UK & EU Politics Thread

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.

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That 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?

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.

That's fun because the UK is THe example of a successful state that's not a nation state, but made out of different parts (England, Scotland, NI and Wales) each with their own quirks but ultimately pooling their sovereignty in a common structure.

A nation-state is, for example, France or Denmark.

**Kilkrazy**

That's an interesting perspective on things.

Other examples of successful states that are not nation states include Belgium, Germany, Italy and the USA.

Of course there are also examples of unsuccessful nation states such as Iraq and Syria.

On the plus side, Afghanistan joined Test Cricket so they've got something good going on.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind

It's a blatant power grab by the EU and a naked attempt to undercut NATO, the shield that protected Western Europe for decades. The idea that the EU preserved peace in Europe is risible nonsense. It was thousands of American military personnel hanging around West Germany that preserved the peace, not the EEC.

If European NATO members want to get together to save money on stuff and pool resources on major projects then that's fine by me, and they should bring it up at the NATO council, but as far as I'm concerned, the EU has no business sticking its nose into NATO. It should keep the hell away.

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.

I think you need to stand back and look at what NATO actually does and is there for. It is there as a mutual defence organisation in times of war. It provides no other benefits to the nations that are within it and they may not get involved anyway (look at the Falklands for example). Given that Trumps rhetoric the greatest asset of NATO is looking less supportive, so it is not unsurprising that they want more surety. With a joint defence initiative a lot of small isolated areas that would get ignored by NATO will still result in the allies rallying around to help them (for example if Turkey tried to annex the rest of Cyprus how likely is it that NATO would get involved?). Additionally it provides security in times of humanitarian disaster. Suppose there was an earthquake off the coast of Malta that tragically caused Tsunami's and collapsed buildings. With an EU defence force there could be a coordinated response to helping an ally and friend in distress by all the nations. There are more uses of a military than defending against an angry bear.

You aren't really putting forward any rational arguments about why it is a bad idea, only that it is a 'power grab' whilst doing your best impression of Ian Paisley yelling "Never, never, never"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sentinel1 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?

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.

There's more to the EU vote than this though. There was the general vote against the UK government for its policies; a natural human trait to blame someone else when things are going badly; unfounded fear of migrants (and in some cases outright bigotry and racism); unfounded fear that the EU were taking over the UK and so on. UK politicians didn't help here, if things went wrong it's all finger pointing and the EU was an 'easy target', it's the populaces fault for just accepting what they are told (generally); it's the wealthy who try and influence circumstances so it benefits them regardless of the cost to society and so on.

Realistically we need a global nation because it is the only way we are going to solve the worlds problems. Resources are getting more difficult to extract and we demand more as a global populace. Global warming is going to have massive impacts on food production, land that can lived on. This will cause mass migration over the next 100 -200 years (we haven't seen anything yet). Acting as individual nations in these circumstances will only eventually lead to wars as the resources get thinner, this is a natural animal response to lack of resources (assuming a bug doesn't kill 75% of us off first). What we need is a global union that can make decisions on global issues and that gets spread down to smaller and smaller groups of government so that the high level policies can be applied effectively in different areas.

**Kilkrazy**

In the long course of history there are many cycles of growth of larger unified states and their dissolution into smaller political entities. In European history of the past 100 years, for example, we have seen the Austro-Hungarian Empire split into nations like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, which were incorporated into the Hitlerian and Soviet empires, freed, then split apart into smaller nations, then joined into the EU.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

On the subject on EU membership, we all know that certain criteria have to be followed if a nation wishes to join the EU. For example, if you're a bloodthirsty dictatorship with an appalling record of human rights abuses, you're unlikely to get the green light from Brussels.

Croatia is an interesting example. The EU itself highlighted numerous red flags prior to Croatian membership. The judiciary was seen as being non-independent. The police force was seen as being corrupt and complicit in harsh treatment of suspects, and bribery was an effective way of getting on in the various levels of Croatian government and the civil service.

