credit than that, he's a pretty famous economist with more publications than you've probably had nice breakfasts this year. He's not alone either, any economist worth his salt could predict the problems with the euro cropping up. It's not really that challenging a prediction. Shared fiscal burden and responsibility without union is just plain daft.

And yet the agreed changes the uk got were a reverse of this. Surely if these powerful had such sway then it would never have been agreed?

So you're saying that the watered down agreement that was half of nothing with the option to cancel it or reduce it further at a later stage is proof that integrationist train in Brussels isn't very powerful?



I suppose if one is exceptionally idealistic, perhaps.

You can have a plan and strategy of individuals but it doesn't mean that is the overall superstate you will get to. Maybe, just maybe countries agreed certain things because they felt it made them stronger overall. Claiming the only inevitable outcome is a superstate is just wrong because you are working on the principle that will only ever be the direction of travel.

...But that doesn't make a superstate an inevitability does it? So they have a figurehead for the Eu, so what? Any future changes still have to be agreed by all members. Again the assumption is that because some powers have been ceded in the past then this will always happen and it is the only inevitable conclusion a more likely scenario is you will hit a point where the amount of power ceded satisfies everyone generally and there is no real appetite to cede powers further or conversely hand back those powers already ceded because it is more effective that way.

I'm sorry, but considering the phrase 'ever-closer integration', the reflexive defence of the euro and schengen in the face of all problems, and all paperwork and history, and projected plans to date, I don't see a stage short of one superpower at which the project will stop. It might take a roundabout way of getting there (going to a two-tier solution at first or something else), and it might take the next fifty years, but power is never given back. It's only ever taken.

Frankly, I think the ideal place to stop really, was pre-Lisbon if you don't want a superstate (in terms of bureaucracy). It had the right of level of integration and co-operation for us. I think the Euro was a mistake to begin with also. Once they brought that one in and determined to keep it, fiscal union became an absolute necessity. It might take another three recessions and half a dozen crises to get there, but the determination to keep the Euro has made fiscal union a bare requirement for economic functionality. And the EU knows it (it's literally in the FP report). It makes no sense to leave things as they are. But with abolishing the euro a political impossibility, that only leaves one road going forward. But never back. Never back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Antario wrote:

There are some misconceptions there. The Dutch army has only one army corps, and the Germans have three (both include the joined 1st Dutch German army corps). In fact the whole strength of the Dutch army is just three brigades...

My mistake, I wrote 'corps' instead of 'brigades'.

Whats the tournament army that you're painting? Lord of the Rings?

Aye. I just finished the cloaks of a dozen Black Numenoreans and three heroes. I hate painting black, it takes forever to shade and highlight properly.

Try highlighting from black with vomit brown mixed in, then wash with black shade. Crazy I know but it works. I got that from Dead Marsh Spectre in the GBHL.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I got to thinking about the fishing industry today. Scotland's in particular. If the Tories had any sense they'd give Scotland this simple choice; stay within the UK and enjoy devolved control over your fishing industry again, or go down the SNP route and let the EU take it over completely and quite likely make a balls up out of it.

Prior to the Brexit fiasco Micheal Gove said that Scotland should be granted full authority over Scottish agricultural and fisheries policy in the event of a leave vote. Granted that was Gove but May could still carry this through in an attempt to placate Scotland, and gain the 'united' approach to Brexit she apparently wants.

The EU hasn't made a balls up of it, the fishing industry did that all by itself by overfishing. There will still be quotas no matter what happens and while there will be fewer/no Spanish trawlers in inshore waters (probably) they will still be on the offshore grounds.

I almost forgot; if the EU aren't responsible for their claiming of the credit for the Olympic medals, why is the EU parliament tweeting it?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Europarl_EN/status/767691960920440832

And it's true that the fishing industry did screw itself over but the EU only made things worse. Simple fact is, we can now keep the quota at the same level but give all of it to the UK fleet.

Nigel Farage screwed over the UK fishing industry.

