The amount of facepalming I'm doing over this right now. whole bunch of people saying they wish they hadent voted for leave......Be nice if they had thought of that before oh I dont know voting to bloody leave
How much of the 3 million margin that "whole bunch" represents is questionable. Remember that even the head of UKIP thought he was going to lose the referendum. The urge to leave was apparantly stronger than most of the pundits thought. The fact that some may have regrets probably doesn't change that at last half the UK wanted out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding of the situation is this.
Britain voted to leave by a margin of about 4% - 52% for to 48% against leaving. This is a difference, but it's not exactly an overwhelming mandate. (And I always feel awkward when people claim a "great victory" when barely more than half of people voting went for their side.)
The vote to leave was mainly by the older generation - that is, the people who won't have to live with the long-term consequences of this. On the other hand, the younger people voted overwhelmingly to stay - and they're the ones who will be impacted the most if the UK actually decides to go through with it. (The resolution is non-binding, and Parliament technically could ignore it if they wanted to. They may still choose to do so if they decide it's politically acceptable.)
I admit, it's... kind of hard to see this as anything except the older generation screwing over the younger one. Again. XD; That's a narrow vote, and I don't feel like it's right to completely twist the future against the people who have to live it on a margin that slim.
Yeah, no offence, I'm a bit f!$~ing fed up with slogans.
I quoted you here.
Are we certain some people didn't vote in favor simply because they thought "Brexit" sounded like something they'd want to put on their morning toast?
Fingers crossed for "Texit" next.
Advocates were already drawing inspiration before the vote.
They'll likely be emboldened by the results. Bonus points for the secessionist actually thinking that comparing himself to Farage, and his movement to UKIP is a good thing...
All this talk of the Youth getting shafted - what is the youth unemployment like in the EU again...? Oh right.
If people are annoyed by Chunnel traffic now, just wait until there's border/customs checkpoints at each end. Also, forget about London as a travel hub for visits to Europe, Paris will be happy to pick up that business.
I do wonder how much of the Leave crowd understood that losing the open borders of the EU would not only mean it would more difficult for immigrants to get in, but also for Brits to leave.
And yet we happy members of the Commonwealth nations get treated like dirty outsiders at Heathrow. Hopefully we see a resurgence in the Commonwealth being just that again.
Having to line up for hours in the 'Other' queue was a joke.
Welcome back England, we've been waiting for you.
That's what makes me worry about this. How bad are they going to make things for the people?
Pretty bad, since the whole thing basically involved Underpants Gnomes levels of planning with fundamental things like social services, trade and international agreements.
Exit Plan
1) Leave
2) ???
3) Wonder how to replace everything summarily abandoned, while still having to deal with EU rules on anything that still needs to be imported across the Channel or any sort of travel or emigration.
The very best that can be hoped for is things stay exactly the same, but that honestly seems unlikely, and requires the EU taking pity on Europe's newest backwater in all the brand spanking new agreements that need to be written.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The brits are a strong people. It wouldn't surprise me if they fired up the old Commonwealth again, now that communications are far easier. It may just be a good idea too. If the EU won't give them decent terms in some misguided idea of punishment, they will go it themselves. Sure, it will be tough, but they have been through bad times before. London is what London is whether in the EU or not.
We'll see what happens. There is too much propaganda buzz to make a sound judgement.
But, interestingly enough, Britain leaving the EU will have gotten us one concrete step closer to the world map of 1984, won't it?
The brits are a strong people. It wouldn't surprise me if they fired up the old Commonwealth again, now that communications are far easier. It may just be a good idea too.
We are hoping so. It would be nice for membership of the Commonwealth to regain some actual meaning.
What was the point of being a Commonwealth country if the UK wasn't being one?
EU is supposed to be to the benefit of everybody, on an equal footing.Yeah, there's a problem here. Basically, which is it? Is it for the benefit of everyone, or is it for everyone to be on an equal footing?
That particular question has been an issue for the EU literally since its foundation, when Germany got a fairly substantial waiver from some of the economic provisions of the Treaty of Maastricht since it was still in the process of digesting the DDR. There is a very good and convincing case that could be made -- that was made -- that the Germany economy at the time was something of a basket case. but also that the muddle wasn't really a long-term problem and that it made sense to overlook it for a few years.
