PN:-
It was Chug who brought up civil war. The civil war he had in mind was as in the US. This is inconceivable; who would follow a directive from Brussels to send troops into another State?
PN, lest you think me rude, I did reply. Mysteriously my post has disappeared into the dust-bin of history. I'll keep this one brief as history has a habit of repeating itself!
The civil war that I envisage can obviously only take place when and if the EU becomes a state in its own right. That is the intended purpose of "ever closer union". A state needs a flag (tick), an anthem (tick), a common currency (mass civil unrest to date), no internal frontiers (starting to reclose already) and a military force (per this thread).
Not what you call great progress I'll admit, but the Eurocrats' agenda is still there and I for one don't underestimate their tenacity to succeed. If they ever do succeed then the possibility of certain southern States attempting to secede is quite large in my view. So a newly formed Union will have little choice but to counter such attempts, or see itself disintegrate. Hence the need for a military force.
We now have an opportunity now to bail out of this foolish experiment, which may indeed lead to its premature disintegration, or better still see it changed it back to the European Economic Community that we signed up for under a false prospectus in 1974. Either way I don't want to live to see my grand-children receiving call-up papers from Brussels to report to their newly mobilised local militia with orders to march south!
This was supposed to be short, sorry.