Quantcast
Should the UK remain a member of the EU - Page 744 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Anny Road

Should the UK remain a member of the EU

  

281 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the UK remain a member of the EU

    • Yes
      226
    • No
      55


Recommended Posts

The Chief Executive of Jaguar Land Rover has said he doesn't even know if they'll be able to operate in the UK after Brexit. That's at least 40,000 jobs there, add to the fact that he stated it's cheaper to make their vehicles in Slovakia then it's surely goodbye to them in any major employer capacity.

 

Edit: Coventry and it's surrounds all voted leave by big majorities. The irony of their jobs going shouldn't be lost on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that nukes the end of British and French imperial superpower status,the cold war, and allied division and occupation of Germany might have had more to do with the lack of a threat of war between the western democracies than the common market/EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chief Executive of Jaguar Land Rover has said he doesn't even know if they'll be able to operate in the UK after Brexit. That's at least 40,000 jobs there, add to the fact that he stated it's cheaper to make their vehicles in Slovakia then it's surely goodbye to them in any major employer capacity.

 

Edit: Coventry and it's surrounds all voted leave by big majorities. The irony of their jobs going shouldn't be lost on them.

 

If someone would've had a clue and thought to themselves "maybe selling off our most lucrative national assets is a bad idea" and stopped the sale to Ford and subsequently to India none of this would've happened in the first place. Thatcherite fiscal policy in action. Another reminder that the country's been sold out from under us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply pointing out it is not a fact that the reaaon we have peace is because of the eu, as you implied.

 

The main reason for peace is imo after the second world war there was no reason or desire for further conflict, but there you go. If you believe the Eu has created some type of coca cola advert where all the little kids from Europe sit on a mountain top singing songs and drinking pop I'd be the last one interfere with the fairy tale in your head.

Like I said - Nobody with any understanding of history...

 

Let's look at the two interpretations of post-war European history.

 

The Tuebrook Interpretation:

After the end of the war, a generation of politicians who had seen a bit too much killing decided to set up the kind of institutions that would head off the causes of war - United Nations, World Bank, IMF, International Criminal Court, European Court of Human Rights, the European Coal & Steel Community, etc.  

 

The stated aims of the ECSC included "It would make war between member states impossible"

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

 

The ECSC was the forerunner of the EEC, which broadened and deepened to become the EU.  The structures which make war between Member States impossible still exist (and, in the case of the Eurozone, have been significantly strengthened).  Member States have enmeshed their economies to such an extent that it is practically impossible to finance a war and to sustain the independent production of war materiel.  At the same time, they have promoted common standards for human rights and terms of trade to ease two areas of friction which often lead to conflict.  And they have established a judicial system to rule on any dispute between Member States.  

 

In 67 years no two Member States of the ECSC, the EEC or the EU have been to war with each other.  This is by design.

 

The Gnasher Interpretation:

In 1945, everybody in Europe got sick of war and decided not to fight again.  Apart from the Soviets, when they invaded Hungary.  And later Czechoslovakia.  And Turkey and Greece when they went to war over Cyprus.  And Armenia and Azerbaijan.  And Russia and Georgia.  And the CIS and Moldova in Transnistria.  And Slovenia and Croatia and Serbia and Bosnia and Kosovo.  And Russia and Ukraine.  And all the many, many guerilla campaigns and civil wars.  Apart from them, everybody in Europe had just decided that war is not the done thing.

 

 

 

It's so hard to know which version to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, those well known EU members of Russia and Chin... hold on.

Not the point. The Eu policy (backed by good ol uncle sam) of expanding its boarders to the east has only served to poke a stick at Russia, It's not done in the name of peace.

 

If you want an example of Eu countries, how are Germany and Greece getting along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said - Nobody with any understanding of history...

 

Let's look at the two interpretations of post-war European history.

 

The Tuebrook Interpretation:

After the end of the war, a generation of politicians who had seen a bit too much killing decided to set up the kind of institutions that would head off the causes of war - United Nations, World Bank, IMF, International Criminal Court, European Court of Human Rights, the European Coal & Steel Community, etc.

 

The stated aims of the ECSC included "It would make war between member states impossible"

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

 

The ECSC was the forerunner of the EEC, which broadened and deepened to become the EU. The structures which make war between Member States impossible still exist (and, in the case of the Eurozone, have been significantly strengthened). Member States have enmeshed their economies to such an extent that it is practically impossible to finance a war and to sustain the independent production of war materiel. At the same time, they have promoted common standards for human rights and terms of trade to ease two areas of friction which often lead to conflict. And they have established a judicial system to rule on any dispute between Member States.

 

In 67 years no two Member States of the ECSC, the EEC or the EU have been to war with each other. This is by design.

 

The Gnasher Interpretation:

In 1945, everybody in Europe got sick of war and decided not to fight again. Apart from the Soviets, when they invaded Hungary. And later Czechoslovakia. And Turkey and Greece when they went to war over Cyprus. And Armenia and Azerbaijan. And Russia and Georgia. And the CIS and Moldova in Transnistria. And Slovenia and Croatia and Serbia and Bosnia and Kosovo. And Russia and Ukraine. And all the many, many guerilla campaigns and civil wars. Apart from them, everybody in Europe had just decided that war is not the done thing.

 

 

 

It's so hard to know which version to believe.

Explains why non Eu countries like Denmark are always involved in punch ups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the point.

When it comes to peace, it very much is the point.

 

The Eu policy (backed by good ol uncle sam) of expanding its boarders to the east has only served to poke a stick at Russia, It's not done in the name of peace.

Borders? I can't remember talking to you before, but I'm assuming you're some sort of anti-EU type of guy?

 

If you want an example of Eu countries, how are Germany and Greece getting along?

Erm, you're going to have to go into more detail because I'm not sure what angle you're going for here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the point. The Eu policy (backed by good ol uncle sam) of expanding its boarders to the east has only served to poke a stick at Russia, It's not done in the name of peace.

 

If you want an example of Eu countries, how are Germany and Greece getting along?

NATO is not the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to peace, it very much is the point.

 

 

Borders? I can't remember talking to you before, but I'm assuming you're some sort of anti-EU type of guy?

 

 

Erm, you're going to have to go into more detail because I'm not sure what angle you're going for here.

The basic argument is being a member of the Eu is not a guarantee of peace, angry believes so, I don't.

 

The Eu policy of expanding to the east over the paat decade haa made tensiins rise, so if peace was the eu objective its failing.

 

I mentioned Greece/Germany as they are an example of two Eu countries who can no longer stand each other, although min fairness the youth of Greece did give Junker a very warm welcome the last time he went there, they bombarded him with petrol bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same argument the trident mentalist spout, we havnt had a war since we went nuclear, It's a ridiculous argument, but people buy it.

That would be a ridiculous argument, because correlation is not causation. There is no causal pathway from having nukes to preventing war; as illustrated by the many wars that nuclear armed countries have been involved in.

 

So, really not the same argument at all.

 

Read my long post above. It points to the reasons why it is practically impossible for EU Member States to go to war with each other. Better still, go away and read some European post-war history. You sorely need to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post explains a lot more than you intended.

Sorry on phone meant non eu like Norway, Iceland ECT.

 

The point stands, lots of countries are not in the Eu and have enjoyed peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a ridiculous argument, because correlation is not causation. There is no causal pathway from having nukes to preventing war; as illustrated by the many wars that nuclear armed countries have been involved in.

So, really not the same argument at all.

Read my long post above. It points to the reasons why it is practically impossible for EU Member States to go to war with each other. Better still, go away and read some European post-war history. You sorely need to do that.

Catalonia? Peace and love in the Eu..

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/10/obliged-reconsider-support-european-union/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic argument is being a member of the Eu is not a guarantee of peace, angry believes so, I don't.

Being a Member of the EU is not a guarantee of peace. I have never said that, because it's so demonstrably false. The UK alone (either on its own or as part of an international grouping) has been involved in wars in the Falklands, in the Balkans, in the Middle East, etc.

 

It is practically impossible for EU Member States to go to war with each other.

 

My phone now predicts that sentence. My phone is sick of repeating it. Please try to understand what the sentence means. You're making my phone sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic argument is being a member of the Eu is not a guarantee of peace, angry believes so, I don't.

I'm sorry, mate; you're going to have to do better than that. AoT spoke about 'member states' of the EU not going to war with each other. Your response is half a news article about Russia and China doing drills together. If that's your point, it's not very well founded in the 'reality' you were speaking about. Nobody is claiming that the EU is the solution to world peace. It certainly seems to have helped, considering the history of the region. Helped, not the only factor.

 

The Eu policy of expanding to the east over the paat decade haa made tensiins rise, so if peace was the eu objective its failing.

I assume you mean accepting other states? How has that made us less safe?

 

I mentioned Greece/Germany as they are an example of two Eu countries who can no longer stand each other, although min fairness the youth of Greece did give Junker a very warm welcome the last time he went there, they bombarded him with petrol bombs.

Well, as soon as they have a war, you might have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry on phone meant non eu like Norway, Iceland ECT.

 

The point stands, lots of countries are not in the Eu and have enjoyed peace.

And Costa Rica and Australia...

 

Lots of countries haven't had wars. Nobody is pretending that being a non-member makes war inevitable. The point (which I think I've mentioned before) is that war between Member States is practically impossible - by design. I believe that goes a long way to explaining the absence of war between Member States; it's certainly a more plausible explanation than anything you've come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×