Basically, it was to the benefit of everyone (including, say, France) to treat Germany differently.
The problem is that is also the issue behind a lot of the troubles like the Greek situation, or the rest of the Eurozone PIIGS. The kind of economic policies that countries like Spain and Italy needed, and arguably still need, are not the kind of economic policies that northern Europe (read, Germany), needed. (And today what Finland needs isn't what Germany needs). What everyone needs is a strong EU, but that seems to require individual economic treatment that "equal footing" doesn't provide.
So it's all very well to say, in principle, that the EU is supposed to treat everyone on equal footing, but most economists laugh when you say that (look up "optimal currency zone" for a more formal treatment of the howls of derisive laughter). And that's the problem.
Mind you, I'm not saying that giving the UK all the special privileges it could ask for would necessarily be the right course of action, either. But saying "we won't bend any more; it's the principle of the thing" is different from saying "we don't think giving you any more would improve the situation." The second is sensible policy-making.
Not disagreeing with your second alternative : by "equal footing" I meant something "objectively equivalent".
Yes, the game is all about adaptation and compromise. But there is a huge gap between setting adaptative policies, answering to objective economic needs, and giving away bigger and bigger bribes just to get UK to say "Yes" to something.
I mean, the 2/3 rebate was probably justified back in 84, when UK industry was in shambles and european policies were all about agriculture (which K hasn't got). But now that UK is the second best economy in EU and agriculture policies are a tiny bit of the whole ?
I reacted this way because you seemed to assume that it was normal for other countries to come to the rescue, whatever the cost. I am afraid that no, it isn't a good assumption : 1) belonging to the club is a reward by itself and shouldn't always come with bribes to sweeten the deal ; and 2) your politicians wil have to get out themselves from the hole they have dug.
It would be better for everybody if Uk stayed, but dont't blame others for leaving : it's your collective responsibility.
Was there a point? Really? I heard it was best described as the chalk outline around the corpse of the British Empire.
But the structure is there. The other members are strong, interesting countries, many of them needing a little push to take their role on the world stage. It would probably not be impossible to make it something worthwhile. I have no idea really, of course.
|
So the Leave campaign won by forging an unholy alliance between the hard-right of the Conservative Party and the older, disenfranchised, northern working class citizen who hasn't voted since the Thatcher years, on the basis that the Tories would massively invest in public services and local resources.
In terms of unlikely alliances, this probably isn't quite up there with the Nazi-Soviet Pact but may certainly be in the Sauron-Saruman ballpark.
I think you make it sound more considered and more short-term than it is. Ever since the financial crisis living standards have barely budged. We had a period of quite high inflation which eroded living standards, and for those of less money that really hurts. They wanted someone to blame and they listened to populists in camel coats telling them it was all the fault of immigrants. There was a comment from the BBC saying that in this vote people didn't go along with what was in their economic interests. But they did vote with what they thought were their economic interests - fewer immigrants would equal better wages and public services. The fact it was b%#~@~@s didn't get through. Throw in the oldies who felt that the EU had morphed into something they didn't vote for in 1975 (my parents, amongst others) and you got your majority.
There is a slight problem here, namely what happens to those disaffected working class voters when the Tories continue to sell off the NHS, continue (if not double down on) austerity and keep shrinking government and public services. Maybe a resurgent Labour under Corbyn, having survived the new leadership challenge and vanquished the last remaining Blairites, sweeps them up and delivers this country to a socialist utopia in 2020. Or UKIP starts hoovering them up at a rate of knots as part of its potential new raison d'etre, "encouraging" immigrants already here to start going home.
All bets are off, frankly, no one knows what the future might hold. Can't help feeling it won't be good, since none of the options look good. (Resurgent Corbyn - shudder.)
|
|
The brits are a strong people. It wouldn't surprise me if they fired up the old Commonwealth again, now that communications are far easier. It may just be a good idea too.We are hoping so. It would be nice for membership of the Commonwealth to regain some actual meaning.
What was the point of being a Commonwealth country if the UK wasn't being one?
Honestly, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Honestly, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Well down here in Australia we have firmly remained in the monarchist camp and still happy to be a Commonwealth country. I can see a bit of a revival in the wings, and of they get that right, the UK can simply come back through us as a gateway to Asia.
There are some interesting options that is for sure - Europe =/= the whole world.