The EU's response? Roll out the red carpet. Expansionism was everything.

To sum up, as bad as Britain is getting these days, I'll take no lessons in morals and ethics from the EU.

**jhe90**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On the subject on EU membership, we all know that certain criteria have to be followed if a nation wishes to join the EU. For example, if you're a bloodthirsty dictatorship with an appalling record of human rights abuses, you're unlikely to get the green light from Brussels.

Croatia is an interesting example. The EU itself highlighted numerous red flags prior to Croatian membership. The judiciary was seen as being non-independent. The police force was seen as being corrupt and complicit in harsh treatment of suspects, and bribery was an effective way of getting on in the various levels of Croatian government and the civil service.

The EU's response? Roll out the red carpet. Expansionism was everything.

To sum up, as bad as Britain is getting these days, I'll take no lessons in morals and ethics from the EU.

Greece too... They where not meeting the legal EU membership criteria on economics before they joined. There seems to have been rampant tax dodging too on top.
But the union must grow regard less.

Even considering Turkey, a economicly vastly different nation to mainland Europe when right to work could have kicked in..
Also rather... Well now authoritarian.

**Kilkrazy**

Interestingly, Turkey became authoritarian following a period in which they were keen to get membership and were refused because of their bad human rights. Perhaps it would have been better to let them in, which would have strengthened the liberal democratic wing of the population.

**jhe90**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Interestingly, Turkey became authoritarian following a period in which they were keen to get membership and were refused because of their bad human rights. Perhaps it would have been better to let them in, which would have strengthened the liberal democratic wing of the population.

Maybe. But also been a difficult growth phase.
There so very different to the Central Europe nations, in cultures, region and religion.

It might not have gone down as well in some of the other member states who views and barely match from more tolerant to the ones with heavy border fences or refusing refugees.

And I mean there would have had to been a big commitment to human rights required, would have had to been key to there membership commitment.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Croatia is an interesting example. The EU itself highlighted numerous red flags prior to Croatian membership. The judiciary was seen as being non-independent. The police force was seen as being corrupt and complicit in harsh treatment of suspects, and bribery was an effective way of getting on in the various levels of Croatian government and the civil service.

The EU's response? Roll out the red carpet. Expansionism was everything.

To sum up, as bad as Britain is getting these days, I'll take no lessons in morals and ethics from the EU.

Can we stop the claims of expansionism, because you make it sound like EU don't care who joins and if that was the case by now they would be all the way down to Zimbabwe. The EU is set up to make a union of nations so that they work together towards one overall goal of liberties and freedoms for it's populace. You can't expect every country to have them before you start because that would mean it already existed. However if those countries slowly improve because they join the EU, then that's an improvement for the citizens in that country overall. You cannot expect every country to have the same way of operating when they join, but you can move towards it. In the case of Croatia this was the judgement that was made; yes there was corruption (it happens in the UK too) but if there is a willingness to move towards a better society then the EU make a judgement as whole as whether the intent is there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jhe90 wrote:

Greece too... They where not meeting the legal EU membership criteria on economics before they joined. There seems to have been rampant tax dodging too on top.
But the union must grow regard less.

This is completely misrepresenting what happened with Greece. They colluded with the banks to present better finances than they had in reality. By doing this they met the EU criteria. The rules have now changed and the EU learnt from this, at most the EU had a naïve approach to assessing finances (generally) because they missed that countries could do this. However they didn't just ignore the finances of Greece, because the way that Greece parcelled up its finances did allow them to meet the criteria.

**A Town Called Malus**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As much as I dislike the EU, I think they deserve some credit for the masterful propaganda trick they have played on some sections of the British public.

They have managed to convince people that black is white and white is black.

I am of course talking about EU funding. Considering that Britain was a net contributor, talk of EU funding cuts is a red herring.

The EU have been bribing us for years with our own money, and yet, they talked us into thinking this was a generous act from Brussells.

Like I said, a masterclass in propaganda. Fair play to the EU for pulling it off.

Difference being that the EU actually put that money towards these programs, along with regeneration programs etc.

Do you really think the UK government is going to do the same? That is exactly why it is not propaganda that the EU funds us, because without that money coming from the EU those sectors would get feth all because our governments are fething morons who don't understand the benefits of spending government money on the sciences and improving impoverished areas.

**AlmightyWalrus**

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

Even if you weren't wrong, which we've already established that you are, arguing against a normative argument with the statement that you don't have to do what is being argued is disingenious. Add in the dogwhistle of questioning the legitimacy of the people fleeing and we get yet another quality post.

**reds8n**

https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-exports-to-asia-surge-calming-nerves-over-protectionist-backlash-1498051572?mod=e2tweu#

German Exports to Asia Surge, Calming Nerves Over Protectionist Backlash
Exports to China rose 12% in first four months of year

FRANKFURT—German exports to Asia are rising strongly this year in a trend that could mitigate the risks to Europe’s largest economy should U.S. President Donald Trump make good on his protectionist promises.

Figures released on Wednesday showed Germany’s exports to China rising around 12% in the first four months of the year compared with the same period in 2016. Exports to India rose by a similar rate, while shipments to Indonesia and Vietnam jumped more than 20% each from January to April 2016, according to the Federal Statistical Office.

“We are benefiting from our excellent positioning in East Asia and strong demand for consumer electronics,” said Robert Saller, a managing director at DELO, a family-run producer of special adhesives for electronic devices. China last year became DELO’s biggest market, relegating Germany to second place.

German exports to the U.S. and to European Union members are also growing—albeit at slower rates—but the outlook is vulnerable to the threat of rising U.S. protectionism and the U.K.’s exit from the European Union. Economists warn that a U.S.-led shift away from free trade will hurt economic growth and prosperity globally.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized Germany for its large trade surplus with the U.S. and threatened to impose tariffs on German car imports. But action by the U.S. administration has proved modest while German businesses have remained committed to the large U.S. market.

German exports to the U.S. rose 3.9% in the first four months of 2017 from the same period last year. Exports to the U.K. fell by around 4%.

Given increased tensions between Europe and the U.S. over issues such as climate and free trade, European leaders have redoubled efforts to cultivate China. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang met in Berlin earlier this month, and Mr. Li stressed that both parties were “in favor of fostering free trade and the simplification of investment.”

German businesses’ rising exports to Asia draw on a long record in the region. Economists say that China’s One Belt, One Road initiative—-a series of vast infrastructure projects to connect mainland China with the rest of the continent-—will open up more opportunities for trade.

Last year, China became Germany’s largest trading partner, with combined imports and exports of almost €200 billion ($223 billion).

Five years from now, the Europe Union’s export revenues with Asia will be almost twice its export revenues with the U.S., estimated Charles-Edouard Bouée, chief executive of Roland Berger. “We are very positive on the outlook for Asia,” Mr. Bouée said.

The regional shift is already visible in Germany’s trade statistics today. New data by the Federal Statistical Office show that German companies exported goods worth €66.9 billion to Asia in the first four months of this year, compared with shipments of €37.4 billion to the U.S.

German companies’ reputation for quality engineering and a mix of specialized goods, including capital goods used to build factories and infrastructure, have long been a vital ingredient in the country’s export prowess.

Germany is the third largest exporter in the world after China and the U.S. and exposed to a variety of regions, which has helped the country’s exporters weather economic shocks in specific markets in the past.

Germany
Trade balance with Germany: -£25.48 billion
The U.K. imports £70.24 billion in goods and services from Germany and exports £44.76 billion.

**Compel**

It's as if someone getting one thread locked wasn't enough to satisfy them that they would say more things in an endeavour to get another locked...

So, onto other things, Brexit negotiations have started, May has released a press statement summary about their intentions, with the full detail to be discussed on Monday.

Naturally, despite this just being essentially a summary of a position, it's apparently 'below expectations' from Tusk. Conversely, Macron and Merkel seem a little measured in their replies.

It would definitely seem that Tusk is perfectly happy to play games with the 'court of public opinion' to cause issues during the negotiations.

Meanwhile, on the other side, we have Andrea Leadsom, who nearly became Prime Minister, has turned on the BBC and the media as a whole as being 'unpatriotic' when it comes to Brexit. I don't like being too political, but seriously, thank flip we dodged a bullet there.

I have my own, many, many issues, with the media as a whole, but it hasn't been and should never be their job to be patriotic. It's their job to ask questions, get answers and to tell the truth, no matter what side, the truth should be the truth. And if it's a complicated truth, SAY THAT.

**Ketara**

It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.

**r_squared**

Ketara wrote:
It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.

I thought that the EU wanted the whole process to be transparent, and it was the UK who wanted to keep things hush hush?
It's odd that one side is happy to negotiate in the open, whereas another side wants to keep the negotiations away from their electorate. It's a real puzzler that they should do that.

**Ketara**

r_squared wrote:
Ketara wrote:
It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.

I thought that the EU wanted the whole process to be transparent, and it was the UK who wanted to keep things hush hush?
It's odd that one side is happy to negotiate in the open, whereas another side wants to keep the negotiations away from their electorate. It's a real puzzler that they should do that.

Transparency is one thing, playing to the peanut gallery another. One involves simply making information available to those who want it, the other involves adding commentary designed to produce a certain kind of reaction and actively soliciting commentary of a specific bent.

I personally do not believe the most productive way to conduct an agreement involving hundreds of billions of pounds of business and millions of people's lives is by acting like its the latest development in last night's showing of Big Brother. Doing so simply makes the EU officials involved look like those who actually do Big Brother; namely a bunch of desperate attention seeking E list celebrities portraying grotesquely exaggerated personas and opinions to try and get people to feel a certain way about them for the next round of voting.

If that's how they want to conduct affairs though? What the heck. Let the circus run riot and the children have their fun. Let both sides continually leak poisonous comments on the negotiations until the whole thing falls apart in bitter acrimonious dispute.

**jhe90**

Ketara wrote:
r_squared wrote:
Ketara wrote:
It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.

I thought that the EU wanted the whole process to be transparent, and it was the UK who wanted to keep things hush hush?
It's odd that one side is happy to negotiate in the open, whereas another side wants to keep the negotiations away from their electorate. It's a real puzzler that they should do that.

Transparency is one thing, playing to the peanut gallery another. One involves simply making information available to those who want it, the other involves adding commentary designed to produce a certain kind of reaction and actively soliciting commentary of a specific bent.

I personally do not believe the most productive way to conduct an agreement involving hundreds of billions of pounds of business and millions of people's lives is by acting like its the latest development in last night's showing of Big Brother. Doing so simply makes the EU officials involved look like those who actually do Big Brother; namely a bunch of desperate attention seeking E list celebrities portraying grotesquely exaggerated personas and opinions to try and get people to feel a certain way about them for the next round of voting.

If that's how they want to conduct affairs though? What the heck. Let the circus run riot and the children have their fun. Let both sides continually leak poisonous comments on the negotiations until the whole thing falls apart in bitter acrimonious dispute.

Hmmm. This deal is too big for the gutter whispers press snippits and little silly games.
It's deciding the status of two large economic nations, diplomatic situations, the lives of millions of citizens abroad for both.

I think the UK is right to want to keep things behind closed doors

**Howard A Treesong**

If the UK offer is so disappointing why don't they make a counter proposal? We're trying to address the future of both our citizens and theirs remember? Tusk and EU leaders do care about EU citizens in the UK right?

**jhe90**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
If the UK offer is so disappointing why don't they make a counter proposal? We're trying to address the future of both our citizens and theirs remember? Tusk and EU leaders do care about EU citizens in the UK right?

i mean it is a negotiation... ^^^

Most people don't start at there max, they work up from a lower level and you meet at a level where both can compromise

**Mr. Burning**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
If the UK offer is so disappointing why don't they make a counter proposal? We're trying to address the future of both our citizens and theirs remember? Tusk and EU leaders do care about EU citizens in the UK right?

The UK government would have been better served in announcing guaranteed status for Eu citizens living in the UK during Brexit campaigning or by confirming the status after the vote was declared.

Magnanimity as a counter to negativity. Ease doubts and appear offer an open palm.

Now? This offer is wasted, a no brainer and nothing the EU needs to bow and scrape to us over. I would be surprised if the EU doesn't reciprocate but its not a deal that makes or breaks negotiations.

**Kilkrazy**

The basic EU position is that it's the UK who want to leave, so it's the UK's job to do the grunt work of working out what the UK wants from leaving. This actually is perfectly reasonable.

Since the UK has put forward some proposals on the future status of citizens, though, the ball is now in the EU's court to reply.

The problem is that the UK proposals fall very far short of a workable solution. They look as if the Maybot scribbled out on the back of the envelope of the letter that the EU sent to invite her to the summit, while she was on the plane.

Although the ZM has been busy with her excellent empowering election for several months, there still is a civil service who could have been instructed to come up with a range of solutions and detailed drill-down for each of them. It's been a year, after all.

Perfectly obviously absolutely nothing has been done by Maybot, Bozza or Davey Davis. Months ago Private Eye said that DefXEU was being staffed up with only the people too stupid to realise what a cluster-feth it's going to be, or to weak and inexperienced to avoid being drafted. Clearly they were right.

Imagine the performance of our government as it wallows in the wake of the EU powering towards new trade deals with China and India, etc. and tries to replace the deals we are pulling out of at the same time.

We are so, so fethed.

**Future War Cultist**

That's assuming that the EU manages to survive both the migrant crisis and the Euro debt crisis, which I'm doubtful it will. And the EU takes years to create trade deals because surprise surprise trying to get something that suits 27 wildly different countries is very difficult. I don't deny that the current band in charge are half wits but this is bigger than them.

**Kilkrazy**

I'm not doubtful. The EU will be fine.

Remember the trade deal with Canada that was simultaneously held up as an example of the EU's dreadful lack of centralisation and as an example of the EU's dreadful centralisation?

It passed. We are currently benefitting from it and will continue to do so until late March 2019. Then we will have to negotiate a new deal.

**jhe90**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not doubtful. The EU will be fine.

Remember the trade deal with Canada that was simultaneously held up as an example of the EU's dreadful lack of centralisation and as an example of the EU's dreadful centralisation?

It passed. We are currently benefitting from it and will continue to do so until late March 2019. Then we will have to negotiate a new deal.

THat one took forever and road blocked by a small state parliment of a few million in a group of 500 million.
yeah,, stuff just does not get done.

**Kilkrazy**

And yet it got done.

**Future War Cultist**

That would be the same deal that some in Spain are also bellyaching about now wouldn't it?

If it was just the UK and Canada I'm sure it would have been done in the third of the time.

**Kilkrazy**

I'm not.

**jhe90**

Kilkrazy wrote:
And yet it got done.

While that system may work for a small number of Nations, the size of the EU does make pleasing every nation hard, and maybe regonal trade agreements may be better?

ie central, eastern, and med coastal areas, nordic zone etc that reflect the various economic differences and wages etc?
tweak them abit to work for nations and regions as a pan euro deal... well, kinda has to be a jack of all trades

**Kilkrazy**

There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.

Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?

**jhe90**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.

Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?

Free trade, not much. However also though the wage gaps and such across the union have presented work migration issues and added some stress into the system in places. Te whole free movement, free work rights yes, good.

However they seem to need a control too, as with such economic divides going on for sake of everyone there needs to be a control mechanism until things do level to a degree where both do not negatively effect the other.