Politics, politics, politics

[glasgowspur]

It was set up for that reason as much as any other, but evolved over time. It began with the European Coal and Steel Community and one of the stated aims was that "it would make war between member states impossible." This was the basis for what became the European Union.

Really, with Russian troops on German soil and American troops in just about every contetintal European and UK country the chances of a war between any other European countries was nil.
Not mention the economies of mine of the countries being in a position to support itself

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/943062301086765057

 

[the dza]

Really, with Russian troops on German soil and American troops in just about every contetintal European and UK country the chances of a war between any other European countries was nil.
Not mention the economies of mine of the countries being in a position to support itself

Well you were talking facts with who invaded who, De Gaulle veto etc. I am just stating another fact, that one of the stated aims of the European Coal and Steel Community was to make war between members impossible. So in setting up what was the basis for the future EU, this was in their thinking. And it makes a lot of sense (it probably made even more sense in 1950).

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

Firstly, it was intended to prevent further war between France and Germany and other states[8] by tackling the root cause of war.[8] The ECSC was primarily conceived with France and Germany in mind: "The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries."[8] The coal and steel industries being essential for the production of munitions, Schuman believed that by uniting these two industries across France and Germany under an innovative supranational system that also included a European anti-cartel agency, he could "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"

 

[glasgowspur]

Well you were talking facts with who invaded who, De Gaulle veto etc. I am just stating another fact, that one of the stated aims of the European Coal and Steel Community was to make war between members impossible. So in setting up what was the basis for the future EU, this was in their thinking. And it makes a lot of sense (it probably made even more sense in 1950).

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

Firstly, it was intended to prevent further war between France and Germany and other states[8] by tackling the root cause of war.[8] The ECSC was primarily conceived with France and Germany in mind: "The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries."[8] The coal and steel industries being essential for the production of munitions, Schuman believed that by uniting these two industries across France and Germany under an innovative supranational system that also included a European anti-cartel agency, he could "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"

That' a good ploy, include a stated aim that you have little control over and then claim credit when it achieves stated aim.
Both sides knew another war between then would to both sides being swallowed up by the superpowers, at the very best.

 

[the dza]

That' a good ploy, include a stated aim that you have little control over and then claim credit when it achieves stated aim.
Both sides knew another war between then would to both sides being swallowed up by the superpowers, at the very best.

I'm not sure that would have been the thinking in the 1950s, it's easy to say that now from the comfort of decades of peace in Western Europe. But that's just my opinion, the same as what you are saying is your opinion. What they said their aims were, that's factual and a matter of historical record.

 

[glasgowspur]

I'm not sure that would have been the thinking in the 1950s, it's easy to say that now from the comfort of decades of peace in Western Europe. But that's just my opinion, the same as what you are saying is your opinion. What they said their aims were, that's factual and a matter of historical record.

I don't for one minute doubt the good intentions of some of the parties behind the deal, it wasn't the first time these deals had been tried, but they usually always failed.
Mostly because they were undermined by vested interests.
This time the Marshall plan and Russian counter to it that I can't remember the name for off hand negated those vested interests.

This time bigger powers then Germany and France were in the wings waiting to slap them down, or take advantage.

British was trade power with the rest of the world was a major stumbling block for Europe, and had been for centuries.
That power was in decline and the EU speeded that decline. It was one of the conditions of our entry. It was handled very badly by both sides. Not as badly as it's being handled now though, and that for me is the saddest bit of all this. Nothing seems to have been learnt.

 

[the dza]

I don't for one minute doubt the good intentions of some of the parties behind the deal, it wasn't the first time these deals had been tried, but they usually always failed.
Mostly because they were undermined by vested interests.
This time the Marshall plan and Russian counter to it that I can't remember the name for off hand negated those vested interests.

This time bigger powers then Germany and France were in the wings waiting to slap them down, or take advantage.

British was trade power with the rest of the world was a major stumbling block for Europe, and had been for centuries.
That power was in decline and the EU speeded that decline. It was one of the conditions of our entry. It was handled very badly by both sides. Not as badly as it's being handled now though, and that for me is the saddest bit of all this. Nothing seems to have been learnt.

I think it will be ok in the end, there will be compromise. It might take this Tory government to be gone to get it, but it will settle down imo.

 

[glasgowspur]

I think it will be ok in the end, there will be compromise. It might take this Tory government to be gone to get it, but it will settle down imo.

In the long run I don' think it will a huge difference to the man in street, but the whole EU project is a missed opportunity, and one that shouldn't have been left to career politicians.

 

[the dza]

In the long run I don' think it will a huge difference to the man in street, but the whole EU project is a missed opportunity, and one that shouldn't have been left to career politicians.

In an ideal world, what would you like to have seen happen with the EU?

 

[the dza]

A quick question for you Brexit-heads:

How do we have no hard border for N.Ireland/Ireland whilst having N.Ireland subject to the same rules as the rest of the UK (as per the DUP demands)?

 

[glasgowspur]

In an ideal world, what would you like to have seen happen with the EU?

Wow that's a big one.


Free trade between all EU countries, their dependicies and former colonies on equal footing. Allowing and indeed encouraging them to trade with each other and beyond.
Any trade deals negotiated with outside bodies must be equal for all member states.

If we must a parliament and any kind of political union then I think the single country veto should be abolished. 5% vote against and it's dead.

