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.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No we didn't. We havn't left yet, as people here are so fond of reminding us Leavers.

We can hold off the vote until you guys are out in two years time.

For many years Uk have been a roadblocked for further integration in the EU. This will come to an end very soon.

And a lot of the UK will probably be wishing the EU all the best. It's why I don't get all this talk from EU pundits about wanting to punish the UK for leaving. It seems obvious that, broadly speaking, the UK has never been that comfortable in the EU. It's like that mate you have, been mates for ever, you decide to go into a houseshare together and all the various things just keep on piling up and up. You've not had the big blown out argument yet, but you know that, if things continue as they are, it's going to eventually happen. Surely it's better for both people to for someone to move out before that happens and still remain mates?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund? ...

I distinctly remember your very strong anti-NATO stance. So, is there any alliance that meets your approval? Without the guaranteed support of the US, what should Europe do to defend itself against a clearly expansionist and aggressive Russia?

 feeder wrote:
Does the UK think New York would be better off outside the American Union?

I'm not the UK... but, I can dig that.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Does the UK think New York would be better off outside the American Union?

I'm not the UK... but, I can dig that.

As an upstate NYer I can agree with kicking NYC out.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Legally, the UK is still a EU member, so I hope they turn this crackpot EU defence fund into a dumpster fire with their veto, if this can be vetoed.

The future of NATO is for NATO members, which includes a few non-EU members.

The EU needs to sling its hook.

you guys gave up your veto power when you voted for Brexit.

No we didn't. We havn't left yet, as people here are so fond of reminding us Leavers.

Contrary to what some of the you hardliner brexiteers think, no, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes we can, right up until the point we actually do Leave.

The UK is essentially a lame duck when it comes to decisions regarding the future of the EU right now.
If you think you can make a decision (i.e. veto) that will affect the EU for many years to come, and then leave 2 months later, you are delusional.

"We're going to leave the EU! There's no stopping it!"

"We still want to say no to your new rules that won't affect us."

The EU has a defence fund, a foreign policy, a currency, and in order to make that currency work, fiscal union will be needed.

If that's not a nation state, then I don't know what the hell is. If Europe wants to go down that path, good luck to them, but I'm glad we're out of it.

Ii gives me no pleasure to say this, but this mass centralization of power in Brussels, this small elite holding the power, is likely to leave ordinary people cut off from the decision makers. As a result, you will see more Trumps in the future, more Brexit, and in France, all they did by electing Macron was to kick the can down the road for a few years. Those millions who voted for Le Pen will not go away. Their reasons for doing so will not go away.

The problems of a detached voting class, the migrant crisis, and southern Europe economies, are problems that the EU won't be able to handle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund? ...

I distinctly remember your very strong anti-NATO stance. So, is there any alliance that meets your approval? Without the guaranteed support of the US, what should Europe do to defend itself against a clearly expansionist and aggressive Russia?

I'm 50/50 on NATO, but if the alternative is Juncker's office running European defence policy, then I will be the first to get the NATO symbol tatooed to my bare chest!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"We're going to leave the EU! There's no stopping it!"

"We still want to say no to your new rules that won't affect us."

That's a two way street. The EU are saying that we shouldn't have a vote or a veto because we're leaving, but they still want us to contribute to EU projects, even though we're leaving. They're happy to take our money for 2 more years, but unhappy to have us voting.

They can't have it both ways.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The EU has a defence fund, a foreign policy, a currency, and in order to make that currency work, fiscal union will be needed.

If that's not a nation state, then I don't know what the hell is. If Europe wants to go down that path, good luck to them, but I'm glad we're out of it.

Ii gives me no pleasure to say this, but this mass centralization of power in Brussels, this small elite holding the power, is likely to leave ordinary people cut off from the decision makers. As a result, you will see more Trumps in the future, more Brexit, and in France, all they did by electing Macron was to kick the can down the road for a few years. Those millions who voted for Le Pen will not go away. Their reasons for doing so will not go away.

The problems of a detached voting class, the migrant crisis, and southern Europe economies, are problems that the EU won't be able to handle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund? ...

I distinctly remember your very strong anti-NATO stance. So, is there any alliance that meets your approval? Without the guaranteed support of the US, what should Europe do to defend itself against a clearly expansionist and aggressive Russia?

I'm 50/50 on NATO, but if the alternative is Juncker's office running European defence policy, then I will be the first to get the NATO symbol tatooed to my bare chest!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"We're going to leave the EU! There's no stopping it!"

