Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm in favour of remaining in the EU, but this is just ludicrous. If the UK votes to remain in Europe, it will be in spite of not because of some of the terrible arguments offered by pro-EU politicians.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)

    Totally jel that we don't have somebody that talks the talk but failed to walk the walk.
    I recall reading something IIRC on YouGov, where basically people didn't like Obama 'interfering'* but that they were inclined to agree. He's still the most popular politician by far in the UK though.


    *Because, clearly its not up to him if the UK wants a better trade deal with the US post brexit...
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I recall reading something IIRC on YouGov, where basically people didn't like Obama 'interfering'* but that they were inclined to agree. He's still the most popular politician by far in the UK though.


    *Because, clearly its not up to him if the UK wants a better trade deal with the US post brexit...
    Are we trading with the US under WTO rules, because if so our best bet at a better deal is to leave because TTIP is going to be yet another trade deal the EU never completes
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    Yet Russia still holds Sevastopol

    We put sanctions on Italy in 1935 for invading Ethiopia. Look how that one turned out.

    Sanctions make things even worse.
    There is an argument to be made for and against sanctions (Typically I think you're right) but most evidence shows that it has cost Russia one hell of a lot of money, which they wont be able to replenish any time soon.

    Besides- the EU is a method of peace for countries WITHIN Europe- if it is to set up a common EU army and foreign policy (And that is an IF) then we may be able to assess how competant it is at securing peace outside its borders.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Davij038)
    There is an argument to be made for and against sanctions (Typically I think you're right) but most evidence shows that it has cost Russia one hell of a lot of money, which they wont be able to replenish any time soon.

    Besides- the EU is a method of peace for countries WITHIN Europe- if it is to set up a common EU army and foreign policy (And that is an IF) then we may be able to assess how competant it is at securing peace outside its borders.
    Yugoslavia and Ukraine are in Europe. Do you know how many EU members haven't been some form of dictatorship in living memory?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Are we trading with the US under WTO rules, because if so our best bet at a better deal is to leave because TTIP is going to be yet another trade deal the EU never completes
    Yippeeeee :yay:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    There is an argument to be made for and against sanctions (Typically I think you're right) but most evidence shows that it has cost Russia one hell of a lot of money, which they wont be able to replenish any time soon.

    Besides- the EU is a method of peace for countries WITHIN Europe- if it is to set up a common EU army and foreign policy (And that is an IF) then we may be able to assess how competant it is at securing peace outside its borders.
    From my studies what caused Japanese entry into the war was not disgusting nationalism, it was oil sanctions which led to a troubled nation wanting to expand further into Asia to secure independence. Sanctions is not a sane policy, this is saying to Russia 'we will bully you, but not enough to prevent you from taking revenge'.

    There's a quote by Machiaveli 'If an injury has to be done, make it so severe that vengeance need not be feared' - Bullying a nation with nuclear weapons while giving them enough space to retaliate is the height of stupidity, it's no wonder foreign policy is in such a disaster.

    Sevastopol may not be in the EU but it is Ukrainian territory. NATO, as the defense of Eastern Europe against aggression, has disgraced itself by refusing to resist, and has proven itself completely insufficient to task.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Yugoslavia and Ukraine are in Europe.
    My bad- meant to say in the EU.



    Do you know how many EU members haven't been some form of dictatorship in living memory?
    Whats your point?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wasn't it more a problem with Germany and France fighting each other. IF we left the EU as long as those two are joined together via the EU. Also the theory behind closer ties stopping war within Europe is that to wage war with another European country is to ensure mutual destruction. You can still have that with the UK outside the EU. Europe was doing this kind of thing after WWII in order to stop it all happening again. That was before the more federal EU with its transnational central governments as we know it today were made. It really was more of an interstate agreement and tieing together of economies back then. I would like to think the Britain is not at risk of going to war with Norway just because it is not in the EU...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    NATO, as the defense of Eastern Europe against aggression, has disgraced itself by refusing to resist, and has proven itself completely insufficient to task.
    Oh I agree, I also think we shouldn't need the US to protect europe or be a part of an alliance with Turkey. Thus I think a common EU defence policy would be better- but of course thats not in their jurisdiction at thew moment.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Davij038)
    My bad- meant to say in the EU.