He was the UK member on the EU Fisheries committee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I almost forgot; if the EU aren't responsible for their claiming of the credit for the Olympic medals, why is the EU parliament tweeting it?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Europarl_EN/status/767691960920440832

And it's true that the fishing industry did screw itself over but the EU only made things worse. Simple fact is, we can now keep the quota at the same level but give all of it to the UK fleet.

Huge congratulations to all the US athletes who had success at Rio.

There, I just claimed credit for the US medals.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I almost forgot; if the EU aren't responsible for their claiming of the credit for the Olympic medals, why is the EU parliament tweeting it?

ROFLMAO! They are congratulating them. Not saying "EU did it".

"Congrats Japan for all the medals"

Just took the credit for Japan's medals there by your logic.

 Ketara wrote:
The result being that neither party had a plan or vision for the future feature in their campaign, one because they hadn't a clue, and the other because they most likely feared that it would drive people away.

So in effect you are saying Leave didn't have a plan, but Remain did they just didn't talk about it. So you are now agreeing with my point that started this which was "The Remain camp were at fault for using a flawed strategy (and in the end for not calling out the Leave group for not having an actual plan....")

 Ketara wrote:
I think the negative implications of clearly defined joint command structures aren't too bad personally, NATO has shown how it can be made to work (although there's been plenty of bumps along that road!). Sharing armed forces Netherlands/Germany style though? I think that's a bad move without general political union. YMMV.

I think that is going to be another area where we disagree. Working with friends and neighbours generally makes people better friends and neighbours. I suppose the fear is that if it breaks then whatever the other side was providing (say aircraft carriers) the other side no longer has access to. But being mutually beneficial then both sides will lose from a split, whilst working together each country can target the areas it is best at.

 Ketara wrote:
But they very deliberately left themselves a contractual backdoor whereby it could be easily be watered down.Which, considering it was half of nothing, would have effectively meant nothing was really gained to begin with. Cameron's initial requirements for future UK participation were pretty meek.

This is just fear-mongering, there is no evidence that that this was the intent, it just suspicion of strangers without the evidence (a natural human trait though). As I've said before the details of how it links to together would have had to be resolved but that doesn't mean it is 'watered down'. And as previously the idea is that they got half of nothing is just your opinion. For many people the UK got offered an awful lot out of a short negotiation period. What you are saying is that they didn't get what *you* would have liked, but that doesn't mean it was 'half of nothing' unless you are working on the principle that unless you get what you want everything else is worthless - but then that is the nature of working together as a group.

 Ketara wrote:
Unlikely, but without writing a convoluted essay on the functioning of the european currency and it's relationships to international investors and suchlike, I doubt I'll convince you otherwise. And as I'm painting a tournament army whilst typing this, I can't quite be bothered.

That's fine; I probably wouldn't have been bothered to read it all

 Ketara wrote:
Greece is in a bad place now one way or the other, but if they'd never joined the Euro, they'd be in a better place now, that much is certain.

This is a supposition. It assumes that we know how things would have been if they had stayed out of the Euro. They may have kept out of the Euro, but because of whatever circumstances their economy collapsed and the overall outcome is that their overall economic shape was still worse than it is today. Conversely they may have stayed out, prioritised the development of something else (lets say asteroid mining as an extreme example), found one that had a butt load of gold and platinum and made themselves the richest country on Earth. But the point is that it is a fallacy to take what we know today apply a different initial condition and then assume things develop in the same way. It doesn't happen like this - the system in itself is chaotic (as in not predictable) so changing the initial conditions can result in widely different outcomes. Attempting to assume the same outcomes with a different set up is a poor methodology.

 Ketara wrote:
Who knows? My original point was just a counter to your assertion that were the borders not as soft as they were, immigration would be worse here (in the UK).

Yet there is already evidence that shows that hard borders don't change things. In fact when Country's work in isolation for those areas where migrants are just passing through the quickest and simplest way to make things 'go away' is allow for people to transfer through as quickly as possible, because once the migrant arrives at the doorstep of their chosen destination they can destroy their ID and it's then that Country's issue. In all reality the immigration wouldn't be better or worse because the drivers of migration would still be the same. The difference would be how each Country managed the situation with those that are just transit countries doing their best to speed things along.

 Ketara wrote:
Puts you in the same bracket as Vince Cable.