"We still want to say no to your new rules that won't affect us."

That's a two way street. The EU are saying that we shouldn't have a vote or a veto because we're leaving, but they still want us to contribute to EU projects, even though we're leaving. They're happy to take our money for 2 more years, but unhappy to have us voting.

They can't have it both ways.

A defense fund...

Here's a thing. As it stands the EU nations, barely anyone meets the 2% defense GDP required for membership of NATO or is prefered.
They will need to put up some more money!

In other EU related news:

Economic fallout from Brexit not as bad as feared, though worse than pro-Brexit economists expected. Longer term prospects are 3% to 4% lower growth by 2030.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40370331

UK loses a vote in the UN, showing loss of influence and diplomatic support.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40376673

To be fair, we did treat the people living on Diego Garcia extremely unfairly.

I'm not surprised it went against us.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The EU has a defence fund, a foreign policy, a currency, and in order to make that currency work, fiscal union will be needed.

If that's not a nation state, then I don't know what the hell is.

State yes. Nation, no.

State or Nation State, who cares?

The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.

Why resist it? What's the point?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
State or Nation State, who cares?

The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.

Why resist it? What's the point?

Because we need to make sure it's the right kind of global Union.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The problems of a detached voting class, the migrant crisis, and southern Europe economies, are problems that the EU won't be able to handle.

How would those problems magically go away if the EU ceased existing? These are issues that affect all of Europe and have to be dealt with, EU or no.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
State or Nation State, who cares?

The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.

Why resist it? What's the point?

Because we need to make sure it's the right kind of global Union.

And we can best do that by having nothing to do with it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
State or Nation State, who cares?

The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.

Why resist it? What's the point?

I care, because the nation state has been the building block of the West for centuries.

A global union is likely to lead to disaster, because as much as we love Democracy, Liberty, and the rule of law, not everybody in this world shares that view, and we've seen what happens when we try to impose that on them.

I respect the fact that not every nation on Earth wants to be a Scandinavian democracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The problems of a detached voting class, the migrant crisis, and southern Europe economies, are problems that the EU won't be able to handle.

How would those problems magically go away if the EU ceased existing? These are issues that affect all of Europe and have to be dealt with, EU or no.

They are difficult problems, no question, but they're a lot easier to solve if you don't have countries like Germany that

a) invite people in by the bucket load, and try to ignore the fact that these people had to cross somebody else's country to get to Germany.

b) try and lay down the law to other sovereign nations that didn't want refugees. Germany trying to dictate to Hungary was a fething disgrace.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
State or Nation State, who cares?

The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.

Why resist it? What's the point?

Because we need to make sure it's the right kind of global Union.

And we can best do that by having nothing to do with it.

*Enter sarcasm *

Do you really want to see a world run by the Tories?

*End sarcasm*

EU has offered Brits living in the union a lifetime guarantee of all their current rights.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/position-paper-essential-principles-citizens-rights_en

What offer is Theresa May willing to give EU citizens currently living in the U.K?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The problems of a detached voting class, the migrant crisis, and southern Europe economies, are problems that the EU won't be able to handle.

How would those problems magically go away if the EU ceased existing? These are issues that affect all of Europe and have to be dealt with, EU or no.

They are difficult problems, no question, but they're a lot easier to solve if you don't have countries like Germany that

a) invite people in by the bucket load, and try to ignore the fact that these people had to cross somebody else's country to get to Germany.

b) try and lay down the law to other sovereign nations that didn't want refugees. Germany trying to dictate to Hungary was a fething disgrace.

I'd argue that Hungary is the disgrace, considering how they treat minorities. I also object to the statement that anyone "wants" refugees. The refugees would exist regardless of whether we "want" them or not, it's not Germany being humanitarian enough to take refugees that is causing the refugee flood (NATO arguably carries a whole lot of responsibility for that)*. Hungary went for the "let them drown in the Aegean" approach and were called out for being callous bastards.

Germany could have just gone "nein, not our problem" and refused to take anyone, which would've led to Greece, Italy, and the Balkan states being even more fethed than they are now, and a whole lot more dead refugees. Instead they opt to save as many as they feel they can and pushes the rest of the EU to do the same, particularly those countries that haven't done squat to help out at all. If they didn't people would be complaining that the EU is letting Eastern Europe freeload, if they do people complain that it's "violating their sovereignty". It's a no-win situation.