The parliament should also be scaled back, numbers wise. Do we really need that many?
The parliament should be a level outwith national government, looking at issues that national government can't or won't tackle.
Unfortunately that won't happen.

A commitment to a common defence strategy and arms spending agreements.

Wider scope on infrastructure projects. Projects that will link countries together, either physically, culturally or financially.

There's a lot tbh, some of the ideas of the EU are good in principle, the euro, but badly implemented, fudged or rushed.

FOM is another , great idea until the former eastern bloc countries joined. It should have been gradually implemented for them.

 

[Gutter Boy]

A quick question for you Brexit-heads:

How do we have no hard border for N.Ireland/Ireland whilst having N.Ireland subject to the same rules as the rest of the UK (as per the DUP demands)?

Northern Ireland will have a voting age republican majority by the time the transition period ends. A border poll in 2021 will solve everything permanently.

 

[Gutter Boy]

In an ideal world, what would you like to have seen happen with the EU?

For me. Fall apart. And replaced by a completely new body based on the current European Council (i.e. no Commission or Parliament). Basically reset things to before they went off track with Maastricht.

I'd also invite Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Korea and Japan (and others - Mexico, Brazil, Argentina?) to join

 

[the dza]

Northern Ireland will have a voting age republican majority by the time the transition period ends. A border poll in 2021 will solve everything permanently.

But there is no guarantee of a border poll. So, in tangible terms, how is this issue solved? I'm not talking about what you think might happen in an ideal world, but rather the world as it is, which is the world our government and the EU have to negotiate around.

 

[the dza]

Northern Ireland will have a voting age republican majority by the time the transition period ends. A border poll in 2021 will solve everything permanently.

I can hear the phone call now.

Arlene: "How are the negotiations going?"

May: "Er *gurn* well the plan is, we've all agreed that we'll just wait a few years and hope there's a border poll, then you lot can leave the UK and join the Republic."

Arlene: "You better go back in there and tell them that's not going to happen."

May: "Well, of course, right away Arlene...Arlene? Are you still there?"

 

[Gutter Boy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/943037113406238720

Perfect. Where do we sign?

 

[the dza]

Wow that's a big one.


Free trade between all EU countries, their dependicies and former colonies on equal footing. Allowing and indeed encouraging them to trade with each other and beyond.
Any trade deals negotiated with outside bodies must be equal for all member states.

If we must a parliament and any kind of political union then I think the single country veto should be abolished. 5% vote against and it's dead.

The parliament should also be scaled back, numbers wise. Do we really need that many?
The parliament should be a level outwith national government, looking at issues that national government can't or won't tackle.
Unfortunately that won't happen.

A commitment to a common defence strategy and arms spending agreements.

Wider scope on infrastructure projects. Projects that will link countries together, either physically, culturally or financially.

There's a lot tbh, some of the ideas of the EU are good in principle, the euro, but badly implemented, fudged or rushed.

FOM is another , great idea until the former eastern bloc countries joined. It should have been gradually implemented for them.

That all seems quite reasonable. FOM is our fault really, it's Britain who pushed for the eastwards expansion of the EU and in a twist of fate, it's that which has been the driver of UKIP and subsequently, the referendum and vote to leave.

Re. defence, so you would look to move away from NATO?

 

[Gutter Boy]

But there is no guarantee of a border poll. So, in tangible terms, how is this issue solved? I'm not talking about what you think might happen in an ideal world, but rather the world as it is, which is the world our government and the EU have to negotiate around.

Sinn Fein are 1 seat or 38,000 voters behind the DUP, and that is shrinking literally every minute (due to higher republican birth rate 18 years ago). As soon as they become the biggest party, everything will fall into place. That's the end game, and everything now is just stalling, waiting for that to happen.

Love (the physical embodiment of it) will solve Northern Ireland

 

[the dza]

Sinn Fein are 1 seat or 38,000 voters behind the DUP, and that is shrinking literally every minute (due to higher republican birth rate 18 years ago). As soon as they become the biggest party, everything will fall into place. That's the end game, and everything now is just stalling, waiting for that to happen.

That doesn't change the fact that, right now, The DUP are propping up a Tory government. Do you honestly think they will just go along with the stalling, with nothing down on paper, legally securing the future of N. Ireland, the border question re. the EU and all the rest of it? Do they not know the information that you are privy to?

Theresa May already tried to pull a fast one with them in the first phase of the negotiations and Arlene Foster told her to phuck off. Even if what you are saying could come to pass, there is no way the DUP will sit back and let it happen. They will withdraw support for the Tories and see them collapse, as the DUP would rather see Corbyn in number 10 but remain part of the UK under a "soft brexit" deal, than keep the Tories in power and end up leaving the Union.

 

[glasgowspur]

That all seems quite reasonable. FOM is our fault really, it's Britain who pushed for the eastwards expansion of the EU and in a twist of fate, it's that which has been the driver of UKIP and subsequently, the referendum and vote to leave.

Re. defence, so you would look to move away from NATO?

As a concept the EU was/is a good idea. Implementation is not so good, it's been taken over, side tracked or just badly mismanaged at so many times that it's almost a basket case.

No I wouldn't want to leave NATO,, I see nothing stopping us (as in whatever form the new EU force would take) staying in.