To be fair one of the better Business Secretary's we've had in some time. Vastly superior to Sajid Javid who gave the impression of being pretty rudderless.

 Ketara wrote:
I'd give Friedman a bit more credit than that, he's a pretty famous economist with more publications than you've probably had nice breakfasts this year. He's not alone either, any economist worth his salt could predict the problems with the euro cropping up. It's not really that challenging a prediction. Shared fiscal burden and responsibility without union is just plain daft.

I don't know I 'm pretty keen on my breakfasts.... Unless he predicted exactly when, where, how and who caused each specific crisis then I stand by the point I am trying to make is that it is easy to predict calamity's and some happen and some don't. Statistically speaking some people will be more right than others. The issue is that doesn't provide any useful data points or predictions as to what to watch out for (other than it ain't going to work, which it never will if you don't work at it). All of us can make predictions and if we are sensible most will come true, but when, how, in what form, which location etc etc is actually the useful information. If you have this you can plan for the future and try and divert away from the crisis through understanding (and that doesn't mean the correct response is just don't do it). A prediction that at some point, something bad might happen to the Euro is meaningless because statistically even if it is only 1/100,000 chance, eventually it will happen. I can predict that sometime in the future the pound will both be in great and terrible shape and the England will eventually win the Euro's, but it's not particularly useful as it is just statistical inevitability (just like Leicester winning the Premier League was and will happen again to another unexpected team at some point in the future).

 Ketara wrote:

So you're saying that the watered down agreement that was half of nothing with the option to cancel it or reduce it further at a later stage is proof that integrationist train in Brussels isn't very powerful?

Again I'd argue that it wasn't half of nothing, it just didn't meet you expectations. As I've said before for some in the EU they thought we took home the kitchen sink. It's a matter of perspective.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, but considering the phrase 'ever-closer integration', the reflexive defence of the euro and schengen in the face of all problems, and all paperwork and history, and projected plans to date, I don't see a stage short of one superpower at which the project will stop. It might take a roundabout way of getting there (going to a two-tier solution at first or something else), and it might take the next fifty years, but power is never given back. It's only ever taken.

Again you are assuming that it is the only inevitable outcome which seems to be a rather jaded view. Just because there is plenty of room to make more effective/efficient cross working relationships initially doesn't mean that the only conclusion is one superstate. As less things are available to improve the changes become slower and eventually stop once everyone is comfortable with how far the joint working has gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Antario wrote:

There are some misconceptions there. The Dutch army has only one army corps, and the Germans have three (both include the joined 1st Dutch German army corps). In fact the whole strength of the Dutch army is just three brigades...

My mistake, I wrote 'corps' instead of 'brigades'.

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Sorry got to call you out on some of the utter tosh you're peddling here.

You're welcome to try. Something many people seem to forget in online debates is that the exchange of information is a good thing. If I can be proven wrong on something, I'm happy for that to be the case. Means I learned something.

Not quite outsourcing. The agreement was designed to reduce the attractiveness of risking the sea crossing from Turkey to Greece for Syrian migrants, by sending them straight back to Turkey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Turkey_relations#EU-Turkey_Deal_on_Migrant_Crisis

Precisely. It's a band aid to try and ignore the problems of the porous EU border and Schengen zone. Not all immigrants come through Turkey, and all it takes is a crisis somewhere not on the other side of Turkey and there'll be equivalent wave that the Turkey treaty does nothing for.

The point here is that the Turkey treaty is a temporary band-aid political agreement whilst the underlying issue, that of open borders without political unification, remains untouched.

Are you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._German/Dutch_Corps
In 1991 the defence ministers of The Netherlands and Germany decided to establish a binational unit to replace one German and one Dutch corps. In 1993 a treaty between the two countries was signed which resulted in two previously independent corps being amalgamated to form 1 (German/Netherlands) Corps or 1 (GE/NL) Corps consisting of one German and one Dutch division.
That's got nothing to do with the EU, it's a private National decision made between 2 Nations.

The Dutch army has precisely three corps, two of which are now integrated into the German armed forces. There's been a stated intent to merge the Navies of the two by 2018. This is seen as a first step by all involved. Don't worry, I'll substantiate.

