163 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

Lord Vetinari, on 24 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

the EU could surely only possibly argue that for the 20 years since 1990, since before that it was the US & NATO on one side and the Warsaw Pact on the other, and the EU was frankly pretty irrelevant in the middle, certainly from a military point of view. Of course, after 1990, true, peace reigned everywhere in Europe.

... er, don't mention Yugoslavia, anyone ....  

Name me a time in which the three key countries of Britain, France and Germany have been at peace for so long ?
Yugoslavia can hardly be blamed on anyone else other than the Soviet Union - of which it was a satellite nation. It was not within the remit of the EU to intervene in a sovereign nation outside of the EU.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 24 February 2013 - 10:22 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

stevewinn, on 24 February 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

after Brs history lesson, he fails to mention that the UK joined the EEC for trade and then benefits of that trade, from Britain joining the EEC to modern day the world has changed, the EU is so far removed from the what the EEC was. we went from trade and co-operation to the current situation where we are hamstrung by EU legislation, which is implemented even if its not in our interest. when you have the modern day EU forbidding the UK the worlds fifth largest economy in the world from striking its own trade deals, then we are limiting ourselves. The EU effects our everyday lives, from how our mail is delivered, to bin/rubbish collections. and that shows you just how intrusive it is.

To say the EU has kept peace in europe is laughable, and not even the mention of thousands of American troops stationed in europe. and the fact both the UK and France both gaining Nuclear weapons. - helped keep a lid on things'

the europhiles fail to mention their epic error of judgement which they gloss over, just remember this, the europhiles on here wanted to the UK to ditch the pound sterling and join the euro currency, - its now a known fact that if the UK had ditched the pound we'd have been in a depression for the last six years and on par with the Greek economy. so just bear that in mind when they spout their pro EU rubbish - just think of the massive error of judgment and the situation we'd find ourselves in to day if we'd have gone along with them. their argument was Britain needed to join the Euro, just like their argument is today we need to remain EU members.

Truth is the UK can and should go it alone, lets prove once again, they were wrong about us joining the Euro. and they will once again be proven wrong if we leave the EU. the only thing to fear is fear alone.

The nature and intent of the EEC would have been more than clear at the time of joining, and the various accords where certainly a clear indication of what was required of a member state upon joining. The EEC was never just a trading block and if you actually read about its history at that stage you would realize you are been more than a little naive.


I have addressed your frankly laugable statement about peace in Europe elsewhere. The primary stated objective of the EEC was to make a European general conflict impossible by fostering transnational cooperation between the states and a means of resolving disputes in a fair and equitable manner. Any objective analysis would show that it has achieved its primary central objective admirably.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 24 February 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[Black Red Devil]

spud the mackem, on 24 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

The poorer states are in it for one reason only Bruce,and thats to see how much Money they can grab out of it.END OF STORY.

Really Bob??  I suppose I'll have to take your word for it

[Black Red Devil]

Lord Vetinari, on 24 February 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

What the heck would you call the EU telling Greece (for instance) that they'll have to make enormous cuts in public services or they won't get the bailout from the EU that they need to stop their economy collapsing? Doesn't that sound like extortion to you? And yes, that's what the Whinging is about; the amount that's poured into the EU parliament and the EU Central Bank in order for them to be able to extort others. You don't really think that the European parliament and the European Central Bank exist purely out of an altruistic desire to help those in countries that are less fortunate, do you? Like all Banks, they exist to make themselves even richer through extortion.

So, the beef is with the Banks.  If the ECB is doing what Banks do, extort people, the problem isn't the EU but the Banking system.

[Black Red Devil]

Lord Vetinari, on 24 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

the EU could surely only possibly argue that for the 20 years since 1990, since before that it was the US & NATO on one side and the Warsaw Pact on the other, and the EU was frankly pretty irrelevant in the middle, certainly from a military point of view. Of course, after 1990, true, peace reigned everywhere in Europe.

... er, don't mention Yugoslavia, anyone ....  

EU in the middle of NATO/US and the Warsaw Pact??!!  LOL

[stevewinn]

Br Cornelius, on 24 February 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

The nature and intent of the EEC would have been more than clear at the time of joining, and the various accords where certainly a clear indication of what was required of a member state upon joining. The EEC was never just a trading block and if you actually read about its history at that stage you would realize you are been more than a little naive.


I have addressed your frankly laugable statement about peace in Europe elsewhere. The primary stated objective of the EEC was to make a European general conflict impossible by fostering transnational cooperation between the states and a means of resolving disputes in a fair and equitable manner. Any objective analysis would show that it has achieved its primary central objective admirably.

Br Cornelius

Still no acknowledgment of the thousands of US troops and armament of the UK & France with nuclear deterrents / NATO for keeping peace. and no mention of the error in judgment, for the UK to ditch the pound in favour of joining the euro currency. typical.   and you have the cheek to say others wear rose tinted glasses.

[Br Cornelius]

stevewinn, on 24 February 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Still no acknowledgment of the thousands of US troops and armament of the UK & France with nuclear deterrents / NATO for keeping peace. and no mention of the error in judgment, for the UK to ditch the pound in favour of joining the euro currency. typical.   and you have the cheek to say others wear rose tinted glasses.

NATO was there to defend Europe against foreign invasion - it never had any remit to intervene inside of Europe which makes your point rather irrelevant. Nuclear deterents apply to a small proportion of the countries of the EU and wouild never have been invoked to settle minor disputes between waring countries.
Stirling and the British economy is in as bad a way as the Euro so I do not see that staying out of the EURO zone has done Britain to many favours.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

Br Cornelius, on 24 February 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

NATO was there to defend Europe against foreign invasion - it never had any remit to intervene inside of Europe which makes your point rather irrelevant. Nuclear deterents apply to a small proportion of the countries of the EU and wouild never have been invoked to settle minor disputes between waring countries.
Stirling and the British economy is in as bad a way as the Euro so I do not see that staying out of the EURO zone has done Britain to many favours.

Br Cornelius

still, you dont give credit where credit is due, and how you can say NATO didnt play apart in peace in europe is beyond me. how many european countries are members of NATO. this fact alone would help keep the peace. - am surprised you said NATO was there to defend against Russia, surprised you have credited that to the EU along with everything else.

Has for the UK and Euro, its a fact, if the UK had joined the Euro we'd be in a worse state. in short it would have been a disaster and we'd have been in a recession for the last six years. we'd have been the same as Greece.  Nick Clegg even admitted this, and this from a politician and former MEP is pro EU in the fullest. and was in favour of us joining the Euro, along with the Liberal Democrats. so we avoided a Greece style disaster by staying out of the euro and keeping the pound. whose to say we wont be averting another similar - future disaster by leaving the EU.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 24 February 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

EU in the middle of NATO/US and the Warsaw Pact??!!  LOL

that's correct, yes, look at a map. To the left: the US, Canada & the countries in Western Europe that were part of NATO. To the right: The Warsaw Pact. In the middle, and militarily irrelevant, the EU. LOL why?

[itsnotoutthere]

Br Cornelius, on 24 February 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

There real beef is that its Johnny Foreigner telling us what to do

Br Cornelius

If by that you mean a lack of any true democracy then yes. The very same lack of democracy that made your countrymen vote twice until the right decision (for the EU) was reached.

Edited by itsnotoutthere, 24 February 2013 - 12:12 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Br Cornelius, on 24 February 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Name me a time in which the three key countries of Britain, France and Germany have been at peace for so long ?
Yugoslavia can hardly be blamed on anyone else other than the Soviet Union - of which it was a satellite nation. It was not within the remit of the EU to intervene in a sovereign nation outside of the EU.

Br Cornelius

Since 1948, but that was nothing to do with the EU, it was because of NATO and the Warsaw Pact to provide a balance of power. After the Warsaw Pact collapsed, the EU wasn't able to do anything at all to prevent the civil wars in Yugoslavia, was it, and similarly it can do nothing about the threat from Terrorism. So its argument that it's kept the peace in Europe for 60 years is irrelevant, because that was nothing to do with the EU and those threats to Peace that have occurred, it's been able to nothing about.

[Br Cornelius]

Lord Vetinari, on 24 February 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Since 1948, but that was nothing to do with the EU, it was because of NATO and the Warsaw Pact to provide a balance of power. After the Warsaw Pact collapsed, the EU wasn't able to do anything at all to prevent the civil wars in Yugoslavia, was it, and similarly it can do nothing about the threat from Terrorism. So its argument that it's kept the peace in Europe for 60 years is irrelevant, because that was nothing to do with the EU and those threats to Peace that have occurred, it's been able to nothing about.

Unfortunately I do not accept any of you statements as fair reflections of the facts. The EU played a significant and dominant part in maintaining peace across Europe but had no democratic remit to intervene in the sovereign states of former Yugoslavia. Would you have had the EU invade Yugoslavia ?? I am certain you would not.

The EU has a remit to regulate trade and disputes between its member states, and it has done so admirably. It has created a fair and equitable system of justice which is binding on all member states and which prevents illegal exploitation of a weaker state by a stronger one.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 24 February 2013 - 12:23 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

itsnotoutthere, on 24 February 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

If by that you mean a lack of any true democracy then yes. The very same lack of democracy that made your countrymen vote twice until the right decision (for the EU) was reached.

The EU is no more or less democratic than the UK government.

Br Cornelius

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Br Cornelius, on 24 February 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

The nature and intent of the EEC would have been more than clear at the time of joining, and the various accords where certainly a clear indication of what was required of a member state upon joining. The EEC was never just a trading block and if you actually read about its history at that stage you would realize you are been more than a little naive.


I have addressed your frankly laugable statement about peace in Europe elsewhere. The primary stated objective of the EEC was to make a European general conflict impossible by fostering transnational cooperation between the states and a means of resolving disputes in a fair and equitable manner. Any objective analysis would show that it has achieved its primary central objective admirably.

Br Cornelius

You really don't see that the primary stated objective of the EEC, set out, presumably, in its Holy Book {as it really does seem to be viewed with almost religious fervour by those who admire it}, to make a European general conflict impossible by fostering transnational cooperation between the states and a means of resolving disputes in a fair and equitable manner, really was completely a load of meaningless flannel, as with the geopolitical situation after 1945 that idea, that Europe would go back to fighting among themselves, was now obsolete now that the balance of power was between NATO and the Warsaw Pact? The EU is congratulatuing itself on achieving something that was pretty much meaningless. They might as well say that they've prevented a recurrence of the religious conflicts that were caused by the Reformation. And besies, they didn't, did they? They didn't make a European conflict impossible, because they had no power at all over Yugoslavia. To congratulate themselves that they'd "prevented conflict in Europe", by which they meant that they'd stopped France & Germany from going to war again, while looking the other way from Yugoslavia and saying "nothing to do with us" is frankly very, very hypocritical. If anyone's statement is frankly laughable it's the self-congratulation of the EU.

[itsnotoutthere]

Br Cornelius, on 24 February 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

The EU is no more or less democratic than the UK government.

Br Cornelius

Except of course we do get a chance to vote  them out every five years (not that theres much between them these days).
(p.s. you've used the term 'johnny foreigner' twice now & to be honest it's starting to sound a bit racist)

Edited by itsnotoutthere, 24 February 2013 - 12:32 PM.