    Whats your point?
    The system is intentionally designed to try to prevent dictatorship, part of that means reducing the democratic impetus that some believe caused those dictators to rise in the first place, to most of Europe this sacrifice is worth it, to the 3 nations who haven't had dictators recently (remember that our last one died 358 years ago) are not so fond. It comes as no surprise that if we leave the Swedes would quite like to follow (the third member state being Ireland).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Oh I agree, I also think we shouldn't need the US to protect europe or be a part of an alliance with Turkey. Thus I think a common EU defence policy would be better- but of course thats not in their jurisdiction at thew moment.
    I'd welcome the inclusion of both the US and Turkey on the grounds that they are not Russia, Turkey has a long history of warfare with Russia in the Balkans and would make an excellent ally. Personally i'd like to see the Russian bear swiftly dealt with, recover territory in Ukraine, if necessary finally reduce it to a second rate power and have Poland replace it as the dominant Eastern power. This is of course, only if Russian refuses to give up its far right politics of empire.

    I think most people fail to understand how dangerous the situation actually is, Russia has illegally taken territory with no resistance. How weak must we be? If we're not careful we'll spend the next century in a Russian dominated Europe. We're currently cutting the bloody army at the same time.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Yugoslavia and Ukraine are in Europe. Do you know how many EU members haven't been some form of dictatorship in living memory?
    One of the requirements of being a member of the EU is that you have to be liberal democratic. I'm sure the Golden Dawn EU sceptics would like to leave the EU and turn back to post war Greek fascism.

    There was hope with Turkey in that wanting to join the EU would help that country move in a more liberal democratic direction. Unfortunately Turkey is going majorly backwards now... Also Austria is going in a worrying direction as well. The EU should seriously threaten with expulsion if people want to start elected fascists in charge of their country. But the point is that being a members of the EU was/is seen as attractive which encourage countries to clean up their act.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    I'd welcome the inclusion of both the US and Turkey on the grounds that they are not Russia, Turkey has a long history of warfare with Russia in the Balkans and would make an excellent ally. Personally i'd like to see the Russian bear swiftly dealt with, recover territory in Ukraine, if necessary finally reduce it to a second rate power and have Poland replace it as the dominant Eastern power. This is of course, only if Russian refuses to give up its far right politics of empire.

    I think most people fail to understand how dangerous the situation actually is, Russia has illegally taken territory with no resistance. How weak must we be? If we're not careful we'll spend the next century in a Russian dominated Europe. We're currently cutting the bloody army at the same time.
    This is a country that imprisons academics.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Wasn't it more a problem with Germany and France fighting each other. IF we left the EU as long as those two are joined together via the EU. Also the theory behind closer ties stopping war within Europe is that to wage war with another European country is to ensure mutual destruction. You can still have that with the UK outside the EU. Europe was doing this kind of thing after WWII in order to stop it all happening again. That was before the more federal EU with its transnational central governments as we know it today were made. It really was more of an interstate agreement and teeing together of economies back then. I would like to think the Britain is not at risk of going to war with Norway just because it is not in the EU...
    One of the biggest preventions of modern advanced interstate war is the globalised nature of the economies. Whenever economic war games are played there is one common theme: any real conflict between major powers, even if it's just a low level regional conflict, cripples the world economy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This is a country that imprisons academics.
    It's also a very powerful one with no ambitions of empire (to my knowledge), which is more than I can say about Russia.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The system is intentionally designed to try to prevent dictatorship, part of that means reducing the democratic impetus that some believe caused those dictators to rise in the first place, to most of Europe this sacrifice is worth it, to the 3 nations who haven't had dictators recently (remember that our last one died 358 years ago) are not so fond. It comes as no surprise that if we leave the Swedes would quite like to follow (the third member state being Ireland).
    I am sympathetic to this argument. Whilst we were busy pillaging the rest of the world in the 19th and 20th century we weren't actually that direct involved with invading other European countries or succumbing to fascism within our own borders. As long as France/Germany etc remained tied to together I;d say Europe is pretty safe in this regard.

    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    It's also a very powerful one with no ambitions of empire (to my knowledge), which is more than I can say about Russia.
    Well neither was Franco. Fascism in one country is still fascism. I happen to care about people inside of Turkey. Stable non invading dictatorships are still dictatorships.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    One of the biggest preventions of modern advanced interstate war is the globalised nature of the economies. Whenever economic war games are played there is one common theme: any real conflict between major powers, even if it's just a low level regional conflict, cripples the world economy.
    I don't quite understand how globalisation is any different to the last century. Oil sanctions literally crippled the Japanese economy in the last century.

    No one has ever had a completely self-sufficient economy to begin with. Where has this nonsense idea come from? Actually, wars are usually motivated by a desire for self-sufficiency!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Well neither was Franco. Fascism in one country is still fascism. I happen to care about people inside of Turkey. Stable non invading dictatorships are still dictatorships.
    I'm more concerned about the pressing nature of our future, we have no real control over the domestic policy of these countries, so instead i'll focus on securing other countries from their hegemony. Either way it will be Turkey or Russia exercising strength in that region, i'm hedging my bet on Turkey.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    'Brexiteer' is so much more exciting
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.