Firstly, there's an extremely recent Germany white paper which involves pushing for a unified EU army. The full article is in the FT here:-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173,Authorised=false.html?siteedition=uk&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fe90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibtimes.co.uk%2F375860aed7b61ca2963cdf570eb6b4a1&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app#axzz47ZnQdFwu

The EU's foreign Affairs chief, the German Elmar Brok recently said (IIRC) that there needed to be a central EU military headquarters set up, and there's been talk recently of the Czech's getting involved in the existing integration between Germany and the Netherlands.

Not unlike FR-UK joint expeditionary force:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Expeditionary_Force

Without conscription and with currently military hardware/development costs pooling and consolidating will be seen more and more. Heck you were months away from sharing aircraft carriers with the French.

Either you integrate with your close neighbours or there's only calling uncle sam for help.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I almost forgot; if the EU aren't responsible for their claiming of the credit for the Olympic medals, why is the EU parliament tweeting it?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Europarl_EN/status/767691960920440832

So people can't get congratulated anymore and it's impractical to name every country in one tweet?

But if you think that's bad look at this...

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/adjusting-population-were-most-successful-181000225.html

[Sarcasm on] Look at all these countries taking away the UKs glory, it's absolutely terrible and I'm indignant; those terrible people from Grenada fixing the table to make us look worse...[Sarcasm off]

On a more worrying/rational note I see this was in the news:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scrap-human-rights-act-british-bill-of-rights-theresa-may-justice-secretary-liz-truss-a7204256.html

I particularly find this quote worrying "And we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of parliament."

I see the Mays Government is living up to expectations (and previous comments as being for the people being just words).

@ Kilkrazy

You're calling me pathetic?

Don't think for one second that because you're a mod I'll stand back and let you insult me for having different opinions.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

You're calling me pathetic?

Your 'evidence' certainly was pathetic.

If they wanted to congratulate all Eu member states at once that's fine. But the little graphic with the fictional team EU wasn't needed. That's why it looks like they're trying to claim credit for the medals.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they wanted to congratulate all Eu member states at once that's fine. But the little graphic with the fictional team EU wasn't needed. That's why it looks like they're trying to claim credit for the medals.

I realise you have a burning hatred for all things EU, but you're reaching a bit with that one.

OK, if I got the wrong of the stick I apologise.

Today marks 2 months since the referendum, and we're still no nearer to article 50 being invoked.

Spiked is saying that a bloodless coup has been launched against British democracy, and it's not hard to disagree with that.

Max Keiser is calling it "Schrodinger's BREXIT," and he's bang on the money.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-oppose-the-bloodless-coup-against-brexit-article-50-eu/18685#.V7w-wE0rI2w

We've been here before with this debate on dakka

The same people will be saying we need a plan, get a team together, don't spook the markets, it's non-binding etc etc

and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.

But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...

I predict dark times ahead if this continues...

I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy

How much are you willing to bet? I mean, I've been out of 40K a while, but if you're willing to lay enough down I could do with a whole new everything-from-FW-ever.

 motyak wrote:

I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy

How much are you willing to bet? I mean, I've been out of 40K a while, but if you're willing to lay enough down I could do with a whole new everything-from-FW-ever.

I think the evidence is overwhelming.

My head of state, and yours, incidentally, is an unelected monarch.

We have an un-elected Prime Minister, who got the job because of a Conservative party intrigue. The British people never got a say on this at a General Election

We have an un-elected second chamber, that can pass laws, the house of lords...

And now we have a concentrated campaign by lawyers, judges, the media, and the losing side, to over-turn a democratic referendum becuase they don't like the result.

I rest my case

Seriously, Democracy, they're going to talk about democracy in Britain!!! Don't make me laugh.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Today marks 2 months since the referendum, and we're still no nearer to article 50 being invoked.

Spiked is saying that a bloodless coup has been launched against British democracy, and it's not hard to disagree with that.

Max Keiser is calling it "Schrodinger's BREXIT," and he's bang on the money.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-oppose-the-bloodless-coup-against-brexit-article-50-eu/18685#.V7w-wE0rI2w

We've been here before with this debate on dakka

The same people will be saying we need a plan, get a team together, don't spook the markets, it's non-binding etc etc

and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.