When we lost the UK to the EU, we had to find new friends, and so far it has worked out pretty well, so if the UK would care to join us, there's plenty for everyone (and nicer weather too).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fingers crossed for "Texit" next.Advocates were already drawing inspiration before the vote.
They'll likely be emboldened by the results. Bonus points for the secessionist actually thinking that comparing himself to Farage, and his movement to UKIP is a good thing...
Sadly, there is no legal mechanism for Texas to secede from the United States. Now that fossil fuels are going the way of the dinosaurs they really don't have much to offer except bad politicians and worse textbooks.
Honestly, I wouldn't hold your breath.The brits are a strong people. It wouldn't surprise me if they fired up the old Commonwealth again, now that communications are far easier. It may just be a good idea too.We are hoping so. It would be nice for membership of the Commonwealth to regain some actual meaning.
What was the point of being a Commonwealth country if the UK wasn't being one?
No, that would be problematic. But the fact remains - if the UK is not going to be in the EU, it will need other allies. The Commonwealth nations would be an easy way to start up. Or else, of course, the UK could dig a hole for itself and suffer for the rejection from the EU?
|
|
No, that would be problematic. But the fact remains - if the UK is not going to be in the EU, it will need other allies. The Commonwealth nations would be an easy way to start up. Or else, of course, the UK could dig a hole for itself and suffer for the rejection from the EU?Honestly, I wouldn't hold your breath.The brits are a strong people. It wouldn't surprise me if they fired up the old Commonwealth again, now that communications are far easier. It may just be a good idea too.We are hoping so. It would be nice for membership of the Commonwealth to regain some actual meaning.
What was the point of being a Commonwealth country if the UK wasn't being one?
Well, the EU won't be our enemy as such. And the economies in the Commonwealth are much smaller that those in Europe. So while it's a nice idea, I don't really see it as making much difference.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's one positive - in few years, no more Nigel Farage venting his silly talks in the European Parliament at the expense of my taxes. It's a small consolation, but you gotta dig for those silver linings.Didn't you hear? He's going to be our ambassador, given his experience in Europe (and the fact that we want him as far away from us as we can get.)
I was joking about this but heard some numpty on the radio suggest that to "heal the divisions" Niggel Farage should be heavily involved in the Brexit negotiating team. Heal the divisions?! Heal the f+$$ing divisions?! The divisions are between Leave and Remain, putting the chief immigrantmonger anywhere that allows him the oxygen of publicity* is not going to heal the divisions unless you're only cpncerned with the divisions in the right wing of the country and those 48% of us who aren't "ordinary people, real people, decent people" can just go f$#% ourselves. And Nigel "the most hated man in the European parliament" Farage as a negotiator?! Good grief. If this is the intellectual level we've got, we are even more screwed than I thought.
F#!$ it all. I'll stay an extraordinary indecent figment of my imagination for a bit longer. I'm sure i can organise a Pathfinder campaign in the reeducation camp.
*=to quote the late, lamented Linda Smith "I'm not sure I like him having the oxygen of oxygen."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly, there is no legal mechanism for Texas to secede from the United States. Now that fossil fuels are going the way of the dinosaurs they really don't have much to offer except bad politicians and worse textbooks.Fingers crossed for "Texit" next.Advocates were already drawing inspiration before the vote.
They'll likely be emboldened by the results. Bonus points for the secessionist actually thinking that comparing himself to Farage, and his movement to UKIP is a good thing...
Of course there's no legal mechanism, although many in the secessionist camp believe in an imaginary right Texas reserved to withdraw. All quite non-existent. That reality does not support their efforts has never before deterred the secession movement, I doubt it will begin now. Most especially that secession would lead to disaster for the state, as it receives more money from the federal government than it pays, as well as relying upon U.S. military installations to shore up revenue.
Don't get me started on the textbooks. :P
Well, the EU won't be our enemy as such. And the economies in the Commonwealth are much smaller that those in Europe. So while it's a nice idea, I don't really see it as making much difference.
Sure, but Asia (as in real Asia, not Asia as used in the UK) is a massive market, as is India and Pakistan. Its like days of future past.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damage Report: Day 2 of the New Order (Hail, Boris)
$2.1 trillion wiped off the world economy. Er, sorry about that.
Britain loses its 5th position in the world GDP rankings to France. India not far behind.