*On that subject, the current refugee crisis is a result of the power vacuum created after Iraqi Freedom. If I don't misremember, France and Germany refused to take part because they thought it was a bad idea. The UK and the US went ahead anyway, and now the UK is dumping responsibility for dealing with the results on the rest of the EU because you want your sovereignty back. Where's the rest of the EU's sovereignty, then? It's not like the EU can tell the UK that you can't leave because you have to clean up your mess first. "Sovereignty" is a hopelessly nebulous concept, placing it on a piedestal makes no sense.

European countries have no predefined obligation to helping "refugees."

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
European countries have no predefined obligation to helping "refugees."

Huh? Without going to all the fine print myself, the combination of the Geneva Convention and Protocol regarding the status of refugees ( http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf ) and the Common European Asylum System (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum_en) would probably have something to say about that.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
European countries have no predefined obligation to helping "refugees."

All nations that are members of the UN and signatories to the various treaties have defined moral obligations to helping refugees.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
European countries have no predefined obligation to helping "refugees."

All nations that are members of the UN and signatories to the various treaties have defined moral obligations to helping refugees.

We both know the UN is ineffectual and can't force any country to do anything. Just look at Saudi Arabia.

-Says countries have no predefined moral obligation.
-Has predefined moral obligation pointed out.
-Shifts argument to how another organisation is ineffectual.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
European countries have no predefined obligation to helping "refugees."

All nations that are members of the UN and signatories to the various treaties have defined moral obligations to helping refugees.

We both know the UN is ineffectual and can't force any country to do anything. Just look at Saudi Arabia.

UN is is massively reliant on US power and bases...
It's one of few fully independent countries, able to operate globally without allied support.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
European countries have no predefined obligation to helping "refugees."

All nations that are members of the UN and signatories to the various treaties have defined moral obligations to helping refugees.

We both know the UN is ineffectual and can't force any country to do anything. Just look at Saudi Arabia.

That does not release civilised countries from their moral obligations.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
State or Nation State, who cares?

The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.

Why resist it? What's the point?

Not all the rest of the world shares our western liberal values and culture. Do you want a political union with countries that practices stoning, beheading, amputation, female genital mutilation, treats women as second class citizens, criminalizes blasphemy, lacks the rule of law etc?

Our liberal pluralist democracies will not survive a global union, our values are simply not universal enough.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
State or Nation State, who cares?

The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.

Why resist it? What's the point?

That is a horrible idea bound for disaster and corruption. Having a united nations of all nations should be as far as it goes. Complete universal unity of the world is a pipe dream that would never work outside of the paper written by the idealists. We have had enough dissent from the referendum to leave the EU, so think what would happen if an even bigger union tried to oversee the vast world population of different and sometimes openly hostile cultures.

Why resist? Because you should never let other people walk over you and marginalise you. What's the point? People would never fully accept or be committed to make it work for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Just about every one of the professors or doctors I've talked to in the past year have said how negative brexit will be on the community. When it comes to working with other people why would they want to work with the UK over going straight to the EU? A lack of EU funding is going to cause a drastic slowing down of progress and the loss of man power as less people are coming to work here are going to make the UK a less appealing partner.

There's also the problem that many other countries aren't exactly great at sharing research and can be quite secretive about their work.

But it could have a positive, should British scientists work on their own independent projects and get some sort of major success all those other EU countries would be left out as we would have no obligation to share anything with them. Even if we fully pull out of all joint scientific research areas the EU countries will still want UK input. I think those scientific intellectual's are more concerned about how negative Brexit could be on them, but to get heard claim everyone will be worse off.

Back onto the now, I think the offer made by May was very generous to the EU over its citizens and it would end the 'uncertainty' for EU nationals. Junkers is just being an oaf as usual with Tusk trying to cause frustration for the sake of it. What the EU probably wants is some silly lifetime guarantee for all EU nationals in and entering from now until the end of the world. Our government is prepared to safeguard 3 times as many people as the EU has British ex-pats and they want more. What a farce. If people are so concerned about certainty they should apply for national citizenship be it in this country or a British ex-pat on the continent.

 Ketara wrote:
-Says countries have no predefined moral obligation.
-Has predefined moral obligation pointed out.
-Shifts argument to how another organisation is ineffectual.

Does Hungary itself have laws protecting refugees? Why should Hungary prioritize non-Hungarians over Hungarians?

April 2017 versus reality

April 2017



reality


4 minutes to move 1000 jobs & the worlds top scientists out of the UK

still Blue passports amirite ?





hat-tip : https://www.ft.com/content/aeabc2bc-573b-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f


how does it go again : " Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."