Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Poland warns Brussels it will DESTROY the EU if it tries to punish Britain for leavin watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No one cares about what Kaczynski says and to equate Kaczynski with Poland is a bit bombastic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Strong argument. And one that is used by the ignorant.

    I have picked up many history books. But this is not simply about history - it's about logic.

    Now, if you want to refer to something specifically, feel free. Otherwise, don't assimilate every other sheep out there.
    Claiming that all wars have started due to nationalism is a question of history - that's logic :facepalm:

    Now go and "assimilate" a history book, because you're wrong
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Desi123)
    The irony. :rolleyes: What daft point are you trying to make this time, seeing as you can't even get your brain to understand a Daily Express (tabloid) article beyond "He said the EU should be nice to us and there's nothing else to it"? :rofl:

    He's arguing for what you said in order to maintain good UK-EU relations so that there's a higher chance of the UK returning to the EU. Strong reading comprehension.



    There's also the title of this thread hinting at why the former PM said that:



    It's in capitals but I guess that's not enough for some "daft" readers like you :smug:
    Let me explain to you why the point obvious from your comment is daft, as you clearly did not understand why it was.
    You said "No surprises there", as if the Polish guy was trying to coerce the UK into staying part of the EU, as you clearly suggested that he wanted the UK to remain part of it by suggesting a second referendum. However, fair negotiations will clearly reduce the chances of Britain compromising on the vote and actually staying in, given the fact that Britain can leave and still have a fair deal.

    Here's why your comment is daft, you'd expect someone who wanted to remain part of the EU to want harsher deals between Britain and the EU so that they'd either stay, or be forced to join in in the future to overcome the harsh deal, however, he wanted argued the opposite, which is surprising.

    You went on a complete straw-man trying to prove to me that he wanted us to remain part of the EU, which is clearly his motives, but you said what he said not surprising and a typical thing from someone in his position, which is clearly not the case.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Former PM? Pffft **** off

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    Claiming that all wars have started due to nationalism is a question of history - that's logic :facepalm:

    Now go and "assimilate" a history book, because you're wrong
    Alright then. Let's play this game of yours.

    Name me one war that was not intended to either promote one State's interests (i.e its leader's vision), in terms of religion, monetary gains, lands or similar.

    I'll be waiting. Probably eternally.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Alright then. Let's play this game of yours.

    Name me one war that was not intended to either promote one State's interests (i.e its leader's vision), in terms of religion, monetary gains, lands or similar.

    I'll be waiting. Probably eternally.
    Not exactly nationalism.*
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheReader)
    Not exactly nationalism.*
    Nationalism (merriam-webster): a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries.

    Whichever empire or country which waged war you take into consideration, they did so because they believed they were better and were entitled to what other countries had.

    That includes the British Empire.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manchester_123)
    If you ever want to know what pushed nationalism forward it was you people. Liberalism is becoming ever more hated. Liberalism and Fascism share a core ideal and that is political correctness. Your efforts to create a liberal utopia has pushed people to nationalism. I am a remain voter but just know, what ever problems occur in the EU, it's the fault of people like you. Liberalism is poison
    Who said I'm a liberal? There's extremism and there's non-extremism.

    It's not all black and white as you make it. Grow up and face reality.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Nationalism (merriam-webster): a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries.

    Whichever empire or country which waged war you take into consideration, they did so because they believed they were better and were entitled to what other countries had.

    That includes the British Empire.
    That also includes the EU. Thank God for British nationalism and national identity that have freed Britain from tyranny of non-democratic, entitled EU.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    From a point of view of a Polish person, the former PM talks a load of crap. I mean, when you see him being the former prime minister, you Gotta remember that a PM in Poland doesn't have much power like a PM has here. Him being a PM for around a year says it all as well.

    That guy has virtually no power at the current moment and most certainly no power to even threaten the EU. Most importantly, as someone has mentioned before, he doesn't speak for Poland
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheReader)
    That also includes the EU. Thank God for British nationalism and national identity that have freed Britain from tyranny of non-democratic, entitled EU.
    The EU is a collective group of countries that used to wage wars on each other for who knows how long.

    So yes, thank goodness we're going back a hundred years ago because it was such a democratic, vibrant and above all non-tyrannical period

    That said, you really think anything's going to change? That would mean giving up trade and with it London. Not happening.

    [PS: There is nothing democratic about the referendum. All the sheep were deceived by lies, propaganda and idiotic arguments which the Leave campaign only just now remembered to back track from. And a democracy where 52% is enough to dictate the interests of a country (particularly so when that 52% translates into 38% of the country's population) is a rotten democracy. So go ahead, take your democracy.]
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    The EU is a collective group of countries that used to wage wars on each other for who knows how long.

    So yes, thank goodness we're going back a hundred years ago because it was such a democratic, vibrant and above all non-tyrannical period

    That said, you really think anything's going to change? That would mean giving up trade and with it London. Not happening.

    [PS: There is nothing democratic about the referendum. All the sheep were deceived by lies, propaganda and idiotic arguments which the Leave campaign only just now remembered to back track from. And a democracy where 52% is enough to dictate the interests of a country (particularly so when that 52% translates into 38% of the country's population) is a rotten democracy. So go ahead, take your democracy.]
    I agree with you, that 52% is a very small majority. Although, wouldnt say that fear-mongering remain campaign was much better.

    Well at least Britain is not part of that US puppet anymore. Oh well.. *
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheReader)
    Well at least Britain is not part of that US puppet anymore. Oh well.. *
    But it is (if you're referring to the EU that is).

    It will take minimum two years before the exit actually happens. And considering that a deal will be necessary for the UK, nothing will really change.

    Not saying the EU must not be reformed - in fact, it must be reformed drastically. But the UK is the British Empire no more, and to think that it, as a country, is superior to every other and can survive without globalisation is silly at best.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Alright then. Let's play this game of yours.

    Name me one war that was not intended to either promote one State's interests (i.e its leader's vision), in terms of religion, monetary gains, lands or similar.

    I'll be waiting. Probably eternally.
    Hah. The problem here is you don't know what nationalism actually means:

    " loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups "

    If we take any of the crusades, they were not driven by the national consciousness of the Vatican, but by religious belief. Vietnam occurred due to a want for freedom from landowners and tyrants, with America's involvement being a fear of being overthrown by a different form of government.

    Nationalism is akin to being patriotic, not of being an oppressive, war advocating state.

    You need to pick up a dictionary, then a history book :top:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Nationalism (merriam-webster): a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries.

    Whichever empire or country which waged war you take into consideration, they did so because they believed they were better and were entitled to what other countries had.

    That includes the British Empire.
    Believing that your better does not automatically mean you believe you're entitled to what the other country has. You may calculate you can take, by force, what the other country has, as a means to power, but that is not nationalism, it's aggression and, more often than not, occupation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    Hah. The problem here is you don't know what nationalism actually means:

    " loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups "

    If we take any of the crusades, they were not driven by the national consciousness of the Vatican, but by religious belief. Vietnam occurred due to a want for freedom from landowners and tyrants, with America's involvement being a fear of being overthrown by a different form of government.

    Nationalism is akin to being patriotic, not of being an oppressive, war advocating state.

    You need to pick up a dictionary, then a history book :top:
    Such knee-jerk reactions. If you actually took the time to read, you'd see that I provided an authoritative definition above. But, no surprise here as I didn't expect you do so in the first place.

    That said, the problem here is that YOU don't understand YOUR definition. Religious belief is a form of nationalism, not least in terms of the Crusades, because it belongs to the identity of the nation/country. Much like SA, Iran and whatnot.

    In your Vietnam example, you simply don't understand the reason the war happened, hence your ignorant statements. This arose from a conflict between North Vietnam and its allies, and South Vietnam which the US supported. This is a form of nationalism - the difference being that each group viewed their values and country difference (obviously).

    Nationalism means believing that your country is superior to others. As I said above, the British Empire is an obvious example.

    Viewed thus, may I suggest you return to elementary school and start anew. I don't think you wield the competence to read dictionaries and history books on your own.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    Believing that your better does not automatically mean you believe you're entitled to what the other country has. You may calculate you can take, by force, what the other country has, as a means to power, but that is not nationalism, it's aggression and, more often than not, occupation.
    Who said it automatically means that?

    What I said is, when countries actually wage war, nationalism is always behind that. Huge difference there.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Yeah I stopped reading there. Poland said *******s all.

    Once people see what happens to us, nobody else will be leaving the EU.
    Not everyone is in a position to leave the EU.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Such knee-jerk reactions. If you actually took the time to read, you'd see that I provided an authoritative definition above. But, no surprise here as I didn't expect you do so in the first place.

    That said, the problem here is that YOU don't understand YOUR definition. Religious belief is a form of nationalism, not least in terms of the Crusades, because it belongs to the identity of the nation/country. Much like SA, Iran and whatnot.

    In your Vietnam example, you simply don't understand the reason the war happened, hence your ignorant statements. This arose from a conflict between North Vietnam and its allies, and South Vietnam which the US supported. This is a form of nationalism - the difference being that each group viewed their values and country difference (obviously).

    Nationalism means believing that your country is superior to others. As I said above, the British Empire is an obvious example.

    Viewed thus, may I suggest you return to elementary school and start anew. I don't think you wield the competence to read dictionaries and history books on your own.
    I actually quoted the Merriam-Webster definition, not sure what you read

    Clearly you're now getting defensive and unwilling to see reason; you've trying to claim religious motivation is the same as nationalism when the two have nothing in common. Religious belief has nothing to do with one's view on a country, as proven by the Vatican which extended influence over entire continents :facepalm:

    I know why Vietnam happen. You clearly don't as proven by your childishly simplistic take on 'Nam

    Obviously you've some sort of problem as you're fervently arguing about something you don't understand. Maybe you should talk to someone or take up yoga? I don't think forums are a good outlet for you.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    He has a point.

    The USSR was equally keen on punishing dissent, and while fear works in the short-term, ultimately punishment breeds resentment which becomes fatal for the entity exercising it.

    The EU attempting to give too much stick/boot will only deepen the existing cracks in the organization.

    The smart choice will be negotiations which don't give the UK everything, but aren't seen to unduly punish the UK. It'll be seen as petty and vindictive. An emotional choice born to lash out rather than to foster a prosperous and peaceful European shared abode.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 10, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.