Topic: Brexit: the beginning of the end? - page 3. (Read 2586 times)
The UK has no intention of terminating the employment of any person working here legally. We need them to do the jobs that the idle unemployed remainers refuse to do.
Two years from now I think the end result is that Britain will have the benefits of free trade with the Continent without the political interference. It's a win for the rest of the EU as well for it will encourage the remaining members to limit supra-national usurpation of sovereignty.
The European Union needs the UK more than the latter needs the EU. The Germans failed to realize this fact, and that is the reason why the Brexit occurred. Some 3 million EU citizens are working in the United Kingdom (40% of that amount from Poland), and if the UK suddenly decides to terminate their employment then there will be mass unrest in the Eastern EU nations.
And a stand still in the UK economy because 3 million workers have gone?
Dude you are retarded.
Two years from now I think the end result is that Britain will have the benefits of free trade with the Continent without the political interference. It's a win for the rest of the EU as well for it will encourage the remaining members to limit supra-national usurpation of sovereignty.
The European Union needs the UK more than the latter needs the EU. The Germans failed to realize this fact, and that is the reason why the Brexit occurred. Some 3 million EU citizens are working in the United Kingdom (40% of that amount from Poland), and if the UK suddenly decides to terminate their employment then there will be mass unrest in the Eastern EU nations.
Maroon: Major wars, 10,000+ deaths in current or past year
Red: Wars, 1,000–9,999 deaths in current or past year
Orange: Minor conflicts, 100–999 deaths in current or past year
Yellow: Skirmishes and clashes, fewer than 100 deaths.
Red: Wars, 1,000–9,999 deaths in current or past year
Orange: Minor conflicts, 100–999 deaths in current or past year
Yellow: Skirmishes and clashes, fewer than 100 deaths.
Why France is not on that list? More than 100 people have lost their lives in the recent terrorist attacks. Also, the US is not on the map despite the Orlando and San Bernardino attacks. And where is Belgium? Some 35 individuals lost their lives a few months ago, during the Brussels bombings. The map is very old and not updated.
Two years from now I think the end result is that Britain will have the benefits of free trade with the Continent without the political interference. It's a win for the rest of the EU as well for it will encourage the remaining members to limit supra-national usurpation of sovereignty.
Maroon: Major wars, 10,000+ deaths in current or past year
Red: Wars, 1,000–9,999 deaths in current or past year
Orange: Minor conflicts, 100–999 deaths in current or past year
Yellow: Skirmishes and clashes, fewer than 100 deaths.
Red: Wars, 1,000–9,999 deaths in current or past year
Orange: Minor conflicts, 100–999 deaths in current or past year
Yellow: Skirmishes and clashes, fewer than 100 deaths.
Why France is not on that list? More than 100 people have lost their lives in the recent terrorist attacks. Also, the US is not on the map despite the Orlando and San Bernardino attacks. And where is Belgium? Some 35 individuals lost their lives a few months ago, during the Brussels bombings. The map is very old and not updated.
It's over, the EU is a bunch of small welfare states getting money from germany,france and the uk and the biggest problem with the EU is it included too many different countries.
USSR fell, replaced by the EU.
Perhaps when the EU falls another socialist system will form. Perhaps this time with the help of the US.
Perhaps when the EU falls another socialist system will form. Perhaps this time with the help of the US.
'This time'? I've read an interesting thesis that the EU itself was more than anything a US invention and with the CIA being used as one of the tools to make it happen. The primary goal was to simplify the negotiations/control over the region for the benefit of quasi-US power elite.
It was an interesting presentation, but I don't recall where I found it. It sits in my current crop of hypothesis to explore as I try to understand the world going forward.
Brexit is a win against the International Zionism.
USSR fell, replaced by the EU.
Perhaps when the EU falls another socialist system will form. Perhaps this time with the help of the US.
In fact, the USSR republics were far more independent than EU members. Just for example, some of USSR member states, like the Georgian SSR, had the de facto market economy under umbrella of socialist phraseology. EU states aren't allowed to do anything like that, they're forced to follow the orders of neo-marxist cult in the Brussels. The reason is simple, USSR was maintained to create a strong and powerful state, while the EU was born to assure destruction of european conservative values. Perhaps when the EU falls another socialist system will form. Perhaps this time with the help of the US.
We need to be protected from the terrible Russians. It was an act of war for them to place their country so close to the US military bases.
The one that real keeps world peace ..
There is no world peace (2002):
Maroon: Major wars, 10,000+ deaths in current or past year
Red: Wars, 1,000–9,999 deaths in current or past year
Orange: Minor conflicts, 100–999 deaths in current or past year
Yellow: Skirmishes and clashes, fewer than 100 deaths.
The European Union includes a military alliance.
After the Islamic State attacks, France avoided calling in NATO and rather decided to invoke this military alliance established between European Union members (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12001700/Nato-shunned-as-France-calls-on-EU-to-destroy-Islamic-State.html).
But on Europe military alliances, especially NATO, are seen as an extension of the US.
NATO is basically the US. To the Europeans mostly means: if they are attacked, the Americans will save them. If one of them is attacked short of blatant invasion, it will be mostly its and US problem. They'll give them their moral solidarity.
