European Defence Force!! - You must be joking!! - Discuss....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LW, that depends on your viewpoint.
Common currency, its own parliament, aspirations of a foreign policy, permanent membership of the security council, a supra State police service, a taxation system for the Union and States within.
Where it differs is no common language and the Union military force is in embrio and the State forces are not under ultimate Union control.
Common currency, its own parliament, aspirations of a foreign policy, permanent membership of the security council, a supra State police service, a taxation system for the Union and States within.
Where it differs is no common language and the Union military force is in embrio and the State forces are not under ultimate Union control.
LW50:-
Indeed not, Lonewolf, but that is the very model that seems to be behind the ever closer union agenda of the EU. You, no doubt, have your own ideas as to what later led to the 4+ years of bitter civil war, but the Proclamation of the Confederacy made it difficult to avoid as far as the US Government was concerned, and the shelling and taking of Fort Sumter made it unavoidable.
Of course, 21st Century Europe is different from 19th Century USA. It is not beyond possibility though that under a revered, dynamic, and charismatic newly elected President of a now Unified Europe that the economic tensions between the North and South would finally erupt. Unlikely? Perhaps. Impossible? Hardly. Then all the agenda would be as nought as the very situation that unification was meant to prevent (courtesy of Melmoth) becomes hideously possible. We don't have to stick around to find out.
The EU no doubt has enabled cheap flights and high speed trains throughout its territory. Others made the trains run on time and built new freeways. Neither were guarantees of peace in our time...
No, they are not in a federal system analogous to the United States of America that was fully established by the Constitution of 1789. Not by a long shot.
Of course, 21st Century Europe is different from 19th Century USA. It is not beyond possibility though that under a revered, dynamic, and charismatic newly elected President of a now Unified Europe that the economic tensions between the North and South would finally erupt. Unlikely? Perhaps. Impossible? Hardly. Then all the agenda would be as nought as the very situation that unification was meant to prevent (courtesy of Melmoth) becomes hideously possible. We don't have to stick around to find out.
The EU no doubt has enabled cheap flights and high speed trains throughout its territory. Others made the trains run on time and built new freeways. Neither were guarantees of peace in our time...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Chug, but history suggests that we do get involved. We invaded Russia; Britons went to Spain, we were involved in two horrendous continental wars in the 20th Century and others before. We were involved in Greece until we ran out of money; we were involved in the Balkans. It is a rare conflict in which we are not involved.
... I'll believe some mythical United States of Europe exists. I suppose my hang up is on how our own union was formed, and what we had in common that brought 13 bickering and competitive states/colonies into agreement (enough) on common cause. Even with that, the Constitution of 1789 was flawed enough that
New England had profound sympathies for the Brits in 1812, and the slavery and 3/5th's rule lay as a latent defect that raised its ugly head again and again before the break. While we didn't have 1400 years of on again and off again Imperial influence, and rebellion against it, our collation and temporary disunion was based on a narrow subset of the culture wars from that 1400 years ..... mostly of which was North of the Alps (and across that channel) based.
What comparable unifying outside influence is there which will drive one to three dozen nations into that position? Maybe I lack vision and imagination. I just don't see it.
PN:-
As to the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars, they prove the age old adage to never get involved in others' civil wars, which we still go on ignoring. One of my ex-Squadrons was involved in the first adventure. The second of course was not UK Government policy.
I take your point though, and no doubt as outsiders we would have to go in and help pick up the pieces. At least we would not be part of the pieces, unless of course one side or the other threatened "consequences" if we did not actively come in on side (now who would ever say such a thing?).
As I have said earlier, the bulk of our involvements in European unpleasantnesses have been against the strongest Continental power. I think I've just conceded a come-back for you there PN. Care to go for it? ;-)
We invaded Russia; Britons went to Spain, we were involved in two horrendous continental wars in the 20th Century and others before. We were involved in Greece until we ran out of money; we were involved in the Balkans. It is a rare conflict in which we are not involved.
I take your point though, and no doubt as outsiders we would have to go in and help pick up the pieces. At least we would not be part of the pieces, unless of course one side or the other threatened "consequences" if we did not actively come in on side (now who would ever say such a thing?).
As I have said earlier, the bulk of our involvements in European unpleasantnesses have been against the strongest Continental power. I think I've just conceded a come-back for you there PN. Care to go for it? ;-)
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
There is a big difference between a United States of Europe and the USA. The states of Europe are, and have been for some time, sovereign. Lonewolf will correct me here but, the land that is occupied by the American States already belonged to the USA, which had claimed "from sea to shining sea". The States merely gained statehood as they became viable. Only two states gave up sovereignty; Texas and Hawaii. The secession of the south was illegal, because they were taking possession of something that had never belonged to them; i.e. the land of the United States.
This is something that I think a lot of Americans don't understand when they can't see our objection to a USE.
This is something that I think a lot of Americans don't understand when they can't see our objection to a USE.
Originally Posted by Chug
CM:-
Quote:
Boris or Nigel, "Vote Leave or your grandchildren will be forced to invade Spain!"
Quote:
Boris or Nigel, "Vote Leave or your grandchildren will be forced to invade Spain!"
To reiterate, my point is that you are
Originally Posted by Courtney
painting is a Soviet style state using its instruments of force to prevent states leaving
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: XFW, Germany
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you mean "it's not coming"? I see, it's already there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...Military_Staff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUFOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup
So many stuff to pick from!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...Military_Staff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUFOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup
So many stuff to pick from!
CM
From your ID details, you have obviously invested in the future of the EU in a very personal way and if the referendum (in which you may or may not have a vote, I've no idea) goes for Brexit there would no doubt be greater costs to you and your loved ones than for me. I'm sorry about that but I still have a right to my views and in any case I suspect that no such scenario is likely.
The leave campaign has been hijacked by the Conservative leadership battle and the so called facts fielded by both sides border on the bizarre. Johnston is no more anti EU than Cameron is pro, but it is an easy vehicle for their respective purposes.
Farage is different. He really believes what he says. He is the reason that we are having a referendum. He is the one who pointed at the newly appointed President of the European Parliament, Mr Rompuy, and demanded "Who are you? I've never heard of you!". Poor form of course, bloody rude, and he was fined for it, but it made the point of the undemocratic nature of EU institutions and appointments.
So, to your point that I am comparing the MO of the EU to that of the USSR. No, of course I am not. The whole point of the agenda from the outset was to use stealth and deceit rather than the brute force of past efforts to "unify" Europe. You may be happy with such methods. I am not. As you say, each state presently has the right to leave. Given the obdurate way that reform is rejected, and ever closer union has the aura of holy writ, I think that the UK should take the opportunity to do so now.
When does an ever closer union reach its zenith? Logic suggests that would indeed be as the USE. Yes, sovereignty would have to be ceded by the states (contrary to the USA case, thank you Herod). Would they do so? Under certain political situations, perceived external threats, inspiring leadership, some might. Never say never! All I say is that the very direction of travel is disturbing and I want none of it. I reiterate that IF a USE happened all bets are off and, given the precedents of the USA and the USSR, civil war could follow. A lot of ifs but a lot of the agenda has already been gained against the odds. Do not underestimate the perseverance of the believers!
As to the EDF, who or what would that owe allegiance to? Those who served in it would presumably be prepared to fight and die if necessary. Other than for each other, who would that be for? Just asking...
Thanks for the advice PN. My stumps have seemingly been pulled once by the mods already. You have a point, looking around the field and at the score!
From your ID details, you have obviously invested in the future of the EU in a very personal way and if the referendum (in which you may or may not have a vote, I've no idea) goes for Brexit there would no doubt be greater costs to you and your loved ones than for me. I'm sorry about that but I still have a right to my views and in any case I suspect that no such scenario is likely.
The leave campaign has been hijacked by the Conservative leadership battle and the so called facts fielded by both sides border on the bizarre. Johnston is no more anti EU than Cameron is pro, but it is an easy vehicle for their respective purposes.
Farage is different. He really believes what he says. He is the reason that we are having a referendum. He is the one who pointed at the newly appointed President of the European Parliament, Mr Rompuy, and demanded "Who are you? I've never heard of you!". Poor form of course, bloody rude, and he was fined for it, but it made the point of the undemocratic nature of EU institutions and appointments.
So, to your point that I am comparing the MO of the EU to that of the USSR. No, of course I am not. The whole point of the agenda from the outset was to use stealth and deceit rather than the brute force of past efforts to "unify" Europe. You may be happy with such methods. I am not. As you say, each state presently has the right to leave. Given the obdurate way that reform is rejected, and ever closer union has the aura of holy writ, I think that the UK should take the opportunity to do so now.
When does an ever closer union reach its zenith? Logic suggests that would indeed be as the USE. Yes, sovereignty would have to be ceded by the states (contrary to the USA case, thank you Herod). Would they do so? Under certain political situations, perceived external threats, inspiring leadership, some might. Never say never! All I say is that the very direction of travel is disturbing and I want none of it. I reiterate that IF a USE happened all bets are off and, given the precedents of the USA and the USSR, civil war could follow. A lot of ifs but a lot of the agenda has already been gained against the odds. Do not underestimate the perseverance of the believers!
As to the EDF, who or what would that owe allegiance to? Those who served in it would presumably be prepared to fight and die if necessary. Other than for each other, who would that be for? Just asking...
Thanks for the advice PN. My stumps have seemingly been pulled once by the mods already. You have a point, looking around the field and at the score!
The secession of the south was illegal, because they were taking possession of something that had never belonged to them; i.e. the land of the United States.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, but why go there in the first place? The Southern States wanted to secede, but that led directly to civil war. Unless we get out of the EU now, the same could apply to us and for every other European country that realises that it is a square peg in a round hole.