But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...

I predict dark times ahead if this continues...

Dark times? Is that some sort of threat?

May has never said that article 50 will not be invoked, it's just a matter of when. However the country should not be prepared to jump ship without sorting things out to satisfy the twitchy pride of Euro-sceptic Leave hardliners.
You may have won, but we'll be fethed if we allow impatience to take the UK down the gakker to satisfy your bloody ego.

Get back in your box.

When I said 'dark times' I wasn't talking about myself. When it's all said and done, I'm a democrat at the end of the day who believes in non-violence.

The most extreme thing I would do would be to hold a banner outside of Parliament.

Unfortunately, you, I, and everybody else on dakka, don't speak for the rest of the nation.

Who knows what people will do if they feel betrayed by the result. That's the point I'm making. I wasn't advocating violence. Apologies if it came across that way.

To answer your other points r_squared, IMO, all this talk about us not being ready is pure horsegak. What have they been doing these past 2 months? painting the Sistine chapel?

C'mon, if not now, when?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.

But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...

I predict dark times ahead if this continues...

Well we are because a Democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives", which we do have. The fact that it is significantly skewed to two large parties makes it a pseudo-democracy at best because the elected representatives don't fairly represent the voting population. What we can say though that having a referendum isn't actually democracy because it isn't a 'system of government'. It's about giving the public a voice on one particular issue; however the elected representatives are still responsible for running the Country, no referendum gives the population the say as to how it is run.

In reality if the Government decide to progress or not progress with leaving the EU that is their responsibility as the elected representatives and they are expected to do this on behalf of the Country. If by 2020 things are not proceeding satisfactorily then the Democracy in this Country indicates that you get to vote for an alternative elected representative (as we all do). In reality if we wanted a referendum based decision making system then everything should go to referendums (including speed limits, school opening times etc etc) but we don't because it would be chaos.

You have to remember that the Government not only has to consider those that wish to Leave, but those that wish to Remain as well. With a swing majority of only 700,000 they ended up with the worst possible result because no side is going to be content to sit back and let things flow.

To be honest given what is going on I'm starting to believe that the battle for the hearts and minds of the UK has only just started; the way both the Leave and Remain camps are ramping up the rhetoric makes me believe they do too.

Action needs to be taken against the government to ensure that they don't wriggle out of BREXIT.

By action, I mean democratic methods:

Writing letters

Peaceful protest outside Parliament

Lobbying MPs

and if need be, packing the House of Commons with UKIP MPs. If that's what it takes, so be it...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.

But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...

I predict dark times ahead if this continues...

Well we are because a Democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives", which we do have. The fact that it is significantly skewed to two large parties makes it a pseudo-democracy at best because the elected representatives don't fairly represent the voting population. What we can say though that having a referendum isn't actually democracy because it isn't a 'system of government'. It's about giving the public a voice on one particular issue; however the elected representatives are still responsible for running the Country, no referendum gives the population the say as to how it is run.

In reality if the Government decide to progress or not progress with leaving the EU that is their responsibility as the elected representatives and they are expected to do this on behalf of the Country. If by 2020 things are not proceeding satisfactorily then the Democracy in this Country indicates that you get to vote for an alternative elected representative (as we all do). In reality if we wanted a referendum based decision making system then everything should go to referendums (including speed limits, school opening times etc etc) but we don't because it would be chaos.

You have to remember that the Government not only has to consider those that wish to Leave, but those that wish to Remain as well. With a swing majority of only 700,000 they ended up with the worst possible result because no side is going to be content to sit back and let things flow.

To be honest given what is going on I'm starting to believe that the battle for the hearts and minds of the UK has only just started; the way both the Leave and Remain camps are ramping up the rhetoric makes me believe they do too.

That pre-referendum leaflet we all got said in black and white that the result would be implemented.

As I've said before, the British people voted in good faith on June 23rd. If their decision is not implemented, then British democracy is dead...

I get what you're saying, but this is too important to be left to lawyers, judges, newspapers, et al...