It was that what France found out after the attacks. The UK, after some hesitation, started bombing Daesh, and also the Netherlands, but little more happened.
USSR fell, replaced by the EU.
Perhaps when the EU falls another socialist system will form. Perhaps this time with the help of the US.
Perhaps when the EU falls another socialist system will form. Perhaps this time with the help of the US.
The EU has some similarities to the USSR in terms of unelected bureaucrats, but that's where it ends. The USSR was corrupt to the core, run by COMMUNISTS, stoked fear and reigned with violence. The world still doesn't trust Russians because of this. The EU will do fine with or without the UK, but they really need to improve the politics because there is an unnecessary layer.
USSR fell, replaced by the EU.
Perhaps when the EU falls another socialist system will form. Perhaps this time with the help of the US.
Perhaps when the EU falls another socialist system will form. Perhaps this time with the help of the US.
Oh dear. Please don't confuse the EU and NATO
The US is the major force attemting to destroy world peace. Look at all the proxy wars they start. Their creation of ISIS. Their refusal to support Assad, and their constant provocation of more powerful countries like China and Russia.
They are allowing their country to disintegrate from within whilst they attempt manipulate the world for the enrichment of a few individuals
The US is the major force attemting to destroy world peace. Look at all the proxy wars they start. Their creation of ISIS. Their refusal to support Assad, and their constant provocation of more powerful countries like China and Russia.
They are allowing their country to disintegrate from within whilst they attempt manipulate the world for the enrichment of a few individuals
Is the European Union or Democracy necessary to keep peace on Europe (and the world, since a general war on Europe would probably be a world war)?
Not exactly. Only certain Europeans believe that they are responsible for their own security and for the peace on Europe.
The European politicians that proclaim that the end of the European Union would mean war on Europe are overstating their own importance.
The one that real keeps world peace (let's forget about the regional wars that they also create) is the United States and their pax americana.
It's the Americans that control Germany, Russia and China. This point doesn't even need much consideration. Just check their military bases and their military power in Europe and the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases).
They have so many bases or similar military installations on Germany (56!) that this country can be considered as still under American "occupation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany).
Yes, the European Union and Democracy help. They avoid some frictions and assist controlling the ones that can't be avoided (I'm not going to comment directly on the so-called democratic pacifism: http://www.hoover.org/research/myth-democratic-pacifism).
But if we can learn a lesson from First World War is that peace can't be kept only because of economic ties.
This War was a trade (and economic) catastrophe, greater than Second War World, where international trade was already ruined by the 1929 crisis and never recovered to the levels of 1914 (https://ourworldindata.org/international-trade/).
During the July Crisis of 1914, when a general war was starting to look very likely, all European stock exchanges crashed like if there was no tomorrow, ending up being closed (https://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0105_1015_1002.pdf; http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-01/august-1914-when-global-stock-markets-closed).
So, forget about economic and purely political ties as guarantees of peace.
Unless the European Union could create armed forces based on direct recruitment of the European citizens (it couldn't be based on troops from member States or it wouldn't be enough to control the powerful ones), it won't be any serious guarantee of peace.
But political unions like the European Union, usually, are temporary.
They are too unstable. Power it's too distributed, so their decision process is a nightmare. They can't function well.
If they don't develop to a full Federal State (like the American confederation of 1781 or the German Confederation of 1815) they end up being dissolved, irrelevant or limited to little more than trade unions (think on the Sweden–Norway, United Arab Republic or the Commonwealth of Independent States created by Russia with some former soviet countries).
It's seems now that the European Union won't have political will or conditions to develop into a Federal Union.
Its current prolonged economic crisis, the huge debt of almost all of their States, their demographic decadence, rising nationalism, xenophobia and popular resentment, all are pointing to a new financial/euro and political crisis that will have the power to destroy it or reduce it to little more than a trade union.
Super Mario (Draghi), who saved the euro on July 2012, will do his best again. But...
There is still a small hope that a few member states can use the brexit as a trigger to create more intense political ties between them. But the popular support for this movement is very doubtful.
Besides the French (29 May 2005) and Dutch (1 June 2005) referendums against the European Constitution (done still on favorable economic conditions), on 3 December 2015, the Danish voted on a referendum against giving more powers to the Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_European_Union_opt-out_referendum,_2015).
With disappointment, I'm starting to wonder if this brexit isn't going to be the first exit of many more (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/23/these-countries-could-be-next-if-britain-leaves-the-e-u/).
This new looming euro/debt/banking crisis has the potential to not only destroy the European Union as political entity, but it might also ruin some European Democracies.
No doubt, that won't affect the real guarantee of world peace: the pax americana (and its nuclear weapons).
But if someone like Trump won the American presidency, the pax americana could be in risk (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-isolationism-alarm-nationalism-liberalism-allies-realism-445630; http://www.newsweek.com/trump-will-withdraw-nato-world-455272).
And nuclear weapons are an effective, but dangerous, guarantee of peace. If they fail, we end down with an execution of MAD (mutual assured destruction).