British stock markets collapse by 8%, but recover 2%. Worries of further losses next week, but some suggestion there could be a further recovery. However, the markets overall think there will be two years of volatility due to the Brexit negotiations and then a further period of volatllity as the impact of Brexit is measured.
British currency and economy crashes in the worst one-day decline since Black Monday in 1987. In perspective, this was far worse for the UK economy than any day of the 1990s recession or the late 2000s one.
Britain credit rating downgraded to "Negative" by Moodys. Standards and Poor strip Britain of its AAA credit rating.
Morgan and Stanley reveal they have a contingency plan to shift 2,000 UK jobs to Dublin and Frankfurt and will enact it if we don't get a free trade agreement with the EU. HSBC apparently has a similar plan.
The investment sector will have to stop trading in Euros. This was already annoying the Eurozone. When we're out of the EU altogether, we simply won't be able to do it which will hammer investment banking. Which would be less of a problem if the British economy wasn't overwhelmingly based around services.
The ECB confirms that Britain will lose its EU financial passport if we don't allow free movement of peoples, which will impact Britain's ability to offer financial services to Europe. Since that's the underpinning of our economy (we actually make nothing in this country that others can't do instead) that's "mildly" worrying.
Spain confirm that the c. 800,000-1 million British people (mostly elderly) living in Spain won't have to worry and they probably won't be deported back to the UK. Oh, and by the way can they start having some discussions about the control of Gibraltar? Not that the two are related, at all. Oh, and all those people living in Spain will now have to buy private health insurance because they won't be protected by the NHS any more.
EU funding for the British regions (which basically keeps Cornwall, a large chunk of Wales and parts of Northern Ireland afloat) will be terminated. £1 billion+ EU funding for British scientific projects, including our contributions to the LHC, will be terminated.
But, good news! The government has indicated that it will take over the EU subsidies for private landowners, so the British taxpayer will shortly be paying Iain Duncan Smith £150,000 a year for no readily explicable reason.
That's what makes me worry about this. How bad are they going to make things for the people?
Very. Cameron and Osborne's policies have inflicted colossal economic and societal damage on the UK, and there's always been the fear that they - coming from the centre-right of the Conservative Party - were actually the least worst option from the party. The likes of Iain Duncan Smith, whose policies at the Department of Work and Pensions drove hundreds of people to suicide, and Michael Gove, who almost destroyed the British education system, are not going to hold back on taking things much further. Boris Johnson is actually much more centrist and liberal than people give him credit for, so if he emerges as PM things may not be quite that bad.
The vote to leave was mainly by the older generation - that is, the people who won't have to live with the long-term consequences of this. On the other hand, the younger people voted overwhelmingly to stay - and they're the ones who will be impacted the most if the UK actually decides to go through with it. (The resolution is non-binding, and Parliament technically could ignore it if they wanted to. They may still choose to do so if they decide it's politically acceptable.)
It's worth noting that 16 and 17-year-olds were barred by voting, which was hugely controversial because they were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum two years ago. They were overwhelmingly for Remain, and of course this will affect their long-term prospects.
EU citizens who'd been living in the UK for over 5 years - in some cases more than a decade - were barred from voting. A lot of British voters overseas, who were also overwhelmingly for Remain, also found themselves unable to vote due to complications in arranging it. So given the narrowness of the victory, yes, it's more than slightly controversial.
All this talk of the Youth getting shafted - what is the youth unemployment like in the EU again...? Oh right.
That's down to the Euro, which was a hideous mistake and should be abolished, and to the internal policies of each country. Britain was actually highly praised in the EU for how it's handled the economy and weathered the financial storm, even Germany took some inspiration from it and France's current problems stem from being unable to do the same thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, this really got to me.
~sad sigh~ As a US citizen, I have indeed seen the hate that she was talking about. It was all second hand (I am a white male) but I have seen it. Both on the giving end from some of my former friends in their attitude and as some of my other friends on the receiving end. I would love to say that I stood up against it, but sadly I remained quiet far too often. That was wrong of me, but I an not the strongest of people.
I do wish the people of Europe the best, both UK and EU. This is a mess and there will be no easy or pretty or quick fix. Good luck.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yorkshire now expressing concern that leaving the EU means it will lose its EU funding.
I am at a loss as to why these people think that they are either 1) going to get EU money despite not being part of the EU or 2) going to get the same amount from a British government voted into office on a mandate of reducing spending to all-time record lows.
2) going to get the same amount from a British government voted into office on a mandate of reducing spending to all-time record lows.
Who says the people behind Brexit rely on this? I think they rely very much on a money reduction from the EU. They can try to spin it to the EU punishing them for daring to leave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now Europe is not perceived by vast amounts of its own people as something that benefits them (and if you live in Germany you know this is true even there) but rather as an entity destroying small business enterprise, reducing healthcare, enforcing austerity, advocating for mass immigration and a lot of people, REGARDLESS OF THE COUNTRY, feel threatened by this. The ruling elite enjoys all the benefits from the EU structure (and more importantly they don't have to deal with its problems) but most of the people does not and as wealth keeps concentrating in fewer and fewer hands discontent grows (for example tell me your run of the mill German is happy about the minijob system? Those I know aren't).I don't disagree but that's also what's my main concern and what I stated before. It isn't the EU doing all those things, it's the single nations themselves.
The german minijob system, for example, is terrible, but it hasn't been invented by the EU, but by a german government. It isn't the EU reducing healthcare, it's the single countries.
But then the blame game starts and in the end it comes to a wrong perception of what Europe is. In the end, that's what made the Vote Leave movement so successful. Because the Brexit proponents didn't have to invent all those lies about Europe. The just had to repeat the lies already invented by the Cameron (and former) governments.
And yeah, the same thing has already started here in Germany, starting with lies our own government spew out about the EU.
Yes and no. You are absolutely right when you say it's national governments that enforce european legislation (and have ways to delay or not accept it) and commission "suggestions", yet those same governments usually do comply because they themselves originated the directives but wish to shift the blame (where I live when a politician introduces an unpopular legislation the excuse used to be "Europe demands it!"). For example the minijob system introduced by ex PM Schroder was tought as a way to create a more competitive german economy by reducing salaries, but the idea that reducing salaries was a good thing for economy has spread to other countries as well (Spain, Italy and now it's trying to get an hold into France, encountering stiff resistance there though). In Germany the minijob system barely works because Germany is still able to found its healtcare, otherwise people with a minijob wouldn't be able to tend for themselves despite having a job (which is a trend present in most western countries by now, with the relatively new social category of the "working poors"), but do you think those who enforced these policies care? Do you think most of the technocrats who engineered these legislations even know what they mean for the people on the receiving end? Having known my share of them I can tell you most if not all of those I know share an unshakable faith in "tested and true" strategies like "Starving the beast" and "trickle down policies", they just lack the guts to tell you outright.
And you know what's maddening to me above all else? It's the fact they have the gall to feel righteously enraged when the people suffering for their decisions vote against them. Since yesterday I'm hearing supposedly important people depicting ALL of the leavers as a bunch of decrepit decerebrates, I've seen journalists I used to respect (I'm a journalist by trade btw) have something akin a nervous meltdown, envoys to Bruxelles say things like "Now they know the european process is not irreversible" as it was a terrible thing. I can still hear former prime ministers just appointed and never elected by anyone dare claim people are too ignorant to be allowed to vote on such important matters as the unity of the European Union.You know what I think? I think these people DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE EU OPTION LOST. It's far easier and safer for them to claim the vote was just the result of ignorance and stupidity than to investigate the real reasons behind it but nothing needs to change. If they had to do that they would be forced to admit the current system doesn't work and makes larger and larger swats of the population poorer by the day. Yet THEY profit from it. Therefore they much prefer to claim people should not be allowed to vote on such complex and delicate matters.
It seems this time change isn't a good thing after all. The system that profits the elite most is meant to be irreversible ("there is no alternative" screamed the old witch...) and when they discover in democracy nothing really is irreversible they go mental and suddenly don't like democracy all that much.
Given these conditions it's very hard for me to feel the remain people's pain. It might be a problem for the UK, it might be a problem for the EU, but it was the result of the people expressing its choice freely and it needs to be respected, not vilified.
Would be nice if they were respecting there own choice instead of demanding to get the same Eu money they just voted against having.
How many of "them"?
Because a few interviews broadcasted in a very unflattering way cannot be used to explain the motivations and reasoning of a few millions of people. In my (professional) book they make a strategy of demonization and ridicule, a framing exercise, nothing more.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given these conditions it's very hard for me to feel the remain people's pain. It might be a problem for the UK, it might be a problem for the EU, but it was the result of the people expressing its choice freely and it needs to be respected, not vilified.
I concur! We should stop heckling Germans for voting NSDAP in 1933 and respect their thoughtful choice which brought about so much stimulus for positive change across the world.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would be nice if they were respecting there own choice instead of demanding to get the same Eu money they just voted against having.How many of "them"?
Judging from all the evidence from said tv family members ive talked to and the huge massive upsurge of people googling what does leaving the Eu actually mean after the vote I'm gonna say quite a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Judging from all the evidence from said tv family members ive talked to and the huge massive upsurge of people googling what does leaving the Eu actually mean after the vote I'm gonna say quite a lot.
How many though? I read a bunch of articles and all they say is the search 'tripled'.
From what to how many? 100 to 300? 1,000,000 to 3,000,000?
Was it all the Remainers just googling so they could say what they'd lost?
Was it school kids in schools across the UK googling it as an assignment task?
The EU was originally created to prevent a new war between its members. It has been so successful at this that its people forgot that war in Europe was even a possibility. Hence this result
So, I've seen this being trotted around; most glaringly, I watched a piece yesterday with Alex Scrivener from the Another Europe is Possible Coalition arguing against a member of the Socialist Workers Party and their Lexit campaign in which the former claimed that "One thing it has definitely done is it's secured peace on this continent since the Second World War."
And, of course, the first thing I thing of is the Balkan Wars in the '90s. Now, I'll grant you, going from lots of wars to only one war in seventy years isn't too bad, but why does it seem like some (many?) people are ignoring them.
Given these conditions it's very hard for me to feel the remain people's pain. It might be a problem for the UK, it might be a problem for the EU, but it was the result of the people expressing its choice freely and it needs to be respected, not vilified.I concur! We should stop heckling Germans for voting NSDAP in 1933 and respect their thoughtful choice which brought about so much stimulus for positive change across the world.
Really? Maybe you ought to ask yourself why so many people were willing to vote for a rabid (if charismatic) "Bohemian corporal" then.
It's not much different from what's happening today: a lot of people were suffering and choose an option that promised to change things. They made a tragic mistake but it was NOT entirely THEIR fault. The conditions for them to hurt and therefore the space for the likes of said corporal to present themselves as a credible alternative were in place due to the policies enforced by the winners of WWI. Weimar is widely reputed as the finest example of democratic institution but alone that wasn't enough to improve the living conditions of so many germans, the Weimar Republic never had a chance to do so DESPITE being something akin a perfect democracy.Bottom line: you want to keep EU? Then the EU needs to change its policies. Its focus should be on improving people's living conditions not the already great income of a very small if well connected and powerful minority. Otherwise yes the risk of history repeating itself exist, because the same mistakes are being made by those in power, not because Democracy gives people the right to choose for themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heard from a friend:
A nearby Milk Bar is apparently a popular stop for tourist. Yesterday a pair or group of UK tourists were there with a guide when not-so-sober not-so-gentleman approached them and mumbled "Englishmen? F*** Out! This is a union-funded bar!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, of course, the first thing I thing of is the Balkan Wars in the '90s. Now, I'll grant you, going from lots of wars to only one war in seventy years isn't too bad, but why does it seem like some (many?) people are ignoring them.
Western Europeans tend to think of "Europe" as meaning only "Western Europe," with periodic forays into Central Europe. Yugoslavia was never really part of the EU remit (for most of its history it was simply a Soviet client state), and there's a limit to what the EU could be expected to do to prevent what amounts to a civil war and revolution in a state that's not part of the Union.
Actually, I think the "civil war and revolution" is as important or more important a factor. The EU didn't do anything to prevent or mitigate the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Years of Lead in Italy, or ETA in the Basque country, either.
The EU was originally created to prevent a new war between its members. It has been so successful at this that its people forgot that war in Europe was even a possibility. Hence this resultSo, I've seen this being trotted around; most glaringly, I watched a piece yesterday with Alex Scrivener from the Another Europe is Possible Coalition arguing against a member of the Socialist Workers Party and their Lexit campaign in which the former claimed that "One thing it has definitely done is it's secured peace on this continent since the Second World War."
And, of course, the first thing I thing of is the Balkan Wars in the '90s. Now, I'll grant you, going from lots of wars to only one war in seventy years isn't too bad, but why does it seem like some (many?) people are ignoring them.
Because the Balkan Wars were not in the 1990s. The Second Balkan War was around the same time as World War 1.
You're thinking of the Yugoslav Wars, which were 1990s through to 2001 and included the Kosovo War. There's also some tension between Kosovo and Serbia that remains to this day and only doesn't break out because of repeated UN interference.
So, one part sloppiness (Europe is short for EU), one part Western European chauvinism?
So, one part sloppiness (Europe is short for EU), one part Western European chauvinism?
And one part Red Scare.
The EU was originally created to prevent a new war between its members. It has been so successful at this that its people forgot that war in Europe was even a possibility. Hence this resultSo, I've seen this being trotted around; most glaringly, I watched a piece yesterday with Alex Scrivener from the Another Europe is Possible Coalition arguing against a member of the Socialist Workers Party and their Lexit campaign in which the former claimed that "One thing it has definitely done is it's secured peace on this continent since the Second World War."
And, of course, the first thing I thing of is the Balkan Wars in the '90s. Now, I'll grant you, going from lots of wars to only one war in seventy years isn't too bad, but why does it seem like some (many?) people are ignoring them.
Because the Balkan Wars were not in the 1990s. The Second Balkan War was around the same time as World War 1.
You're thinking of the Yugoslav Wars, which were 1990s through to 2001 and included the Kosovo War. There's also some tension between Kosovo and Serbia that remains to this day and only doesn't break out because of repeated UN interference.
Yes, the Third Balkan Wars.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, one part sloppiness (Europe is short for EU), one part Western European chauvinism?
And a third part recognition that wars are state-on-state action, which the Yugoslav Wars weren't.
What about when the US was bombing Serbia? Doesn't that count as state-on-state action?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be shockingly honest WW1 was not only the axis fault, a lot of countries tried hard to start a war, because they thought it was a damn good idea. Now the germans lost it and paid dearly for it in the following years. Recession followed, and then unemployment and also a few more factors wich led in the end to the victory of a party who were led by a few people with high charisma and little wisdom. But to be shockingly brutal that was 70 years ago, a camp guard got sentenced a few days ago, who is now 95, so please almost all people involved are dead or almost.
But instead of learning of it... we did not.
And about Chancellor Merkels words to the immigrants "Come to us". Trust me it was hugely unpopular in germany and still is. But if you take a step back... Is there a way to stop a folk moving apart from slaughtering them. I do not think so. So either say no and they still come. Or say yes and at least try to work it in sensible ways.
Ask around who is doing most of the manual labor in hospitals, care homes and the like. People born in other countries. And it is still not enough.
And one more thing to think about. A lot of people complain about the chaps in brussels. Who made it possible. Those chaps YOU VOTED in YOUR Country and I mean ALL EUROPEAN countries thought it was a good idea to start one super governement.
Has it failed. NOPE. Is it problematic. HECK YES. To find a middle ground for all the member states is problematic. But please stop looking at your plate and start looking at all the others.
IF not we all loose!
Yes, the Third Balkan Wars.The EU was originally created to prevent a new war between its members. It has been so successful at this that its people forgot that war in Europe was even a possibility. Hence this resultSo, I've seen this being trotted around; most glaringly, I watched a piece yesterday with Alex Scrivener from the Another Europe is Possible Coalition arguing against a member of the Socialist Workers Party and their Lexit campaign in which the former claimed that "One thing it has definitely done is it's secured peace on this continent since the Second World War."
And, of course, the first thing I thing of is the Balkan Wars in the '90s. Now, I'll grant you, going from lots of wars to only one war in seventy years isn't too bad, but why does it seem like some (many?) people are ignoring them.
Because the Balkan Wars were not in the 1990s. The Second Balkan War was around the same time as World War 1.
You're thinking of the Yugoslav Wars, which were 1990s through to 2001 and included the Kosovo War. There's also some tension between Kosovo and Serbia that remains to this day and only doesn't break out because of repeated UN interference.
It's not a true Balkan War because most of the Balkan States were not involved. Only Montenegro, Serbia, and Kosovo were.
Of the ones today, the Balkan state most people are familiar with as having any major trouble is Greece.