This text is an exercise of futurology.
Futurology isn't anything special. We do it all the time on our life. The main function of science is precisely to show us the future.
When we enter a building, we made a prediction that it wouldn't collapse on us. This is a prediction based on the trust we have on the science underlying its construction.
The problem is that there are only a few "laws" that we can qualify as scientific (of course, only if we accept their probabilistic and not exact nature) on human scientific issues, like these ones.
So, you know the recommendations: never do a prediction; if you make the mistake of doing one, never put it on writing; if you even so do that, at least never add a date to the prediction. Therefore, I won't.
Actually, I'm hoping I'm very wrong.
The European Union might not be as important to peace as some people thinks, at least with the current structure. But if it could be converted into a federal state, the issues of State debt would be overcome and it would be a serious guarantee of peace.
But it seems the opportunity was lost on 2005 and there won't be another one.
Not exactly. Only certain Europeans believe that they are responsible for their own security and for the peace on Europe.
The European politicians that proclaim that the end of the European Union would mean war on Europe are overstating their own importance.
The one that real keeps world peace (let's forget about the regional wars that they also create) is the United States and their pax americana.
It's the Americans that control Germany, Russia and China. This point doesn't even need much consideration. Just check their military bases and their military power in Europe and the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases).
They have so many bases or similar military installations on Germany (56!) that this country can be considered as still under American "occupation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany).
Yes, the European Union and Democracy help. They avoid some frictions and assist controlling the ones that can't be avoided (I'm not going to comment directly on the so-called democratic pacifism: http://www.hoover.org/research/myth-democratic-pacifism).
But if we can learn a lesson from First World War is that peace can't be kept only because of economic ties.
This War was a trade (and economic) catastrophe, greater than Second War World, where international trade was already ruined by the 1929 crisis and never recovered to the levels of 1914 (https://ourworldindata.org/international-trade/).
During the July Crisis of 1914, when a general war was starting to look very likely, all European stock exchanges crashed like if there was no tomorrow, ending up being closed (https://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0105_1015_1002.pdf; http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-01/august-1914-when-global-stock-markets-closed).
So, forget about economic and purely political ties as guarantees of peace.
Unless the European Union could create armed forces based on direct recruitment of the European citizens (it couldn't be based on troops from member States or it wouldn't be enough to control the powerful ones), it won't be any serious guarantee of peace.
But political unions like the European Union, usually, are temporary.
They are too unstable. Power it's too distributed, so their decision process is a nightmare. They can't function well.
If they don't develop to a full Federal State (like the American confederation of 1781 or the German Confederation of 1815) they end up being dissolved, irrelevant or limited to little more than trade unions (think on the Sweden–Norway, United Arab Republic or the Commonwealth of Independent States created by Russia with some former soviet countries).
It's seems now that the European Union won't have political will or conditions to develop into a Federal Union.
Its current prolonged economic crisis, the huge debt of almost all of their States, their demographic decadence, rising nationalism, xenophobia and popular resentment, all are pointing to a new financial/euro and political crisis that will have the power to destroy it or reduce it to little more than a trade union.
Super Mario (Draghi), who saved the euro on July 2012, will do his best again. But...
There is still a small hope that a few member states can use the brexit as a trigger to create more intense political ties between them. But the popular support for this movement is very doubtful.
Besides the French (29 May 2005) and Dutch (1 June 2005) referendums against the European Constitution (done still on favorable economic conditions), on 3 December 2015, the Danish voted on a referendum against giving more powers to the Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_European_Union_opt-out_referendum,_2015).
With disappointment, I'm starting to wonder if this brexit isn't going to be the first exit of many more (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/23/these-countries-could-be-next-if-britain-leaves-the-e-u/).
This new looming euro/debt/banking crisis has the potential to not only destroy the European Union as political entity, but it might also ruin some European Democracies.
No doubt, that won't affect the real guarantee of world peace: the pax americana (and its nuclear weapons).
But if someone like Trump won the American presidency, the pax americana could be in risk (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-isolationism-alarm-nationalism-liberalism-allies-realism-445630; http://www.newsweek.com/trump-will-withdraw-nato-world-455272).
And nuclear weapons are an effective, but dangerous, guarantee of peace. If they fail, we end down with an execution of MAD (mutual assured destruction).
This text is an exercise of futurology.
Futurology isn't anything special. We do it all the time on our life. The main function of science is precisely to show us the future.
When we enter a building, we made a prediction that it wouldn't collapse on us. This is a prediction based on the trust we have on the science underlying its construction.
The problem is that there are only a few "laws" that we can qualify as scientific (of course, only if we accept their probabilistic and not exact nature) on human scientific issues, like these ones.
So, you know the recommendations: never do a prediction; if you make the mistake of doing one, never put it on writing; if you even so do that, at least never add a date to the prediction. Therefore, I won't.
Actually, I'm hoping I'm very wrong.
The European Union might not be as important to peace as some people thinks, at least with the current structure. But if it could be converted into a federal state, the issues of State debt would be overcome and it would be a serious guarantee of peace.
But it seems the opportunity was lost on 2005 and there won't be another one.
Jump to: