Brits Out!

[Pompey Bum]

It's leave!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/world/europe/britain-brexit-european-union-referendum.html?_r=0

[Jackson Richardson]

And I'm deeply, deeply depressed.

[Pompey Bum]

Well, I've lost some money but I'll get it back--eventually. My concern is the instability ahead. I suspect Angela's empire is toast. So will there be a Frexit next? (And would that constitute French toast? :)) Will there be a stampede or death by 1000 cuts? There's a lot of uncertainty ahead. It may take some time for the markets to calm down.

[Emil Miller]

Well, I've lost some money but I'll get it back--eventually. My concern is the instability ahead. I suspect Angela's empire is toast. So will there be a Frxexit next? (And would that constitute French toast? :)) Will there be a stampede or death by 1000 cuts? It may take some time for the markets to calm down.

I sincerely hope that Frau Merkel's empire is on the way out. l traveled extensively in Europe over many years and I loved Germany like a second home only to see it trashed by Merkel, so it's easy to see why I am elated by this rejection of everything she stands for.
The thing about Europe that makes it worthwhile is its variety, something that has noticeably diminished under the EU. Obviously change is a natural process that one has to accept, but not when it is engineered by corporate finance and politicians in their pay.

[YesNo]

Well, I've lost some money but I'll get it back--eventually.

I don't have anything riding on this vote to my knowledge being mostly in cash. But I suppose cash is worth more temporarily. It is possible this will deviously push the US (and European) markets to a new (and final?) high once people stop freaking out--or maybe the toilets really have been flushed.

Frexit, anyone? Or maybe Puerto Rico or California should declare their independence?

[Emil Miller]

I don't have anything riding on this vote to my knowledge being mostly in cash. But I suppose cash is worth more temporarily. It is possible this will deviously push the US (and European) markets to a new (and final?) high once people stop freaking out--or maybe the toilets really have been flushed.

Frexit, anyone? Or maybe Puerto Rico or California should declare their independence?

I love France and would like to see them out of the EU. However, the US is a lot older than the EU and built on firmer foundations but, given the rise of Donald Trump and recent shenanigans among politicians in Washington over gun control, almost anything is beginning to seem possible.

[Clopin]

Listening to La Marseillaise on full blast in preparation for Frexit.

This is a beautiful day.

https://youtu.be/Sgd9nYqVz2s


l traveled extensively in Europe over many years and I loved Germany like a second home

If you don't agree with this woman you're an ultra right wing neo-nazi and need emergency reeducation, stat. There won't be a Germany or a German people in fifty years! Das ist gut ja. We can all be equal then you racist bigot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LbRqcdRTUQ

[tonywalt]

I don't have anything riding on this vote to my knowledge being mostly in cash. But I suppose cash is worth more temporarily. It is possible this will deviously push the US (and European) markets to a new (and final?) high once people stop freaking out--or maybe the toilets really have been flushed.

Frexit, anyone? Or maybe Puerto Rico or California should declare their independence?

Puerto Rico independent? lol, who would they blame for their problems? Themselves?

[Tyrion Cheddar]

:rofl: Wow. Y'all are mighty exercised over this, ain't ya. As an uncouth hillbilly American who needs to be instructed on things like gun control by Brits and Europeans, I realize my opinion doesn't count for much, but personally any time France and Germany get kicked in the balls I'm a happy camper.

[YesNo]

I've heard that there's a large segment of the French who want out as well. Maybe it is similar in Germany. Does anyone want to stay in the EU (outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland)?

I had to look at a map to see where Puerto Rico was. In their case they might be more worried about getting kicked out.

[Danik 2016]

Listening to La Marseillaise on full blast in preparation for Frexit.

This is a beautiful day.

https://youtu.be/Sgd9nYqVz2s



If you don't agree with this woman you're an ultra right wing neo-nazi and need emergency reeducation, stat. There won't be a Germany or a German people in fifty years! Das ist gut ja. We can all be equal then you racist bigot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LbRqcdRTUQ

Clopin,
You are just very very young! And who is the woman you are talking about?

[Diggory Venn]

This affects me. I am British. I live in Great Britain. I voted to leave the European Union. I want to be governed by an elected British government, accountable to me. What is wrong with that ? By the way, I do not give a damn about money. There is more to life than a quick quid.....

I hope every other country in the EU will do likewise. I would hope that everyone, wherever they live, has pride in their own country, and respects the rights and wishes of people in other countries.

[Ecurb]

I'm declaring myself independent from the laws of the United States and Oregon. (Oh, I forgot. Pot is legal in Oregon now. Why bother?)

Independent, traditional nation states certainly make sense: look at all the good they've done for the Balkins. Chechnya, the Ukraine, etc!

Should Lincoln have let the Confederacy secede?


Edwin Markham. 1852–

8. Lincoln, the Man of the People

WHEN the Norn Mother saw the Whirlwind Hour
Greatening and darkening as it hurried on,
She left the Heaven of Heroes and came down
To make a man to meet the mortal need.
She took the tried clay of the common road— 5
Clay warm yet with the genial heat of earth,
Dashed through it all a strain of prophecy;
Tempered the heap with thrill of human tears;
Then mixed a laughter with the serious stuff.
Into the shape she breathed a flame to light 10
That tender, tragic, ever-changing face.
Here was a man to hold against the world,
A man to match the mountains and the sea.

The color of the ground was in him, the red earth;
The smack and tang of elemental things: 15
The rectitude and patience of the cliff;
The good-will of the rain that loves all leaves;
The friendly welcome of the wayside well;
The courage of the bird that dares the sea;
The gladness of the wind that shakes the corn; 20
The pity of the snow that hides all scars;
The secrecy of streams that make their way
Beneath the mountain to the rifted rock;
The tolerance and equity of light
That gives as freely to the shrinking flower 25
As to the great oak flaring to the wind—
To the grave's low hill as to the Matterhorn
That shoulders out the sky.

Sprung from the West,
The strength of virgin forests braced his mind, 30
The hush of spacious prairies stilled his soul.
Up from log cabin to the Capitol,
One fire was on his spirit, one resolve:—
To send the keen axe to the root of wrong,
Clearing a free way for the feet of God. 35
And evermore he burned to do his deed
With the fine stroke and gesture of a king:
He built the rail-pile as he built the State,
Pouring his splendid strength through every blow;
The conscience of him testing every stroke, 40
To make his deed the measure of a man.

So came the Captain with the mighty heart;
And when the judgment thunders split the house,
Wrenching the rafters from their ancient rest,
He held the ridgepole up, and spiked again 45
The rafters of the Home. He held his place—
Held the long purpose like a growing tree—
Held on through blame and faltered not at praise.
And when he fell in whirlwind, he went down
As when a lordly cedar, green with boughs, 50
Goes down with a great shout upon the hills,
And leaves a lonesome place against the sky.




Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight
Related Poem Content Details
By Vachel Lindsay

(In Springfield, Illinois)
It is portentous, and a thing of state
That here at midnight, in our little town
A mourning figure walks, and will not rest,
Near the old court-house pacing up and down.

Or by his homestead, or in shadowed yards
He lingers where his children used to play,
Or through the market, on the well-worn stones
He stalks until the dawn-stars burn away.

A bronzed, lank man! His suit of ancient black,
A famous high top-hat and plain worn shawl
Make him the quaint great figure that men love,
The prairie-lawyer, master of us all.

He cannot sleep upon his hillside now.
He is among us:—as in times before!
And we who toss and lie awake for long
Breathe deep, and start, to see him pass the door.

His head is bowed. He thinks on men and kings.
Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
Too many peasants fight, they know not why,
Too many homesteads in black terror weep.

The sins of all the war-lords burn his heart.
He sees the dreadnaughts scouring every main.
He carries on his shawl-wrapped shoulders now
The bitterness, the folly and the pain.

He cannot rest until a spirit-dawn
Shall come;—the shining hope of Europe free;
The league of sober folk, the Workers' Earth,
Bringing long peace to Cornland, Alp and Sea.

It breaks his heart that kings must murder still,
That all his hours of travail here for men
Seem yet in vain. And who will bring white peace
That he may sleep upon his hill again?

Ecurb: Proud birth citizen (as opposed to my implied opinions in this thread) of Illinois.

[YesNo]

I was born in northwest Indiana, but I live in the neighboring state of Illinois.

Just because Lincoln kept the United States intact during a secession over a century ago, that doesn't mean it is a good or a bad thing for the UK now to stay in or leave the EU. If one goes back even further, the US itself declared independence from Britain.

Britain has voted for independence from the EU. It still has to implement that decision. It took the US a war to implement its decision and only completed that seven years after its 1776 declaration in 1783.

[Ecurb]

I was born in northwest Indiana, but I live in the neighboring state of Illinois.

Just because Lincoln kept the United States intact during a secession over a century ago, that doesn't mean it is a good or a bad thing for the UK now to stay in or leave the EU. If one goes back even further, the US itself declared independence from Britain.

Britain has voted for independence from the EU. It still has to implement that decision. It took the US a war to implement its decision and only completed that seven years after its 1776 declaration in 1783.

Obviously. Nor does the result of the vote mean it's a good or bad thing. I hope everything goes smoothly, however it turns out. However, the recent history of Nationalism in Europe includes racism, genocide, and bigotry.

Patriotism resembles the love of one's own family, one's own neighborhood, or one's own city. It's natural and admirable. Nationalism adds to that the belief that independent action (rather than collective action) best serves human welfare. In that respect it resembles Capitalism. This might be right, or it might be wrong (I don't know). However, the dissolution of political conglomerates leads to several moral questions:

1) (As I alluded to in my last post) If a state, a province, or a nation can legitimately decide to leave its political alliances, why can't an individual, a neighborhood, or a village? Where do we draw the line?

2) Are all treaties and agreements legitimately breakable by the will of the people? What's the virtue of entering into any alliance (for example NATO) if you can leave whenever the going gets tough?

3) Is the desire for nationhood often rooted in bigotry? That certainly seemed to have been the case in the Balkans.

4) Was it legitimate for Lincoln to go to war against the Confederacy when they seceded?

I remember that I was in Toronto on business when Quebec almost seceded. An ex-Pakistani cab driver drove me to the airport, and we started talking about the vote, which was taking place that day.

"It is the weeping time for the Canada," he told me, with a tear in his eye.

Quebec didn't secede, but one reason they wanted to was to retain a purity of language and culture. I, on the other hand, assumed that the Pakistani cabbie was making a literal translation of one of his native idioms. Far from thinking this an abomination, I thought that the expression was beautiful, as was the immigrant's sentiment and love for his country. Different cultural influences add to the culture of any country, I think. Of course that vote was before 9/11.

p.s. to YesNo: Did your kids go to New Trier, my alma mater?

[YesNo]

1) (As I alluded to in my last post) If a state, a province, or a nation can legitimately decide to leave its political alliances, why can't an individual, a neighborhood, or a village? Where do we draw the line?

There are no individuals without relationships. We are all related as organisms, as members of a species, to others. This relationship is not only biological but cultural.

We don't have to draw any lines. Drawing lines attempts to find an objective frame of reference upon which we can decide a political question without committing our subjectivity to what we choose. I don't trust any such frame of reference.



2) Are all treaties and agreements legitimately breakable by the will of the people? What's the virtue of entering into any alliance (for example NATO) if you can leave whenever the going gets tough?

That all depends on how the treaties or agreements are written. I don't think you are talking about "legitimacy" so much as ethics. Is it ethical to break treaties you no longer want to be part of? Again that would depend on the treaty and what was at stake.



3) Is the desire for nationhood often rooted in racism? That certainly seemed to have been the case in the Balkans.

I don't think it is racism, but more an extended family bonding which comes from the pair-bonding of our species.



4) Was it legitimate for Lincoln to go to war against the Confederacy when they seceded?

I suspect it was legal for him to do so and therefore "legitimate", but again I think you are asking if it was the morally right thing to do or not. I don't know the answer to that question.

However, it would not surprise me if future historians would question Lincoln more if my assumption that social mood is becoming more negative is true.



p.s. to YesNo: Did your kids go to New Trier, my alma mater?

They went to Glenbrook North, not far from New Trier.

[Scheherazade]

l traveled extensively in Europe over many years ...Being a citizen of a country that is part of the EU, I am sure, did not make all that travelling easy for you at all.

[Ecurb]

Almost 240 years ago, the American Colonies declared independence from Britain. Thomas Jefferson wrote:



When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Jefferson then went into detail enumerating the reasons for the dissolution. It seems (to me, from a distance) that the U.K.'s reason for exiting the E.U. is, "We put it to a vote, and we didn't feel like being in it anymore." This, I think, shows a lack of "decent respect to the opinions of mankind", and, in particular, of their former E.U. partners.

I'll grant, YesNo, that I don't know the exact wording of any E.U. agreements that were signed by representatives of the U.K. But when a nation's leaders make agreements on behalf of that nation, a vote reflecting the protean whims of the population seems insufficient reason (ethically) to break promises and agreements. The "consent of the governed" does not imply that the governed get to vote on every issue in a representative republic or democracy, or that their leaders cannot make morally binding agreements.

Democracy is a dangerous thing, and sometimes an evil thing, as Socrates discovered.

[Clopin]

Waaaaah I want top down government which doesn't yield to the will of the majority of people who have to live with the consequences of its decisions. Waaaaaah why can't people just accept the Marxist superstate and give up on selfhood and individuality :( they're all meanie racists if they don't always vote how I want them to.


I remember that I was in Toronto on business when Quebec almost seceded. An ex-Pakistani cab driver drove me to the airport, and we started talking about the vote, which was taking place that day.

"It is the weeping time for the Canada," he told me, with a tear in his eye.


Well I want Quebec to go as well.

[Ecurb]

Waaah, that big meanie Clopin is insulting me!

I hold individuals to the same standards as nations. Don't screw over your business partners on a whim, or even because it benefits you personally. Don't worry, though Clopin. I don't expect any standards (even those of basic politeness) from you.

"Top down" government may include the protection of basic human rights that would have protected Socrates from drinking the hemlock prescribed by his democratic fellow citizens.

[Clopin]

We don't really need to have this conversation as you're not going to convince me that letting the people who are directly affected by EU policy personally have a say on the matter is a bad thing because over 2000 years ago an innocent man was condemned to die. I just hope you don't convince anyone else, comrade.

Rule Britannia.

[Whifflingpin]

I voted to remain, for much the reasons that Ecurb has given.

Joy to the World.

[YesNo]

This is mainly addressed to Ecurb:

What I have come to understand is that there is an "article 50" of some EU rules allowing EU nations to leave. So the UK is within its right to leave the EU. It also appears that UK citizens have the right to request a referendum. So the UK government has the right to honor such a request. Citizens of the UK are allowed to vote as they see fit. They exercised their right to vote.

You have the right to express your objection to the results, but you have neither a logical nor ethical ground to claim more than that. If the vote had gone the way you preferred, you would make the same arguments against me if I objected to the results.

In my case, I don't care which way the Brexit vote went. What gets me excited about this is that a financial advisory service (Elliot Wave International), using methods that reminded me too much of numerology for my comfort zone, predicted a market downturn and that I should not worry about Brexit one way or the other. Brexit was only a part of a more general negative "social mood", not a cause of that mood. Although they are not always right, this is not the first time they got things right. I feel like a person who has just been to a fortune teller who interpreted a Tarot spread that I selected picking through the cards with her long finger nails, telling me about my future and getting things more right than I would have expected. If you hear me trying to interpret things in terms of "social mood" from now on rather than Brexit-like events, it is because of their influence.

[Emil Miller]

Being a citizen of a country that is part of the EU, I am sure, did not make all that travelling easy for you at all.

No, I was travelling before and after the EEC morphed into the EU: the only difference I noted was the replacement of my British passport with a European Union version and the currency being the Euro which has an inferior design to banknotes formerly in use on the continent.

[Diggory Venn]

Hello Ecurb, YesNo and Clopin,

I am reading your comments with interest. Please could each of you state whether you agree with "Brexit" or not, and explain why ?

Kind regards.

[Scheherazade]

No, I was travelling before and after the EEC morphed into the EU: the only difference I noted was the replacement of my British passport with a European Union version and the currency being the Euro which has an inferior design to banknotes formerly in use on the continent.So your only objection is aesthetic?

I would like to remind everyone to keep the discussion within the Forum rules and respect each other's views.

[Ecurb]

Rule Britannia.

Britannia might be merely England, if the Scots and the Northern Irish secede to stay in the E.U., as they threaten to do.

[Ecurb]

This is mainly addressed to Ecurb:

What I have come to understand is that there is an "article 50" of some EU rules allowing EU nations to leave. So the UK is within its right to leave the EU. It also appears that UK citizens have the right to request a referendum. So the UK government has the right to honor such a request. Citizens of the UK are allowed to vote as they see fit. They exercised their right to vote.

You have the right to express your objection to the results, but you have neither a logical nor ethical ground to claim more than that. If the vote had gone the way you preferred, you would make the same arguments against me if I objected to the results.
.

I don't know the exact rules. You may know them better. However, I disagree when you say I have neither a logical nor ethical ground for my complaint. Business partners might have a legal right to screw over their partners (indeed, in the U.S., at least, in privately held corporations the majority share holder has almost unlimited rights to limit the money a minority share holder can gain from ownership, unless the business sells. He can pay himself a huge salary and eliminate all dividends, for example), but that doesn't mean there can't be ethical standards that can hold such practices in contempt. Why would it? If you enter into an agreement in good faith; if changing your mind and pulling out of the agreement harms your partners (although it may benefit you); surely that's something to consider when judging whether pulling out is ethically acceptable. (I really don't know much about Brexit, so I don't have a good grasp as to how precisely this applies to that case, but as a general principle, I stand by it. One might, for example, have an ethical standard involving Mills "greatest good for the greatest number", and feel Brexit violates it in a self-serving manner.)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/article-50-key-brexit-175046681.html?ref=gs

[Clopin]

Britannia might be merely England, if the Scots and the Northern Irish secede to stay in the E.U., as they threaten to do.

'Scotland' isn't threatening anything. The SNP want to separate from the UK and have wanted to since before Brexit (they won nearly every seat in Scotland over Labour during the last federal election campaigning hard for... Scexit) as there was a referendum on Scottish independence very recently. The situation has changed now, of course, and they may have another referendum, but Scotland (in this case who exactly is 'Scotland'?) can't exactly "threaten" to secede, they actually need to have a vote and if the majority of Scots want to leave the United Kingdom then they should absolutely have that right. I don't see why an historically different culture and people should still be ruled by a foreign government if the majority of them don't want to be. Let Quebec, Ireland, Scotland, Texas and Puerto Rico gain their independence as well if the votes pass.

[YesNo]

I don't know the exact rules. You may know them better. However, I disagree when you say I have neither a logical nor ethical ground for my complaint. Business partners might have a legal right to screw over their partners (indeed, in the U.S., at least, in privately held corporations the majority share holder has almost unlimited rights to limit the money a minority share holder can gain from ownership, unless the business sells. He can pay himself a huge salary and eliminate all dividends, for example), but that doesn't mean there can't be ethical standards that can hold such practices in contempt. Why would it? If you enter into an agreement in good faith; if changing your mind and pulling out of the agreement harms your partners (although it may benefit you); surely that's something to consider when judging whether pulling out is ethically acceptable. (I really don't know much about Brexit, so I don't have a good grasp as to how precisely this applies to that case, but as a general principle, I stand by it. One might, for example, have an ethical standard involving Mills "greatest good for the greatest number", and feel Brexit violates it in a self-serving manner.)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/article-50-key-brexit-175046681.html?ref=gs

I'm puzzled by something. You admit that you don't know what the exact EU rules are nor are you even familiar with Brexit and yet you seem to think you know enough to be able to determine who is "screwing over" whom, assuming there even is someone who is being "screwed over". How is that possible?

Underlying this issue there is a culture war which is fueled by negative social mood. It is very easy for both of us to get sucked into that. We are going to have our own culture war in the upcoming US presidential elections. You might want to focus on that since, given current social mood, a Donald Trump presidency is a real possibility.

[Clopin]

Well that's the thing. The UK joined - what is now called - the EU under vastly different circumstances more than 40 years ago. I'm not sure how long Ecurb expects people to be loyal to their business associates, but the populace of the UK certainly don't think they're getting a fair deal themselves; are they just trapped forever because of obligations which go back several decades and were made by politicians who couldn't have apprehended the current state of affairs (or simply did not)? What about forty years from now when every person who was politically aware when the UK joined the EEC in the first place is dead? Can they leave then? Under any circumstance?

[Ecurb]

Not only can they leave, but they are leaving. I never said they can't leave, or that leaving MUST be an ethically unsound decision. I just said they (the voters) should consider the obligations membership confers, as well as the costs and benefits.

Most of us probably think that it's reasonable for some married couples to divorce. Nonetheless, divorce is always morally onerous (although it might be the lesser of two evils) for those of us who think honoring vows is a moral virtue, and breaking them a moral transgression. That transgression is not exculpated by saying, "Gee, I made those vows 30 years ago! I'm a different person now!"

It serves the voters right that England lost to fellow non-EU member Iceland in the Euros.

[Clopin]

"Gee, I made those vows 30 years ago! I'm a different person now!"

I see; and if you're a voting age adult of below the age of 60 or so and had no say in the matter in the first place? Is it morally wrong to leave a marriage you never agreed to? Say a marriage arranged 10 or 20 years before your birth.

[Pompey Bum]

Most of us probably think that it's reasonable for some married couples to divorce. Nonetheless, divorce is always morally onerous (although it might be the lesser of two evils) for those of us who think honoring vows is a moral virtue, and breaking them a moral transgression. That transgression is not exculpated by saying, "Gee, I made those vows 30 years ago! I'm a different person now!"

Well, joining the EU's more like friending someone on LitNet than actually getting married, isn't it? ;-)

[Ecurb]

Obviously, there are distinctions between personal promises and national promises. However, I don't think it's reasonable to say (as Clopin suggests), "My country made these promises before I could vote, so I"m not obligated by them in any way (to use Clopin's vernacular, "Waaaah!")." If a citizen benefits from the laws, bureaucratic systems, infrastructure, etc. his nation provides him, he should (I think) feel some sense of honor when his nation honors its promises and obligations, and some sense of dishonor when it does not. Even "friending" someone on Litnet confers some (very minor) obligations, and we shouldn't break promises we make to even such "friends" as these, although I'll grant any such vows were probably not made "before God and this Company" (which adds sizzle to any promise, whether one is religious or not).

One more thing I just remembered: Young people voted overwhelmingly to stay in the E.U. It was the old people who voted overwhelmingly to leave. So that excuse won't fly.

[Clopin]

Those young people were not born when Britain joined the EEC. Anyone who was able to vote Britain into the union at the time would be about 70 today, and do you know how those people voted? Out. Incidentally the referendum on joining the EEC passed with 17 million votes in favour to 8 million opposed, the fact that forty years later the same people who voted the UK into the EEC in the first place cast their ballots vastly in favour of out might be suggesting something about how the relationship has changed and which party is failing to honour their commitments to the other. Britain wasn't voted out they voted to get out.

Also only about 36% of young people bothered to vote, so they're stupid and disengaged (luckily).

The excuse still flies though because your analogy was to a marriage that you're leaving because you've become a different person. The majority of people who voted in this current referendum never had a say in whether Britain joined the EU - so this isn't simply a 'change of heart' undertaken spur of the moment by some fair weather friends - and those who did have a say at the time, and are still alive, have now almost completely changed their minds (possibly because the EU now no longer bears any resemblance to the EEC they joined in 1973).

[Pompey Bum]

Even "friending" someone on Litnet confers some (very minor) obligations, and we shouldn't break promises we make to even such "friends" as these

I dunno, Ecurb, I mean, that remove button's got to be there for some reason, right? ;-)

[YesNo]

Hello Ecurb, YesNo and Clopin,

I am reading your comments with interest. Please could each of you state whether you agree with "Brexit" or not, and explain why ?

Kind regards.

I'm not a UK citizen, so the issue for me is one of viewing how social mood changes markets.

However, my view of the markets is very bearish. In other words, my social mood is negative. With such a social mood, I would vote to leave the EU and if I were in Scotland to leave the UK. This is not because I want to abandon the other countries, but because I sense a risk to all member countries if they stay under one large umbrella. What splitting up does is creates a lot of smaller umbrellas to limit damage.

Some people are bullish. They want to increase the size of the single umbrella. They feel the risks are minimal. They do not mind putting all their eggs in one basket. I respect that position. However, any country that feels the risks are significant, especially for itself, who still wants to stay under the common umbrella is not thinking of the common good.

[Dreamwoven]

Clopin's point is central, and it is a matter of the secrecy with which the European Community has concealed its intentions. YesNo is also making a good point, the smaller the "umbrella" the more the damage of decisions by larger members is limited.

[Scheherazade]

Anyone who was able to vote Britain into the union at the time would be about 70 today, and do you know how those people voted? Out. Incidentally the referendum on joining the EEC passed with 17 million votes in favour to 8 million opposed, the fact that forty years later the same people who voted the UK into the EEC in the first place cast their ballots vastly in favour of out might be suggesting something about how the relationship has changed and which party is failing to honour their commitments to the other. Britain wasn't voted out they voted to get out.
I do agree with you that Britain voted to get out; however, I find your assumption that those 17M, who voted IN in 1975, has now changed their minds. Actually, it was the elder population again who voted IN then; those who witnessed, experienced and endured the results of the World Wars and their consequences.

Who actually voted OUT now is the baby-boomers, who came after the wars and spent the 60s and 70s in a daze. They did not have the first-hand experience of the world wars and they are not part of the new generation who consider themselves part of a new, globalised and multinational world. To this new generation, it is incomprehensible that the UK would like to severe ties with the rest of the Europe in such a fashion but, unfortunately, they will be the ones who will actually have to live with the consequences of the decisions of a generation whose shelf-life - frankly speaking - is about to expire.

I am frustrated that the younger generation did not vote in the referendum as they should - but who knows how many of those babyboomers who voted OUT now actually did vote 40 years ago?

[Whifflingpin]

I was one who voted In 40 years ago, and voted Remain In last week.

40 years ago I voted in, in spite of the leaders of the In campaign who insisted that the union was for economic reasons only and not a step towards political union. I hoped and anticipated that political union would inevitably follow.

To me, the slowness of the EU's approach to political union has be its main failing, with the national leaders of the Union fighting all the time for their own state's interests against the common interest, and no truly European leaders or structures to override them. The recent Euro-crisis appeared to be the Greek nation against German banks. Now it seems to be the German chancellor who is speaking as if she can decide the progress and the terms of Brexit, when it ought to be a European First Minister making those statements. For most people of my generation participation in Europe is one thing, but rule by Germany, for obvious reasons is something totally other.

I voted remain this time, partly through stubbornness, but mainly because I still think that union is better than division and that Europe is the next closest thing to be united with. I would not want it to stop there because, recognising the "new, globalised and multinational world," I think that a global political union is necessary to resolve the major problems that we now face.

I know that it might take generations to achieve that. I think Brexit has pushed the cause back in England, and maybe Europe, by 50 years. We all want, or say we want, world peace. The EU was a flawed but practical demonstration of the possibility of world peace.

Brexit will not only take Britain out of that great example, but may trigger the collapse of the experiment bringing about what a hundred years ago would have been called the Balkanisation of Europe. An even greater likelihood is that the union which made Britain great will also dissolve.

The irony is that nothing whatever that the Leave campaign argued would be a benefit from Brexit will actually occur. A priceless thing has been smashed and nothing will be gained from that.

[Dreamwoven]

I was one who voted In 40 years ago, and voted Remain In last week.

40 years ago I voted in, in spite of the leaders of the In campaign who insisted that the union was for economic reasons only and not a step towards political union. I hoped and anticipated that political union would inevitably follow.

To me, the slowness of the EU's approach to political union has be its main failing, with the national leaders of the Union fighting all the time for their own state's interests against the common interest, and no truly European leaders or structures to override them. The recent Euro-crisis appeared to be the Greek nation against German banks. Now it seems to be the German chancellor who is speaking as if she can decide the progress and the terms of Brexit, when it ought to be a European First Minister making those statements. For most people of my generation participation in Europe is one thing, but rule by Germany, for obvious reasons is something totally other.

I voted remain this time, partly through stubbornness, but mainly because I still think that union is better than division and that Europe is the next closest thing to be united with. I would not want it to stop there because, recognising the "new, globalised and multinational world," I think that a global political union is necessary to resolve the major problems that we now face.

I know that it might take generations to achieve that. I think Brexit has pushed the cause back in England, and maybe Europe, by 50 years. We all want, or say we want, world peace. The EU was a flawed but practical demonstration of the possibility of world peace.

Brexit will not only take Britain out of that great example, but may trigger the collapse of the experiment bringing about what a hundred years ago would have been called the Balkanisation of Europe. An even greater likelihood is that the union which made Britain great will also dissolve.

The irony is that nothing whatever that the Leave campaign argued would be a benefit from Brexit will actually occur. A priceless thing has been smashed and nothing will be gained from that.

It was the EU trying to recruit Ukraine that was the cause of this, the Second Cold War.

[Whifflingpin]

Certainly Putin is the only gainer from Brexit

[Dreamwoven]

Everyone is assuming that Britain will leave the EU. Sadly, I don't think so. Extensive negotiations will be needed, and there is plenty of opportunity for haggling over the terms, and finally rejecting them, by whoever replaces Cameron.

[Emil Miller]

So your only objection is aesthetic?

I would like to remind everyone to keep the discussion within the Forum rules and respect each other's views.

No that applies in relation to the travelling. Here's why I voted for Brexit, but not only for Britain's sake but also for the rest of Europe.

https://youtu.be/AZYcjVC2rRQ

[Scheherazade]

https://youtu.be/AZYcjVC2rRQThanks for the informative video - though, even without it, I could have guessed that you had voted for OUT and why.

[Tyrion Cheddar]

I've heard that there's a large segment of the French who want out as well. Maybe it is similar in Germany. Does anyone want to stay in the EU (outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland)?

I had to look at a map to see where Puerto Rico was. In their case they might be more worried about getting kicked out.

Don't think that's too likely. It's a gem, a conveniently located bit of the Caribbean for us. I, as a New Yorker, have enjoyed the proximity of it a few times. Also, the PR population of NY is colossal, and every year the Puerto Rican Day parade takes over NY like a blanket. Also, I like PR chicks. ;-)

[Clopin]

I do agree with you that Britain voted to get out; however, I find your assumption that those 17M, who voted IN in 1975, has now changed their minds. Actually, it was the elder population again who voted IN then; those who witnessed, experienced and endured the results of the World Wars and their consequences.

Who actually voted OUT now is the baby-boomers, who came after the wars and spent the 60s and 70s in a daze. They did not have the first-hand experience of the world wars and they are not part of the new generation who consider themselves part of a new, globalised and multinational world. To this new generation, it is incomprehensible that the UK would like to severe ties with the rest of the Europe in such a fashion but, unfortunately, they will be the ones who will actually have to live with the consequences of the decisions of a generation whose shelf-life - frankly speaking - is about to expire.

I am frustrated that the younger generation did not vote in the referendum as they should - but who knows how many of those babyboomers who voted OUT now actually did vote 40 years ago?

Well people who are 70-90 right now aren't boomers and the majority of them voted leave.


To this new generation, it is incomprehensible that the UK would like to severe ties with the rest of the Europe in such a fashion but, unfortunately, they will be the ones who will actually have to live with the consequences of the decisions of a generation whose shelf-life - frankly speaking - is about to expire.

Young people (18-24) are the most misinformed and ignorant demographic. They're mainly capable of parroting back buzzwords they've heard and accusing everyone who disagrees with them of racism. There were enough people in this age group, by the way, to clinch a remain victory, had a larger percentage of them actually voted, so don't blame boomers or the elderly for exercising their right to vote when young people couldn't be bothered.

Also this notion that the elderly are voting entirely in their own self interest in order to best 'sell the youth down the river' is total nonsense as well. Elderly people often have children and grandchildren and are looking to see that they have the best possible futures. Yes, people who are twenty today are at odds politically with their grandparents but that doesn't mean that every time a vote goes in favour of the elderly that young people are going to suffer as a result.

[Scheherazade]

Yes, people who are twenty today are at odds politically with their grandparents but that doesn't mean that every time a vote goes in favour of the elderly that young people are going to suffer as a result.It is not about "suffering" but having to live with the consequences of another generation 's choice.

And I am quite at a loss that you would personify a whole genetation as misinformed and misguided. Merely because ypu don't agree with their views or choices?

[Clopin]

It is not about "suffering" but having to live with the consequences of another generation 's choice.

How about living with the consequences of their own choice? 64% of them chose not to vote, so they can start there.

[YesNo]

Don't think that's too likely. It's a gem, a conveniently located bit of the Caribbean for us. I, as a New Yorker, have enjoyed the proximity of it a few times. Also, the PR population of NY is colossal, and every year the Puerto Rican Day parade takes over NY like a blanket. Also, I like PR chicks. ;-)

You're right. No politician in his or her right mind would want to kick out Puerto Rico.

I was thinking regarding the municipal debts that Puerto Rico is having trouble paying, we should just allow the territory to go bankrupt.

Speaking of debt and since this is about the EU, I've never understood the Greek debt situation. Here's one take on it: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/truth-greek-debt-german-generosity/

I still don't understand it.

[Clopin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhhpg3adfNc

Also at this point the Greeks can't even pay the interest on their debts so any further 'bailouts' are quite literally funnelling money from European taxpayers directly into the filthy, gaping, maws of the banking elite. None of it goes to Greek public services, Greek infrastructure or the Greek people.

[YesNo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhhpg3adfNc

Also at this point the Greeks can't even pay the interest on their debts so any further 'bailouts' are quite literally funnelling money from European taxpayers directly into the filthy, gaping, maws of the banking elite. None of it goes to Greek public services, Greek infrastructure or the Greek people.

Nigel Farage is a powerful speaker. He knows how to antagonize his audience while at the same time remain calm.

It does seem to me that bailouts are for the benefit of whoever holds the loans at the expense of the taxpayers, but I wonder how much money is actually coming from the taxpayers? The article I cited suggested to me that nothing was, but that may not be true.

[Ecurb]

Geez, Clopin, why do you think elite bankers have "filthy, gaping maws"? I believe many bankers brush their teeth, visit the dentist regularly, and chew with their mouths closed. Proper table manners are essential to elite money lending.

[YesNo]

When it comes to insulting others, saying things like "filthy, gaping, maws" definitely goes over the top. It draws too much attention back to the speaker even if the listener thinks it is true. Suggesting that one side is "screwing over" the other also sounds too excessive to be really effective. When I insult someone, I want it to hit hard without bouncing back on me any more than necessary. Of course some of it will bounce back and no doubt I'd deserve it.

I was impressed by Farage. He told his audience, "None of you have ever done a proper job in your lives." That was as forceful as he could have made the statement. He didn't call them names. He didn't say they were "filthy" or "screwing something". He didn't himself get upset. He just made a bold assertion that many of his supporters would likely find credible even in its exaggeration and which would maximally annoy his present listeners.

[Dreamwoven]

I am pretty sure that a plebiscite is not in line with British law, both houses of parliament need to make such a decision, and as far as I can see there is almost no support to ensure that a bill to address that will be passed.

What is odd is that no-one has addressed that question yet. Everyone is pretending that the next leader of the Conservative Party will do so. Even the media are playing along with the plebiscite as having made the decision. Much as I would like it to, it has not, it cannot.

[Ecurb]

When it comes to insulting others, saying things like "filthy, gaping, maws" definitely goes over the top. It draws too much attention back to the speaker even if the listener thinks it is true. Suggesting that one side is "screwing over" the other also sounds too excessive to be really effective. When I insult someone, I want it to hit hard without bouncing back on me any more than necessary. Of course some of it will bounce back and no doubt I'd deserve it.


I don't object to Clopin's "gaping maws" crack -- I was just trying to add a little levity to the conversation. As far as "screwing over" - I'll grant that it's not an elegant phrasing, but I didn't accuse either side of it. Instead, I suggested (as a general principle), "Don't screw over your business partners on a whim". (I later said business partners shouldn't screw each other over even if they have a legal right to.) I didn't listen to the Farage video, but I always admired Westmoreland's skill with an insult, from King Lear. He calls Oswald:


A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a
base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited,
hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a
lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson,
glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue;
one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a
bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but
the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar,
and the son and heir of a mongrel *****: one whom I
will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest
the least syllable of thy addition.

[Dreamwoven]

David Cameron has just been discussing the weaknesses of the EU. Sweden has been a keen supporter of Britain, we share the same critical approach to the EU. Something good can still come out of this situation.

[YesNo]

I don't object to Clopin's "gaping maws" crack -- I was just trying to add a little levity to the conversation. As far as "screwing over" - I'll grant that it's not an elegant phrasing, but I didn't accuse either side of it. Instead, I suggested (as a general principle), "Don't screw over your business partners on a whim". (I later said business partners shouldn't screw each other over even if they have a legal right to.) I didn't listen to the Farage video, but I always admired Westmoreland's skill with an insult, from King Lear. He calls Oswald:

I'm not against what you said. Someone probably is screwing over someone else but it will not be easy to sort out. Rhetorically I like to have three examples in order to praise one of them. It makes it look as if I have many examples when I only have three, so I needed you and Clopin to balance off Farage. Westmoreland's insults were not as powerful as Farage's, because they were too direct, however, much of the insult is also its delivery. (I've wondered where "lily-livered" comes from.)

Something occurred to me about those 18 to 24 year-old potential voters after listening to Farage. The fact that they are as of yet mostly non-politicized should not be viewed as good news to the Remain side. It would be nice to know, if there were exit polls, how those in that age group who were politicized enough to vote actually voted.

This is the age group that aren't personally distracted by children to protect, but they are idealistic enough to be willing to protect what they perceive to be good. They are the white knights and damsels in distress who fight and resist in their own ways the dragon. Words that get associated with the righteous knights and virtuous damsels are "democracy" and "independence". These are words the Leave side has a monopoly on. The dragons could be viewed as "Germans" or "bankers" words which can bring to their minds images of foreignness and oppression.

[Ecurb]

Westmoreland's insults were (and were designed to be) "fighting words", to which no response except cowardly acceptance or a brawl is appropriate.

I just listened to Farage, and his insults (although not the rest of his speech) were ridiculous. When he said that none of his listeners had ever held a real job, he was lying (he couldn't possibly have known) and pandering to the working class. The chairman properly took him to task for it.

Also, anyone who associates "righteous knights" with "democracy" must be muddled in his thinking. Much as I admire the romantic concept of the Christian knight, neither I nor anyone who knows anything about it would find knightly duties "democratic" or even "independent".

[YesNo]

Westmoreland's insults were (and were designed to be) "fighting words", to which no response except cowardly acceptance or a brawl is appropriate.

I just listened to Farage, and his insults (although not the rest of his speech) were ridiculous. When he said that none of his listeners had ever held a real job, he was lying (he couldn't possibly have known) and pandering to the working class. The chairman properly took him to task for it.

Also, anyone who associates "righteous knights" with "democracy" must be muddled in his thinking. Much as I admire the romantic concept of the Christian knight, neither I nor anyone who knows anything about it would find knightly duties "democratic" or even "independent".

Westmoreland's context might have been different. I'm willing to leave him on a high pedestal as a master of the insult.

You are right about Farage's claim that they never did a real job in their lives. Farage's claim was an obvious exaggeration and it was "pandering to the working class", but he was also implying that the jobs they are doing now are not real jobs, certainly not jobs he respects. When they booed him, he won. He got to them. And he did so without using fighting words.

I think you are also right about historical knights, but I am only interested in mythical or fairy tale knights, damsels and dragons. That is what motivates people when they vote, not the issues. Most people do not even know what the issues are. They don't know the dogmas of the left or the right. They are participants in a myth.

At the moment the fairy tale that seems to fit best the Clinton-Trump presidential campaign might be "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". Snow White is Our Future. Clinton is the Queen who follows her Mirror of public opinion and will do anything, anything, including feeding a poisoned apple to Snow White to keep her supremacy. Trump is that bungling hunter hired to kill Snow White but who later takes a courageous stand and lets her flee. The Seven Dwarfs are the rest of us. Personally, I'm looking for a third party to vote for, trying to be rational, but I don't know what tale will influence me when voting time actually arrives.

[Ecurb]

I don't know much about real knights, either (unless Roland, Oliver, Ogier the Dane, and Renaud count). So these (along with Lancelot, Galahad, Siegfried, et. al.) are the knights I was talking about. I don't buy your the Snow White analogy (although it's interesting). If we want to mythologize: I'll grant Hillary is a witch, not because of the mirror (Trump, not Hillary, is the narcissist, preening in front of the mirror, although no politicians are immune from that condition) , but because she has secret, magical, and evil knowledge (about e-mails and Benghazi and Whitewater); Trump is either the preening, jealous, vengeful queen from Snow White, or the Grendel character, ripping and tearing the flesh of his opponents and bragging about the size and strength of his body parts.

[prendrelemick]

On the plus side, we could be the first Country to win a Darwin Award.:frown5:

[Clopin]

Truly life shall come to an end outside of the EU. Just gaze upon the decay of this colossal wreck, what was once Switzerland and is now only lone and level sand for miles and miles. Truly a terrifying portrait of what can happen to a tiny landlocked nation without the safety net of the European Union! Britain, a great power and one of the largest global economies in the world, won't last a week I shouldn't wonder.

http://foundtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Zurich-Switzerland-6.jpg

http://www.fodors.com/ee/files/slideshows/11675/switzerland-hero.jpg

[YesNo]

I don't know much about real knights, either (unless Roland, Oliver, Ogier the Dane, and Renaud count). So these (along with Lancelot, Galahad, Siegfried, et. al.) are the knights I was talking about. I don't buy your the Snow White analogy (although it's interesting). If we want to mythologize: I'll grant Hillary is a witch, not because of the mirror (Trump, not Hillary, is the narcissist, preening in front of the mirror, although no politicians are immune from that condition) , but because she has secret, magical, and evil knowledge (about e-mails and Benghazi and Whitewater); Trump is either the preening, jealous, vengeful queen from Snow White, or the Grendel character, ripping and tearing the flesh of his opponents and bragging about the size and strength of his body parts.

Trump's wealth could be used against him. I'll admit Trump as the courageous Hunter who saves Snow White in my earlier version is a stretch.

[Dreamwoven]

Lovely pictures, Clopin, crystal clear and sharp!

[DieterM]

What you leave out of your comparison, Clopin, is the huge amount of treaties that link Switzerland more than firmly to the EU (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland–European_Union_relations). So Switzerland does have "the safety net" of the European Union. And the UK, I gather, will want the same. Most probably, though, they'll only have a place in the EEA (European Economic Area, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area) which is roughly the EU plus Island and Norway (I'm not entirely sure whether Switzerland is part of this Area, too, although they did sign the Treaty). What is interesting in this context is that (I'm quoting the wikipedia article here) the "EEA is based on the same "four freedoms" as the European Community: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. Thus, the EEA countries that are not part of the EU enjoy free trade with the European Union. Also, '[t]he free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA) ... [i]t is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 30 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.' As a counterpart, these countries have to adopt part of the Law of the European Union. However they also contribute to and influence the formation of new EEA relevant policies and legislation at an early stage as part of a formal decision-shaping process." Which means that, basically, the EEA countries have to integrate EU laws in their own national laws without being able to influence the decision-making that takes place beforehand. I'm not really sure that's what the "Out"-voters in the UK wanted, but I'm afraid that's what they'll get.

[Danik 2016]

Lovely pictures, Clopin, crystal clear and sharp!

Yes, DW. To me it looks lovely and not abandoned.

[Clopin]

I'm not really sure that's what the "Out"-voters in the UK wanted

People keep saying this as if ignorance is some badge of honour, like their campaign was so unfathomable to your refined senses that it never even registered, or it was so senseless it would be IMPOSSIBLE to comprehend. Whatever, why bother commenting then? I know exactly what the out voters in the UK wanted and I know exactly what the IN voters wanted... because I followed the campaign.

[DieterM]

I bother commenting because I can't let your ironic argument re. Switzerland remain unanswered. If one bothers comparing things, one ought to choose one's comparisons accordingly. If one wants to debate and not only "shoot off" a snappy and easy remark, that is. I'm just exceedingly happy that at least ONE person "know[s] exactly what the out voters in the UK wanted and […] what the IN voters wanted…". Until now, I thought only God was in the know. I stand corrected, dear Chopin ;-)

[Clopin]

I can't let your ironic argument re. Switzerland remain unanswered.

Sorry what argument have you answered? Switzerland is neither in the EU nor lying in ruins.

[Scheherazade]

As Switzerland did not have a 40+ years relationship that they decided to opt out, your comparison is not accurate. Of course it is possible to survive AND prosper out of the EU, many countries in the world do that. The question and worry is that the UK is giving up a relationship that has been there for decades and it will be difficult to find its own legs independent of the EU. Giving up old habits is always hard.

We can, however, look at other countries who used to be part of the EU and later on decided to severe the ties.

I strongly urge everyone not to let this conversation deteriorate; if you are unable to keep a civil tone and show the required respect towards others, please refrain from comment.

[YesNo]

I ran across an article today that summaries my own view of Brexit by Roger McKinney: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3985404-brexit-u-k-s-independence-day

Now that the markets have recovered one can maybe ask some questions in a calmer light:

1) Why were the pollsters so wrong about the outcome last Thursday? McKinney suggested the reason is because too many people told the pollsters what they thought the pollsters wanted to hear and the media was engaged in a culture war portraying the Leave side as "Neanderthals". Was that the case? I don't know. If that is so, the British media needs to examine how it treats divergent views or stop wasting time polling people.

2) Why do people on both the left and the right like big government, big bureaucracy and big brother? This is not a liberal issue. This is not a conservative issue. Government and bureaucracy should be no bigger than it has to be otherwise a liberal democracy with the creativity that a liberal democracy provides is threatened. Besides, any more bigness than is necessary to achieve a reasonable objective is an economic waste. It is not progress.

So how did the US get so big? I'm no historian, but it seems to me that it happened this way. People who speak English, Spanish, French and Portuguese and maybe some other languages went through a period of bullish expansionism centuries ago when they overran indigenous peoples, fought them, put them on reservations, made them learn their languages, made them use their currencies and subjected them to their laws. We are at the end of that period of illiberal expansionism. If the British want to continue it rather than taking pride in the diversity they offer the world, they should adopt the Euro and learn German.

[Dreamwoven]

My view of this is somewhat different from Yesno. Sweden has not adopted the Euro either, and for good reasons, it retains national control over its currency rather than handing it over to the Brussels Bureaucracy. This is true whatever political party is in office in Sweden. The Euro is a classic case of the centralisation of decision-making. Countries already in the Euro are lumbered forever with it.

[DieterM]

Clopin, first of all my apologies for calling you "Chopin" – I swear I’m innocent, automatic spell check mis-corrected it. I'm glad it didn't "correct" your name into something offensive.

Well, I thought I had answered your Switzerland argument by talking about the EEA – and I was half-wrong. Half-wrong because the Swiss held a referendum where the majority voted against a membership in the EEA. Yet only half-wrong. The Swiss knowing their main partner in trade was the EU, they negotiated a series of treaties with the EU, the most important of which were the Bilateral Agreements of 1999 and 2004 (approved by referendum) which abolished a whole bunch of barriers (notably, EU citizens can move freely to Switzerland, just as they would in other EU countries). Switzerland joined the Schengen Area in 2005. Today, even if Switzerland is neither member of the EU nor of the EEA, the more than 210 treaties between the two entities (Switzerland - EU) largely contain the same content as the EEA treaties, making Switzerland a virtual member of the EEA. Most EU law applies universally throughout the EU, the EEA and Switzerland, providing most of the conditions of the free movement of people, goods, services and capital that apply to full member states. Switzerland even pays into the EU budget (2 billion euro per year, just as does Norway btw)! The important thing about these treaties (especially the Bilateral Agreements of 1999 and 2004) is that they are closely linked (Guillotine clause) so that if Switzerland decides to stop applying one of the Agreements, the rest of them is considered obsolete as well. This became important in 2014 when a referendum against "mass immigration" was held and won, forcing the Swiss government to ask that the "Free movement of people"-Agreement be renegotiated. This is not possible without jeopardizing the rest of the Agreements.

All this in order to point out that even if Switzerland is not member of the EU, it has to apply most of the EU decisions (yet without being able to take part in the decision-making process). On the other hand, my – implied – question is to which extent these close links between Switzerland and the EU explain the economical health and wealth of the country. And the final question is how the UK will be able to maintain its privileged partnership with the EU after the Brexit (a very important question because once again, we are talking about a country whose main partner in trade is… the EU). I don't have the answers, mind you, and I guess nobody has them right now. All we know is that leaving the EU means that the UK will have to renegotiate the whole framework of its partnership with the EU. And I don't know whether the UK will be able to obtain better terms and conditions than those they had while being in the EU.

Despite my “refined senses”, I cannot say Yes to the EU unconditionally. I hear and see and experience the same things the other “EU-citizens” living around me hear and see and experience. There are many things that should be improved if we want the EU to make sense, politically and economically. But I’m not sure that leaving the EU would improve any condition I might criticize today. I’m not sure that each country on its own would have a better stand in trade negotiations with economical super-powers such as the USA, for instance. Or in environment matters. Or migration matters. And I don’t agree with YesNo – it’s not about creating a big government, big bureaucracy etc. That would mean that there are people in Brussels deciding things without referring to the EU member states, and that vision of the EU is wrong. The EU is like it is because our national governments shaped it this way. Yes, the people we voted for. Of course, it’s always been their favourite game to negotiate and then agree with a decision or compromise in Brussels, only to come back to our countries and say “Blame it on the EU”. That’s easier than to take one’s responsabilities. But if we have an over-shaped bureaucracy in Brussels today, the ones to blame are our politicians, the Hollandes and Merkels and Camerons (or their predecessors) of this continent. You can’t blame the egg when you should blame the hens.

Where "Brits Out!" is concerned – well, I firmly believe in democracy. The British voted (well, most of them; some didn’t bother, which is a pity; and some such as the people of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernesey weren’t allowed to, which is a shame), there’s a result, I have to live with it. That doesn’t mean I cannot say I regret the decision. I’d rather have the Brits in than out. Not for my sake, not for the sake of the EU, but for their sake. And I do hope that in this situation, we all see a positive outcome for the UK as well as for the EU.

And dear Dreamwoven, just for the record, Brussels Bureaucracy has no say whatever in currency matters. Nor do the national governments. Anything concerning the euro is decided in Frankfurt, where the independent European Central Bank has its seat.

[Dreamwoven]

I'm happy to accept that correction, DieterM, though I doubt it affects my conclusion that the European Central Bank in Frankfurt is far removed from the economies of the countries which the ECB controls. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro

[DieterM]

I'm no expert in things monetary (take a look at my bank account and you'll see how true that is, alas!, lol) and accept your pov without further discussion simply because I can't come up with any valid counter-argument. Anyway, I think it should be up to each country whether to join the euro or not, so I can only agree with the Swedish policy.

[Emil Miller]

The BBC has lost much of its reputation for objectivity over the years but this production is quite brilliant in summing up the pre and post Brexit situation in Europe. The conclusion by the reporter that leaving the EU might be unnecessary due to its collapse won't please the remainers, but the fade out as she walks off to the strains of Mozart's requiem is a masterstroke of reportage.


https://youtu.be/ZMQXXCiEQnA

[YesNo]

When the reporter was looking for floor 5.5 in Brussels (at about 29:00 in the video), it reminded me of trying to find Harry Potter's train platform to Hogwarts.

[Emil Miller]

I don't understand the reasoning behind floor 5.5 but within the context of the programme it's irrelevant.
What's central to the documentary is Beatrix von Storch's assertion that if the people want the EU to crumble, then it should crumble.
German logic at its finest.

[YesNo]

I expect the EU to end before the British finish the process of exiting just as the documentary suggested. I don't know enough about politics to know what I am talking about, but I will make a prediction anyway: By January 1, 2018, there will no longer be an EU.

How long do you think it will last?

[Lendo]

I'm not talking about what you have been saying in this topic, but for what i see in american tv shows i get the idea that most americans have no clue why the "Out" won in the Brexit referendum.

The "Out" won, first of all, because the british were never very enthusiastic about the European project. Never. They joined the european communities very late, much later than the foundation. Not only because France didn't want them to get in the community, but because the british themselves were relutant about the european political and economical bonds. So, there was always a general misstrust from the british torwards the EU.

And with the financial crisis of 2008, and the way european institutions tried to impose a general policy to the countries that weren't following financial and budget rules, a moment in which the german power within the EU was very clear, the feeling that the EU was part of a organization in which other european power was the leading country who pulled the strings made the anti-EU feeling get even bigger.

On top of all that, the average citizen of Great Britain got tired of the mass imigration that lead thousands and thousands of people every year to the country, even with the economical crisis. People from Eastern Europe, Middle East and some african countries were getting in Great Britain every year by the thousands, in a time of lack of employment, economical crisis, so the general feeling was "How can we still allow thousands of people to get in the country if there's no jobs, there's no money and we are in a crisis?". And there's also the fact that there was some important cultural and social shocks between the british and some imigrant communities that started to appear in their cities because of the cultural differences, specially with muslims.

For last: globalization effects. Thousands of people lost their jobs because of factories and companies that left the UK to transfer their production units to countries like Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Thailand and China. Thousands lost their jobs, and the EU became a symbol of that globalization policy. And the british showed their unhapiness threw the vote in Brexit.

Traditional euro-scepticism, Germany influence in the EU, clashes between the UK and the EU policies, the effects of globalization and social unhapiness and cultural shocks are the main reasons why the "Out" got more votes.

[Lendo]

I expect the EU to end before the British finish the process of exiting just as the documentary suggested. I don't know enough about politics to know what I am talking about, but I will make a prediction anyway: By January 1, 2018, there will no longer be an EU.

How long do you think it will last?

Don't count on it. There are countries that need the EU too much for them to abdicate it. And it serves the interests of the two super-powers of Europe, Germany and France. Besides, without the EU, Spain and Italy with be broke by now.

If Marine Le Pen wins the election, she will probably try to make France leave the EU. But, for now, Le Pen winning the election is very, very unlikely. In the second round of voting, the centre-right and the centre-left parties will probably join forces to elect either Macron or Fillon.

[Emil Miller]

A reasoned summation of the current situation; especially as to why the Brits voted to leave.
There are, however, some facets which should be considered.
Whilst it's true that some smaller EU members need the Euro (which is essentially a German construct ) to bolster their own economies, they are reduced to supplicants
rather than equal partners in the union: a one-sided situation that fuels resentment.
This dissatisfaction has been seen in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France: hence the rise of various anti-EU parties across Europe
France, far from being a European super power, has a broken economy that has played into the hands of the National Front who have made significant inroads into the traditional socialist vote. Fillon now looks like a busted flush while Macron is the new kid on the block, so nothing should ruled out regarding Le Pen.
Italy has a major banking crisis on it's hands and without EU bailouts would already be bankrupt.
This year's elections in Germany may see Merkel ejected and the AfD gain seats in the Bundestag although the traditional socialist/ conservative coalition should hold.
One thing is certain, the Germans will fight tooth and nail to keep the EU going as they are by far and away the main beneficiaries.

[YesNo]

Don't count on it. There are countries that need the EU too much for them to abdicate it. And it serves the interests of the two super-powers of Europe, Germany and France. Besides, without the EU, Spain and Italy with be broke by now.

If Marine Le Pen wins the election, she will probably try to make France leave the EU. But, for now, Le Pen winning the election is very, very unlikely. In the second round of voting, the centre-right and the centre-left parties will probably join forces to elect either Macron or Fillon.

I don't think the EU will fail if Wilders wins in the Netherlands, Le Pen wins in France and Merkel is not reelected in Germany. Liquidity in the credit, stock and commodity markets will have to dry up first. Then it won't matter who wins those elections. Whoever wins will be in deep trouble. I don't think I am prepared for that to happen. So I'm worried.

[Lendo]

France is, without any doubt, an european super power. Not only it's one of the founding countries of the European Communities and one of the most influential countries of/in the continent, but it's also the second biggest economy of the EU, the 6th most powerful economy in the world, a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN and nowadays the second most powerful army of the Western Europe. An army that's part of relevant international interventions, such as in Lybia, Central African Republic and Sudan. No relevant decision is taken in european politics without the french "ok", that you can be sure. Juncker said it very clearly some months ago: when asked why France wasn't penalized for not following financial rules like every other country is penalized, Juncker answered: "Because it's France".

Concerning to the general feeling about the EU, yes, unhappiness has grown in several countries. But the perception that the connection with the EU is to relevant to abandone the organization make's that unhappiness not be as relevant in many countries as it is in France and the UK. Countries like Portugal and Spain have still a political system in which the traditional parties gatter the majority of the vote, and the extremist and anti-Europe parties have a minor relevance. In Portugal, anti-Europe parties make about 20% of the Parliament seats combined. In Spain, the left-extremist party PODEMOS had a bad result in the national elections, compared to what everyone expected.

Why does the extremists have worst, much worst results in countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy than they have in France? Simple as this: while the french believe they are able to live without the EU, in Spain and Italy people believe that they have no conditions to live without the economical support and the commercial relationships created by the EU. The dependence of those smaller and weaker economies make their people be afraid of the possibility of leaving the EU, so the extremist parties don't have as many votes as they have in France and (apparently) will have in Germany.

And let's not forget that Spain and Portugal do not face the same issues that France faces concerning to immigration and clash of cultures. There's not a big muslim community being created in Lisbon or in Madrid, not like we see in Paris or Marseille, for example. There's not tens of thousands trying to get in Portugal or Ireland every year, like we see happening in France or the United Kingdom. There for, the social tensions are just not there in that aspect in Portugal, Spain or Ireland.

[Clopin]

Le Pen wins in 3... 2... 1...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek1ENuEyWHE

[Lendo]

If Le Pen wins, the traditional parties can only blame themselves. The European Union can only blame itself. Politicians like Hollande, Valls and others can only blame themselves.

They were the one's who created an unsustainable social and economical situation in France, with massive immigration in a country that has no conditions to integrate so many people, specially when most of them had no education degree what so ever, so they weren't fit to the job market at all. In a period in which the economical situation was very bad, the political crisis was deeper than ever and the social clashes reached levels never seen before. And let's not forget, that on top of all that, France was a target of two significant terrorist attacks on the last years, in Paris and in Nice.

So, what did the Socialist Party expected? What did Juncker and Schulz expected? What did Merkel, Cameron or Costa expected? They didn't give any answers to the clear problem of immigration, uncontrolled and prejudicial immigration. They didn't even wanted to face the issue. So, someone showed up and gave an answer. The problem of the moderates being afraid of adressing some sensitive problems, is the fact that they open the door for an extremist to give an answer. Threw out History, the ones who were considered "extremists" got to power and gained power when all others weren't able or weren't interested in solving a problem that the people wanted fixed.

Nowadays, there's this mainstream belief that everyone who adresses issues about immigration and different cultures is automatically a fascist and xenophobic. So, politicians try to avoid those issues, afraid of being considered that, afraid of being perceived as racist. Even when it's very, very clear that there's an issue to solve, there's a problem to be considered, there's a problem that recquires a solution. The ties that the left put around border, immigration and social issues didn't allow some moderate parties to figure out a reasonable solution for what was happening in Europe. Guess what? Now you have a solution. And most french people are accepting it, apparently. But here's the detail... the solution comes from Marine Le Pen. Congratulations to Hollande.

[Clopin]

I like Marine Le Pen. I like Jean-Marie Le Pen. I like Marion Marechal Le Pen. If the Front National wins the election I'll be on cloud nine.

[Emil Miller]

I like Marine Le Pen. I like Jean-Marie Le Pen. I like Marion Marechal Le Pen. If the Front National wins the election I'll be on cloud nine.

l haven't been to France for years because of the mess that the Socialists have made of it , but if Le Pen wins, I intend to be be on the first train to Paris.

[Lendo]

On the most important and relevant issues, i support Marine Le Pen views:

- Profound reform of the EU
- Reform of immigration laws
- Reform of the Schengen Space's function
- Protection of national social values and characteristics

What we nowadays have in the European Union it's simply unsustainable and unacceptbale. Otherwise, Western Europe's societies and economies may collapse. So, on that point, i agree with what Marine Le Pen identifies as the most urgent issues to be solved. I just don't know if she will take it too far, and put in motion a politic that goes behond the current needs. But she seems to be more reasonable, more clairvoyant, more balanced than Jean Marie Le Pen, her father. By now, i believe that Marine Le Pen as Presidente of France could be a very good thing not only for France, but for Europe. She could influence european governments in order for them to put in motion the transformations in the EU, and to reorganize and give a better function to their own countries.

[Clopin]

i agree with what Marine Le Pen identifies as the most urgent issues to be solved.

The most important issue for Western Europe is their loss of cultural identity and national pride. 'Multiculturalism' (which in ALL cases of its implementation means fewer white people, and absolutely nothing else) has to be killed brutally, and it has to happen right now. I'll vote for and support any party, no matter how extreme, which has this as its primary or core motivation.

[Lendo]

The most important issue for Western Europe is their loss of cultural identity and national pride. 'Multiculturalism' (which in ALL cases of its implementation means fewer white people, and absolutely nothing else) has to be killed brutally, and it has to happen right now. I'll vote for and support any party, no matter how extreme, which has this as its primary or core motivation.

As i said, national characteristics and values. Something that the left and globalization enthusiastics have been trying to destroy in the last 25 years.

[Emil Miller]

As i said, national characteristics and values. Something that the left and globalization enthusiastics have been trying to destroy in the last 25 years.

The rot set in almost immediately after 1945 and has continued since .
You might care to read my novel Pro Bono Publico which exemplifies the destructiveness of 'liberal democracy' to a traditional society and the cause of its disintegration.
You can google it for a synopsis.

[Lendo]

The reason why i determined a time line of 25 years was because i was talking about the EU process only. Worldwide, yes, this globalization politic started after 1945, with the afirmation of the US as the main super power in Western World and the deeper and deeper division between West and East; what the United States did was a intense, effective but dangerous (for the other countries) politic of acculturation of the Western world, including Europe, which was by definition the most preponderant cultural continent in the all world. American way of life, american music, american cinema, american TV, american clothes, american food... the US started to exporte his culture as a way to impose a mindset and a philosophy threw out Western Europe.

Which is quite surreal if, as i said earlier, we have in mind that before the Second World War the United States was still considered a undeveloped country in terms of social system and in terms of culture. Nobody would even consider the United States in the matters of culture, whether we talk about cinema, painting, literature, whatever. The cultural capitals of the world were Paris, London, Viena. Not New York or Chicago. The United States were, in 1939, seen as today we see countries like Brasil or China: a big and growing economy, but a country with a lot to develope.

And with the fall of the Soviet Union and the "liberalization" of China that acculturation politic by the US was extended to the entire world, completely. The areas of influence of the other countries were completely broken, and the american life style got to countries like China itself, Eastern Europe countries like Poland and Czech Republic, and even to Latin American countries that were under socialist influence, like Colombia or Bolivia. In fact, the way the americans extended their cultural, political and economical influence to the entire globe is the main reason why Putin adopted such an agressive strategy concerning Eastern Europe affairs: Russia feels that the americans are literally surrounding them, estableshing new areas of influence around Russia, in what was before the primary and natural russian area of influence. Not only Russia is losing the influence in it's region, but the United States is replacing Russia in those countries as the super power who influences the political, economical and social system. Putin is now reacting like regional super powers usually react when another super power enter's their area. With the "extra" that Putin know's that Europe is not in the condition (politically and economicly) to militarly protect any Eastern country, and that Russia is an absolute militarly super power.

[Dreamwoven]

I've been a member of Nej till EU (http://www.nejtilleu.se) for many years now. I get its Kritiska EU-fakta, and campaign for Swexit. I am also in the British Bruges Group, http://www.brugesgroup.com/, though only receiving updates from them. Recruiting Ukraine to the EU was a major misjudgement, so much of Ukraine is Russia-speaking, most especially the two far eastern provinces, together called the Donbas.

it is an ironic fact that the EU recruitment of Ukraine is the main reason why we are in a new Cold War. The real reason for this is that the EU wanted to give the USA the base at Sevastopol, but Russia took it back after the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko who is still President except that he has fled to Russia. He was primarily elected for his friendly stance towards Russia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ukraine). Its for this reason that Russia sees the present government of Ukraine as a Junta. In addition, the EU has a considerable democratic deficit in its organisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_European_Union.

[Lendo]

Let's not forget that the respect for the russian area of influence was one of the garanties that the americans gave to Russia for a peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, while Russia commited to respect the independence of several states like Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Georgia. Not only their independence, but also the right to keep some infrastructure and weaponry. This was the main basis of the political process lead by Ieltsin and some other european members: the Soviet Union would disappear, Russia would recognize the right to independence to many territories, but it would maintain a self area of influence, free of american and western european interference.

Since 2004 alone, 9 countries from Eastern Europe joined OTAN. The US even planned to install cruiser-missiles in Poland. Nowadays, the US has missiles in Eastern Europe that could hit Saint Petersburg and the entire West region of Russia. Not no mention the permanent fleat and troops on South Korea and Japan, that have also the capacity to take action in the East russian coast. This can't be considered respecting russian space, i believe.

[Dreamwoven]

Several good points there, Lendo.

[Lendo]

Several good points there, Lendo.

Thank you.

By the way, since you're from Sweden, i would like you to clear something for me: concerning to what Trump said about Sweden, that something happened in the country, in some countries was printed that indeed was a problem in a swedish city, a conflict between the police and the residents of a neighborhood of muslim immigrants, and that Trump was probably talking about it, and not inventing an attack. Did it happen?

[Dreamwoven]

The trouble is that Trump didn't complete the sentence, he went off onto something else. In Malmö there have been criminal gangs that have been killing members of each other. He got it from a Fox News item, so it is something of the media twisting facts. There is no "conflict between the police and the residents of a neighbourhood of muslim immigrants." The police try to find who killed whom and why, to bring them to justice.

I don't know what Fox News is like but it is a far right media, is all I know about it.

[Clopin]

lol there's an entire wikipedia article for "grenade attacks in Sweden" (what?), the vast majority of which have occurred in Malmo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden

Gotta love that diversity.

[Emil Miller]

The reason why i determined a time line of 25 years was because i was talking about the EU process only. Worldwide, yes, this globalization politic started after 1945, with the afirmation of the US as the main super power in Western World and the deeper and deeper division between West and East; what the United States did was a intense, effective but dangerous (for the other countries) politic of acculturation of the Western world, including Europe, which was by definition the most preponderant cultural continent in the all world. American way of life, american music, american cinema, american TV, american clothes, american food... the US started to exporte his culture as a way to impose a mindset and a philosophy threw out Western Europe.

.

I don't think the U S deliberately set out to establish its culture in the West post- 1945,
and, in any case, it's a sub- culture that, while through it renowned education system
has produced many scientific advances , its ethos is still that of the petit -bourgeoisie.
In short, it's a country long on cleverness but, due to its relative lack of experience, is lacking in wisdom.

[YesNo]

I kind of agree with the "long on cleverness" but "lacking in wisdom" view of the US. I can't say I'm an exception to that.

Regarding when modern globalization started, I think the seeds go back a few centuries and it started in Europe. Of course, the EU's origin and problems are more recent. A lot of good came from those centuries. I am glad to have washing machines and computers, but its excesses will get a correction whether we like it or not.

[Lendo]

I don't think the U S deliberately set out to establish its culture in the West post- 1945,
and, in any case, it's a sub- culture that, while through it renowned education system
has produced many scientific advances , its ethos is still that of the petit -bourgeoisie.
In short, it's a country long on cleverness but, due to its relative lack of experience, is lacking in wisdom.

I don't have a single doubt that the US deliberately set in motion a globalization process with a final goal of political and economical influence or dominance over many countries. More than not having a single doubt, it was americans leaders who stated that goal very clearly. Speaches, oficial memos, oficial plans, memorirs of american politians make very clear that the United States deliberately promoted their culture, economy and political elements in a clear plan of influence and control countries and continental politics. The post-1945 american politic for South America and for Africa it's very clear on that: the US promoted revolutions, coup d'etats and political conspiracies with the single purpose of politically controling many countries, and to have clear way for american companies to establish themselves in those countries, either exploring resources (oil, gas, gold, etc.) or having the monopoly of certain sectors of the economy. In the book "Engaging Africa", Whitney Schnneidman (who colaborated with american presidents Clinton and Obama) clearly explained how the US set in motion many revolutions and political conspiracies in order for politians and revolutionaries with ties or controlled by the US get to power. It's nowadays public how the US financed many guerrilla and terrorist groups in Africa for them to get to power and open the door for US companies in their countries.

More than that, in Europe the US explicitly adopted a politic of persuasion and recruitment of countries to it's group of allies. And that politic of persuasion was based mostly in the exportation of american culture: music, cinema, clothes, american lifestyle, etc. Culture and economy were american weapons in a clear american politic for Europe of promotion of the american values and gathering european political support, in an effort for european countries not to succumb to the communist and soviet appeal. Because the soviets also tried to persuade Western Europe to join their political values, their political beliefs and social system, specially with the difusion of the works of communist philosophers and authors, suck as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Babeuf, etc. and the movies of soviet directors like Eisenstein. Plus, the work done by communist parties threw out all Europe, specially in France and Italy, where the communists reached considerable levels of political influence.
Plan Marshall and the OTAN were two major economic and political weapons of american propaganda, while the Soviets had the Warsow Pact (their version of OTAN) and COMECON (their version of Plan Marshall).

It's as simple as this: both the US and the URSS knew that they were the two super powers in the world at that moment (post-war), and they knew that they would be in the position for expand their influence, their global preponderance and their values. And they tried as hard as they could to gain influence in every continent in the world. The americans were specially well succeded in Western Europe, while URSS was well succeded in South America and some regions of Africa. China, naturally, garanteed some influence in some asian countries, like Vietname, Laos, Camboja and North Korea.

[Emil Miller]

I don't have a single doubt that the US deliberately set in motion a globalization process with a final goal of political and economical influence or dominance over many countries. More than not having a single doubt, it was americans leaders who stated that goal very clearly. Speaches, oficial memos, oficial plans, memorirs of american politians make very clear that the United States deliberately promoted their culture, economy and political elements in a clear plan of influence and control countries and continental politics. The post-1945 american politic for South America and for Africa it's very clear on that: the US promoted revolutions, coup d'etats and political conspiracies with the single purpose of politically controling many countries, and to have clear way for american companies to establish themselves in those countries, either exploring resources (oil, gas, gold, etc.) or having the monopoly of certain sectors of the economy. In the book "Engaging Africa", Whitney Schnneidman (who colaborated with american presidents Clinton and Obama) clearly explained how the US set in motion many revolutions and political conspiracies in order for politians and revolutionaries with ties or controlled by the US get to power. It's nowadays public how the US financed many guerrilla and terrorist groups in Africa for them to get to power and open the door for US companies in their countries.

More than that, in Europe the US explicitly adopted a politic of persuasion and recruitment of countries to it's group of allies. And that politic of persuasion was based mostly in the exportation of american culture: music, cinema, clothes, american lifestyle, etc. Culture and economy were american weapons in a clear american politic for Europe of promotion of the american values and gathering european political support, in an effort for european countries not to succumb to the communist and soviet appeal. Because the soviets also tried to persuade Western Europe to join their political values, their political beliefs and social system, specially with the difusion of the works of communist philosophers and authors, suck as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Babeuf, etc. and the movies of soviet directors like Eisenstein. Plus, the work done by communist parties threw out all Europe, specially in France and Italy, where the communists reached considerable levels of political influence.
Plan Marshall and the OTAN were two major economic and political weapons of american propaganda, while the Soviets had the Warsow Pact (their version of OTAN) and COMECON (their version of Plan Marshall).

It's as simple as this: both the US and the URSS knew that they were the two super powers in the world at that moment (post-war), and they knew that they would be in the position for expand their influence, their global preponderance and their values. And they tried as hard as they could to gain influence in every continent in the world. The americans were specially well succeded in Western Europe, while URSS was well succeded in South America and some regions of Africa. China, naturally, garanteed some influence in some asian countries, like Vietname, Laos, Camboja and North Korea.

Back jn the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge said :' The business of America is business'. It was during this period that selling an American lifestyle took off prior to WWII. Following 1945, exporting their sub-culture became less important with the need to face down the Soviet threat and from then on it was all about extending military power rather than any 'cultural' considerations.

[Dreamwoven]

lol there's an entire wikipedia article for "grenade attacks in Sweden" (what?), the vast majority of which have occurred in Malmo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden

Gotta love that diversity.

I don't think these we're grenades. Check the wikipedia item on Grenades. More likely to be Molotov cocktails (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail). Or even just fires started in different ways. I know that there are reports in Sweden of fires started in refugee accommodation. Probably racist in origin. This is typical of the way the media can crank up hostilities. I'm surprised Wikipedia accepted the item for publication under the title List of granade attacks in Sweden.

[Lendo]

Back jn the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge said :' The business of America is business'. It was during this period that selling an American lifestyle took off prior to WWII. Following 1945, exporting their sub-culture became less important with the need to face down the Soviet threat and from then on it was all about extending military power rather than any 'cultural' considerations.

Promoting the american lifestyle and american cultural elements like cinema was as important as the military growing. It was the promotion of the american culture and values that made it easier for Communism not to get to power in Western Europe. It was the promotion of the american lifestyle that created in the Eastern European people the desire to adopt Capitalism as their economical model, abandoning Communism and Socialism. American culture was the biggest and most effective propaganda resource that the US had during the Cold War. The movies, TV shows and songs that portrayed this rich and powerful country, where anyone had a dream, the american dream, where anyone could get rich and have everything, a country in which people was free without fearing a political police or political executions. In 1960, this message was as powerful as a missile. Because during the Cold War, more than militarly wars, the US and the URSS fought an ideological war. Both were trying to persuade countries and peoples to their field. And the US fought on that field (the ideological one) presenting their lifestyle threw culture (cinema, TV, music, clothes, etc.)

And again i say: in 1920, Europe wouldn't have the US in consideration in terms of culture and social issues. The US was a big economy, but a poor and undeveloped culture and society. You can understand that by reading the European Literature of the time. France, Great Britain, Austria, Germany were still the great empires, the modern and fancy societies of the time, the cultural centres of the world. At european eyes, in 1920 the US was a big rural country with some cities dispersed along the way. And let's not forget, that in 1920 the US didn't take off as a cultural exporting country. What americans movies, musicians or authors got to Europe in 1920? Very few. Clothing? Only after the II World War. Before 1945, the number of american movies seen in Europe were very few, in some countries there were even no american movies being seen. In 1960, there were much more. In 1980, it was over 50% of the movies in theatres. This is just an example. It was after 1945 that the US started to export their lifestyle and culture. Not only because it was when the US was able to, but because it was when the US most needed to.

The most significant of them all: when the US did the American Exhibition in Russia, Nixon didn't take images of the military, didn't take images of the space program, didn't take images of the great cities of the US. Nixon took to Russia a microwave, a TV, an oven, etc. Because Nixon knew that to defeat Communism in the battle for the minds and hearts, the social and cultural aspects would be more important than weaponry.

[Emil Miller]

Promoting the american lifestyle and american cultural elements like cinema was as important as the military growing. It was the promotion of the american culture and values that made it easier for Communism not to get to power in Western Europe. It was the promotion of the american lifestyle that created in the Eastern European people the desire to adopt Capitalism as their economical model, abandoning Communism and Socialism. American culture was the biggest and most effective propaganda resource that the US had during the Cold War. The movies, TV shows and songs that portrayed this rich and powerful country, where anyone had a dream, the american dream, where anyone could get rich and have everything, a country in which people was free without fearing a political police or political executions. In 1960, this message was as powerful as a missile. Because during the Cold War, more than militarly wars, the US and the URSS fought an ideological war. Both were trying to persuade countries and peoples to their field. And the US fought on that field (the ideological one) presenting their lifestyle threw culture (cinema, TV, music, clothes, etc.)

And again i say: in 1920, Europe wouldn't have the US in consideration in terms of culture and social issues. The US was a big economy, but a poor and undeveloped culture and society. You can understand that by reading the European Literature of the time. France, Great Britain, Austria, Germany were still the great empires, the modern and fancy societies of the time, the cultural centres of the world. At european eyes, in 1920 the US was a big rural country with some cities dispersed along the way. And let's not forget, that in 1920 the US didn't take off as a cultural exporting country. What americans movies, musicians or authors got to Europe in 1920? Very few. Clothing? Only after the II World War. Before 1945, the number of american movies seen in Europe were very few, in some countries there were even no american movies being seen. In 1960, there were much more. In 1980, it was over 50% of the movies in theatres. This is just an example. It was after 1945 that the US started to export their lifestyle and culture. Not only because it was when the US was able to, but because it was when the US most needed to.

The most significant of them all: when the US did the American Exhibition in Russia, Nixon didn't take images of the military, didn't take images of the space program, didn't take images of the great cities of the US. Nixon took to Russia a microwave, a TV, an oven, etc. Because Nixon knew that to defeat Communism in the battle for the minds and hearts, the social and cultural aspects would be more important than weaponry.

I'm afraid this is a rather superficial version of events: a check through any encyclopedia of cinema will show that American films during the pre-war period
were more numerous than any other : think Chaplin, Disney, Laurel and Hardy etc etc. The American influence began with the induction of the US army into WWI during 1917 and continued throughout the post-war period.
It's true that post-1945 the USA sought to promote their business model as superior to that of the USSR and obviously succeeded and ,despite the superficiality of American capitalism, many people outside of the US were dazzled by its products.
However, there was, and still is, a strong vein of anti-Americanism in many countries that was held in check by fear of the former USSR and currently the Russian Federation.
It's no surprise that, for all his overtures to Russia, President Trump has just announced a major upgrade of US military power.

[Lendo]

Obviously, i'm not going to write an essay on US-Europe cultural relationships in the XX century. Therefore, the succint nature of my posts.

Was there american films being seen in Europe before 1945? Yes. But in a very much lower number than after 1945. Specially, for political reasons. It's statistic, the number of movies made in USA seen in Europe increased exponentially after 1945. Before World War II there were countries in which there was almost no contact with the american culture. See the cases of Spain, Portugal or Greece. See even Germany and France, in which European artists and companies had the majority of the market, and very few american artists were invited for events. The US was a minor country culturally at the eyes of the european.

Was there exceptions? Yes. Did the US have a more open market in Europe after World War I? Of course. But the big jump to all other level was after World War II. For obvious reasons. The most important one was the political aspect of confrontation with the URSS. But there was other ones. The US received a big number of european refugees and immigrants that helped the US evolve, including in theatre and cinema. Many Hollywood producers of the post-war era were jews from Austria and Germany the fled to the US and helped the american cinema industry to evolve, to give a quick example.

Concerning to the world's perception of the US, the anti-american feeling it's generally recent. During the Cold War, that feeling only appeared during the Vietnam War. And even then, there was very few people in Western Europe that would even compare the US to the URSS. To understand how culture was such an effective propaganda vehicule for the US political system, we just have to remember how rock and roll, jeans and some movies like "Rocky" were absolute icons to the Eastern Europe people during the last years of the URSS. They represented the US lifestyle, the US modernity and the US freedom in contrast with the URSS antiquity, the URSS grayness and repressive nature. It's not a coincidence that during Brejnev's years rock and roll was forbidden in the URSS. It's not a coincidence that the URSS would forbid american movies to get in their territory. There's a reason why Krutschev's advisors warned him about the danger of what Nixon was accompleshing with the American Exhibition in Russia. They knew the power behind the apparently harmless image of an oven and a microwave. There's a reason why URSS made such an effort to compete with the US in sports, with their steroids methods and intensive training for athletes.

Concerning to today's world: the americans have no longer to worry about Russia in the culture aspect. The world is completely globalized under american culture. Wherever you go, Portugal or Great Britain, South Africa or Marrocco, Brazil or Mexico, Japan or Australia, what you see on TV is the Hollywood movies and the HBO series, what you ear is the Beyonce and Rihanna songs, what you buy is your Nike shoes and Iphone cellphones. The US has won the cultural battle. Because of the effort they made during decades.

[Dreamwoven]

I thought it might be informative to let people reading this thread know of the u-tube item: The European Union, a Fascist Superstate -- Rodney Atkinson, having its origins in 1942 the formation of the undemocratic structure that we today call the European Union.

[Emil Miller]

I thought it might be informative to let people reading this thread know of the u-tube item: The European Union, a Fascist Superstate -- Rodney Atkinson, having its origins in 1942 the formation of the undemocratic structure that we today call the European Union.

Yes it's interesting that so many people who support the EU are unaware of its German origins. When Prussia defeated Austria in 1866, it left the way open to German unification which Bismark engineered by defeating France in the Franco / Prussian war of 1870.
The centrifugal force of a united Germany spilled over into WWI and WWII but the objective was control of Europe. Knowing this is why I voted to leave.

[Dreamwoven]

Yes, it is odd that for Germany to be in the EU it was necessary to abandon what many thought the heart of the German state, East Prussia. I remember there was quite a fuss over that. If I lived in England I would have done the same as you, Emil.

[Lendo]

When the EU was created there wasn't any hope to recover East Prussia. If you consider East Prussia as what today is part of Poland and part of Russia. After the Second World War there wasn't a single person that believed that the polish terrotories would integrate Germany again, not even at RDA there was that hope, i believe. They knew that it would happened to East Prussia what happened to Alsacia, to Lorena and to many territories that were under the control of the countries that lost both the First and the Second World War.

We just have to think how the frech-german border was redefined in both wars, how the Otoman Empire was redefined, how Germany lost their african territories, how Russia abdicated from some western territories to achieve peace with Germany after First World War, etc. So i don't think that there was really that hope to mantain East Prussia. Pieck and Ulbricht, and Adenauer were to intelligent for that.

[Dreamwoven]

I don't argue with anyone on this matter, it is just an observation that there was a lot of upheaval over this.

[Lendo]

I don't argue with anyone on this matter, it is just an observation that there was a lot of upheaval over this.

I understand what you're saying. What i mean is that, even if there was some type of political effort or campaign in order for East Prussia to be reintegrated in german territory, i don't believe that it was sincere or that the leaders really believed they would achieve that goal. It's like Spain's diplomatic campaign concerning Gibraltar, or Portugal's campaign concerning Olivença, or Argentina's campaign in last years concerning Falklands Islands. The diplomatic and political campaigns are many times just simbolic stands, political PR. They do not translate in a real and sincere conviction.

If you ask me if Brandt, Ulbricht, Adenauer or Kohl really believed that Russia and Poland would give back their territories of what before was East Prussia, i would answer no. But it's just my opinion.

[Lendo]

A very dark episode occurred today in my country: a youth movement had organized a conference in a Lisbon university, a conference about Le Pen, Brexit and populisms threw out Europe. Because of the speaker who was invited (an historian who is known for his right-wing ideology) and because the youth movement is itself portrayed as a right-wing movement, the Students Association (composed mainly by left-wing students) and students that are members of far-left parties threatened the historian, threatened the people who organized the conference and publicly said that they would not allow the conference to go ahead. The University's board decided to call off the conference because of the threats made against the historian and some students, and because of the possibility of violent episodes.

[Dreamwoven]

I checked up on the dictator Salazar, in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/António_de_Oliveira_Salazar, in the Swedish language version it says explicitly that he was a dictator, but not in the English language version. I know that the UK had close relations with Portugal, and that Portugal stayed neutral in the Second World War.

The contrast with Spain under Franco was that Hitler quickly committed Germany to aid the Franco dictatorship already in 1936 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_involvement_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War, I knew about the Guernica operation but the whole story was much more complex.

In all, the Portuguese experience was much milder than the Spanish, but as Lendo comments in the post immediately above, the right-left split in Portugal remains a running sore today.

[YesNo]

What do "right wing" people want and what do "left wing" people want in Europe besides leaving or staying in the EU and reducing or increasing Muslim immigrants?

[Dreamwoven]

It probably varies by country, and when the question was asked. Beevor wrote a book on the Spanish civil war, which I will try to acquire to learn about that. As for Portugal, perhaps Lendo might know?

[Magnocrat]

That's an easy one; fatter wallets.

[Dreamwoven]

My book on the Spanish Civil War (I ordered it) will be coming in about 3 weeks time.

[Lendo]

I checked up on the dictator Salazar, in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/António_de_Oliveira_Salazar, in the Swedish language version it says explicitly that he was a dictator, but not in the English language version. I know that the UK had close relations with Portugal, and that Portugal stayed neutral in the Second World War.

The contrast with Spain under Franco was that Hitler quickly committed Germany to aid the Franco dictatorship already in 1936 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_involvement_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War, I knew about the Guernica operation but the whole story was much more complex.

In all, the Portuguese experience was much milder than the Spanish, but as Lendo comments in the post immediately above, the right-left split in Portugal remains a running sore today.

There's an entire world of difference between Salazar and Franco, and between Salazar and any other european ditactor of the XX century. Estado Novo regime was the most soft and open regime of all, and the one with the less repressive nature by far. There was no death penalty for political crimes, and the dada shows that the big majority of political prisoners were sentenced to months in jail.

More than that, an this is the most impressive aspect of Salazar's regime, there were people from other political areas that integrated Salazar's government. Many Ministers and Secretaries of State of Salazar's government were actually political adversaries of the regime, people connected or close to opposition sectors. Franco Nogueira, Correia de Oliveira, Kaulza de Arriaga, Adriano Moreira and Marcelo Caetano are examples of people that when invited by Salazar to join his government were connected to the opposition to the regime (Franco Nogueira was associated with the democrats and was perceived as a socialist democrat, Correia de Oliveira and Kaulza de Arriaga were close to most conservative groups that contested many Salazar policies, Adriano Moreira was known for his liberal and democratic tendencies and Marcelo Caetano had some type of sympathy with liberal models like the british parilamentarism). There most clear example of this tolerant nature of the regime was that Craveiro Lopes, who served as President of the Republic for 8 years, was well known for his connection with the democratic sector of portuguese politics. He would even be part of a conspiracy against Salazar three years after leaving the presidency.

Another important and clear example of how Salazar had a more tolerant posture than any other dictator of the time is that besides the communists (who were considered a big and dangerous threat to the regime) most political sectores of the oppostion had considerable freedom to politicaly operate in the country. At the high point of the Ultramar War, two of the most notorious critics of Salazar's colonial politic published books against the war and against Salazar colonial politic. Cunha Leal published "Homeland in Danger" and Homem de Mello published "Portugal, the Oversear territories and the Future". Can you find any other dictatorship in which political adversaries of the regime would publish books publicly condening and attacking the regime's politics concerning such a crucial subject as a colonial war?...

Not to mention the intelectual space that was given in college's. A spanish historian once said that when he did a year of college in Portugal was the first time he eard about Gogol, Gorki or Victor Hugo, because their works were forbidden in Spain.

[Lendo]

What do "right wing" people want and what do "left wing" people want in Europe besides leaving or staying in the EU and reducing or increasing Muslim immigrants?

In my county, both the far-left and the far-right are in favour of leavint the EU.

But the far-left is in favour of open borders to the immigrants, and the far-right is against.

[Magnocrat]

The far left always want open borders until they are open and the far right want to have their cake and everyone else's.

[Dreamwoven]

In today's Dagens Nyheter there is an article on the divisions in the EU being made clear when Poland was bypassed. There is a group of countries - Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia - organised into the Visegrad Group (http://www.visegradgroup.eu). This group of countries opposed the re-appointment of Donald Tusk to his EU post. The EU refused to accept this and confirmed the appointment of Tusk.

We don't know the reasons for this, or even the Visigrad Group's reasons for their opposition to the Tusk appointment. This is no surprise because the EU is, as we know, not a democratic organisation. Czechoslovakia (as it was before Slovakia became independent from Bohemia) was the last country to confirm membership of the EU under the Lisbon Treaty.

We can only surmise the reasons. What we do know is that Tusk was a driving force in the expansion of the EU to include Ukraine, which led to the current Cold War, centrally involving the EU against Russia, under the Obama Regime.See http://www.visegradgroup.eu/joint-communique-of-the.

[Dreamwoven]

There's an entire world of difference between Salazar and Franco, and between Salazar and any other european ditactor of the XX century. Estado Novo regime was the most soft and open regime of all, and the one with the less repressive nature by far. There was no death penalty for political crimes, and the dada shows that the big majority of political prisoners were sentenced to months in jail.

More than that, an this is the most impressive aspect of Salazar's regime, there were people from other political areas that integrated Salazar's government. Many Ministers and Secretaries of State of Salazar's government were actually political adversaries of the regime, people connected or close to opposition sectors. Franco Nogueira, Correia de Oliveira, Kaulza de Arriaga, Adriano Moreira and Marcelo Caetano are examples of people that when invited by Salazar to join his government were connected to the opposition to the regime (Franco Nogueira was associated with the democrats and was perceived as a socialist democrat, Correia de Oliveira and Kaulza de Arriaga were close to most conservative groups that contested many Salazar policies, Adriano Moreira was known for his liberal and democratic tendencies and Marcelo Caetano had some type of sympathy with liberal models like the british parilamentarism). There most clear example of this tolerant nature of the regime was that Craveiro Lopes, who served as President of the Republic for 8 years, was well known for his connection with the democratic sector of portuguese politics. He would even be part of a conspiracy against Salazar three years after leaving the presidency.

Another important and clear example of how Salazar had a more tolerant posture than any other dictator of the time is that besides the communists (who were considered a big and dangerous threat to the regime) most political sectores of the oppostion had considerable freedom to politicaly operate in the country. At the high point of the Ultramar War, two of the most notorious critics of Salazar's colonial politic published books against the war and against Salazar colonial politic. Cunha Leal published "Homeland in Danger" and Homem de Mello published "Portugal, the Oversear territories and the Future". Can you find any other dictatorship in which political adversaries of the regime would publish books publicly condening and attacking the regime's politics concerning such a crucial subject as a colonial war?...

Not to mention the intelectual space that was given in college's. A spanish historian once said that when he did a year of college in Portugal was the first time he eard about Gogol, Gorki or Victor Hugo, because their works were forbidden in Spain.

Thanks for this fine update, Lendo.

[Dreamwoven]

The Swedish magazine Ordfront (Wordfront) published an article today showing that over 650 volunteers from Sweden went to Spain to fight for the Republicans and against the fascists in the 1930s, significantly more than the 500 figure commonly given. Sweden is (and was at the time) neutral.

[Lendo]

The Swedish magazine Ordfront (Wordfront) published an article today showing that over 650 volunteers from Sweden went to Spain to fight for the Republicans and against the fascists in the 1930s, significantly more than the 500 figure commonly given. Sweden is (and was at the time) neutral.

That's much less than what Salazar's regime provided to Franco: the most recent dada shows that about 6000 portuguese volunteers fought alongside Franco's forces. Plus, Portugal supplied Franco's men with food, clothes, footwear and light weaponry. But the most important of all, Salazar did a real effort in providing money to Franco's cause: it's today well documented that Salazar appealed to some important portuguese businessmen of the time for them to make financial contribution to the nationalist cause, which really happened. Thousands and thousands of dollars given by portuguese businessmen helped Franco to finance his war effort, and all because of Salazar's political contribution.

There's even a funny story about it: one of the most preponderant contributors to Franco's war effort was a man called Alfredo da Silva, owner of one of the biggest economical groups in Portugal and in all Iberian Peninsula, a group called CUF. After the Civil War, Alfredo da Silva passed by the spanish embassy in Lisbon and noticed there was an event taking place. He told his driver to take him to the embassy, he got out of the car and when he got to the gates a spanish security asked his name. Since his name was not in the gest list, the security said he couldn't get in, to what Alfredo da Silva repplied before he walked in the embassy: "Your president as won the war because of my money, you can be sure i get in this embassy anytime i want".

[Dreamwoven]

Its what I'd expect, Portugal and Spain being neighbours.

[Lendo]

Its what I'd expect, Portugal and Spain being neighbours.

The Spanish Civil War was absolutely crucial to the Estado Novo regime. For various reasons.

First of all, it's important to have in mind that when whe Spanish Civil War broke out, in 1936, the portuguese regime had only 3 years of existence, and Salazar is in power for only 4 years. So, in a period in which Salazar is still consolidating his power and the regime's foundations, a civil war breaks out in the country's only neighbour and a very influencial country to Portugal's stability. Salazar knew that a communist Spain would be an absolute nightmare for him and his regime, a safeland for the opposition, a safeland for the portuguese communists. More than that, what garantees did Salazar have that a communist Spain wouldn't plot to overthrow him from power, that a communist Spain wouldn't give all the political, economical and militarly support for a communist coup d'etat in Portugal? None. And the biggest prove that Salazar's concerns were right, is that only two months (two months!) after the spanish civil war started, a coup d'etat took place in Portugal: a group of communist Navy soldiers tried to overthrow Salazar, precisely because their intent was to change Portugal's position concerning the spanish civil war, and support the Republicans cause.

I go even further than that: what garantees did Salazar had that a communist Spain wouldn't invade Portugal? Spain always had iberian ambitions, always dreamed with a single country peninsula with Madrid as capital. The fact that a communist Spain had a right-wing conservative regime as neighbour in Portugal would be the perfect excuse to invade Portugal. To the historical ambition of uniting Portugal and Spain, the communists would had the "fight against imperialism and fascism".

[Dreamwoven]

As usual, you make some very interesting observations. That is not something that occurred to me to ask. The USSR did indeed have to aim of creating a socialist Europe. I wonder if the USSR sent volunteers to fight Franco, and roughly how many were there? Or did they also subsidise the Spanish communist party with funds? Very likely, I would have thought, though the USSR did what it could to to appease Hitler, especially after the war started. The critical time was the late 1930s up to when Hitler broke the non-aggression pact and invaded the USSR in 1941. David Wingate Pike wrote about the Communists against Franco (In the Service of Stalin), but way too expensive for me to buy. :) Pity I am not near a good university library to research it thoroughly.

[Lendo]

As usual, you make some very interesting observations. That is not something that occurred to me to ask. The USSR did indeed have to aim of creating a socialist Europe. I wonder if the USSR sent volunteers to fight Franco, and roughly how many were there? Or did they also subsidise the Spanish communist party with funds? Very likely, I would have thought, though the USSR did what it could to to appease Hitler, especially after the war started. The critical time was the late 1930s up to when Hitler broke the non-aggression pact and invaded the USSR in 1941. David Wingate Pike wrote about the Communists against Franco (In the Service of Stalin), but way too expensive for me to buy. :) Pity I am not near a good university library to research it thoroughly.

The URSS contributed deeply in the Republican war effort. First of all, with the International Bridages, an international militia of volunteers from all over the world, created and promoted by the URSS all over the world, specially in socialist countries. The most recent dada shows that the International Bridages had close to 60000 soldiers, and that around 3000 of them were soviet soldiers. This ofcourse in the known operations and regular volunteering. There was many cover operations done by soviet secret service NKVD, including assassinations of nationalists and anti-stalinist left figures. Plus, the Soviet Union provided close to 1000 war airplanes, more than 500 tanks and thousands of rifles and light weaponry (grenades, etc).

It´s interesting that according to Antony Beevor's work concerning the Spanish Civil War, there was as many americans fighting for the Republicans as there was soviets: 3000 from each side. Again i say, in the regular volunteering.

[Dreamwoven]

My book on the Spanish civil war has still not come, I expect it to come in the next 3 weeks. Thanks for your observations, they are very interesting!

[Emil Miller]

In today's Dagens Nyheter there is an article on the divisions in the EU being made clear when Poland was bypassed. There is a group of countries - Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia - organised into the Visegrad Group (http://www.visegradgroup.eu). This group of countries opposed the re-appointment of Donald Tusk to his EU post. The EU refused to accept this and confirmed the appointment of Tusk.

We don't know the reasons for this, or even the Visigrad Group's reasons for their opposition to the Tusk appointment. This is no surprise because the EU is, as we know, not a democratic organisation. Czechoslovakia (as it was before Slovakia became independent from Bohemia) was the last country to confirm membership of the EU under the Lisbon Treaty.

We can only surmise the reasons. What we do know is that Tusk was a driving force in the expansion of the EU to include Ukraine, which led to the current Cold War, centrally involving the EU against Russia, under the Obama Regime.See http://www.visegradgroup.eu/joint-communique-of-the.

It's important to stress that Tusk is simply an official in Brussels and the real reason for the Visigrad Group is opposition to Merkel and Berlin who want the group to take in some of the million plus Muslims that the idiotic Merkel has allowed flood into Europe.
They have refused and sealed their borders, making a mockery of Merkel and Brussels's open border polcy.

[Dreamwoven]

You raise some very good points, Emil. The EU also want to have the first member state they arrive at take the immigrants. Not surprisingly, the Visegrad Group by their location as the southern flank, make them prime targets for immigrants to come to the EU. No wonder these countries resist. We are seeing reactions in the Netherlands, in France and even in Sweden, where the Sweden Democrats support grows.

[Emil Miller]

You raise some very good points, Emil. The EU also want to have the first member state they arrive at take the immigrants. Not surprisingly, the Visegrad Group by their location as the southern flank, make them prime targets for immigrants to come to the EU. No wonder these countries resist. We are seeing reactions in the Netherlands, in France and even in Sweden, where the Sweden Democrats support grows.

The first member state requirement has been ignored because the immigrants automatically gravitate to countries where there is more money or social handouts; the fact that Merke[ invited over one million Muslims into Germany without consulting her own people is an act betrayal beyond belief.

[Lendo]

I think that is inevitable to talk about the sanctions apllied to the polish european deputy that gave the controversial speech concerning women.

The speech is hideous and absurd, the simple fact that he uses some chess gender statistic to "prove" that women are less intelligent is ridiculous, and all of us obviously condemn what he said and all of us think that it's absurd that women are, by some type of natural law, less intelligent than men.

However, the fact that a elected deputy of the European Parliament can be sanctioned for saying it it's frightening, it's as absurd as what he said and contradicts all the values that the EU allegedly protects. His speech was idiotic, but he has the right to be an idiot, and to say idiotic and absurd things. When does this politiclly correctness of left nature ends? One thing is to promote directly and violently hate doutrines and philosophies, another thing is to just say stupid, surreal and unbelievable things. It's the electors who have to decide if he deserves to say those things in the Parliament or not, threw out the vote.

In my country, there has been more than one episode like that, and all because of the rise of the far-left. A year ago, a TV commentator was served with a subpoena of the "Commision of Citizenship and Gender Equality" (the most ridiculous governmental agency in Portugal, not because of what it should protect, but because what it actually does) because he said that the leaders of the far-left party Bloco de Esquerda (Left Block, translated to english) had squeaky voices. The Comission considered it a feminist and prejudicial attack on women. This goes behond any Monty Python sketch.

[Lendo]

The blackmail process continues. Juncker and Merkel saying that Great Britain will be sorry for leaving the EU, Juncker and Merkel saying that they are not willing to discuss any agreements with Great Britain until the exit process is finished, and just today the European Council determined that countries are not authorized to negotiate possible future agreements with Great Britain. What the hell is the EU turning to? Who the hell does Juncker think he is?

The EU forbides countries to negotiate with Great Britain future agreements on trade, security or any other subjects? Since when did the countries loose their independence and sovereignty? Despite what people like Juncker, Merkel and Schulz would like, the EU is not a federation. Brussels is not the capital of Europe, and the EU members are not EU states or territories. Portugal, Italy, Netherlands or France have not the same relationship with the EU that Texas or Florida have with the US. An then, theres affirmations like the one that a portuguese socialist deputy said some days ago on TV: "I understand that the EU plays the fear card to make the european project stronger, and i understand that the EU make Great Britain an example of what happens to those who leave the EU".

So, fear is the basis of the EU project nowadays. The EU got to such a totaliratian stage that a country who decides to leave is considered an enemy, an enemy that must be put to his knees so all the other members know what happen to those who make the independent and free decision to leave. Take the breath out of Great Britain, promote it's collapse so the fear takes the remain EU members. What a political project! The face of democracy and freedom!

[Clopin]

It's all burning now as we speak though.

[Aylinn]

The blackmail process continues. Juncker and Merkel saying that Great Britain will be sorry for leaving the EU, Juncker and Merkel saying that they are not willing to discuss any agreements with Great Britain until the exit process is finished, and just today the European Council determined that countries are not authorized to negotiate possible future agreements with Great Britain. What the hell is the EU turning to? Who the hell does Juncker think he is?

Wait, what were people expecting? That UE will fall on its knees and beg UK to stay no matter what or throw at UK good deals? Of course UE would never do it and go for hard negotiations. It was so easy to foresee it and such a logical step for UE to make that I wonder how anyone could have any disillusions that it will not happen. If UK is not prepared for hard negotiation with UE, it has only itself to blame for it. Besides, 'no deal is better than a bad deal' right?

[Lendo]

Wait, what were people expecting? That UE will fall on its knees and beg UK to stay no matter what or throw at UK good deals? Of course UE would never do it and go for hard negotiations. It was so easy to foresee it and such a logical step for UE to make that I wonder how anyone could have any disillusions that it will not happen. If UK is not prepared for hard negotiation with UE, it has only itself to blame for it. Besides, 'no deal is better than a bad deal' right?

I didn't say i'm surprised. As you can see, my first sentence includes the word "continues", with means that i have clear conscience that this have been done for a year, since the british people decided to leave the EU.

And i disagree completely with what you are saying. There's no reason for hard negotiations with the UK. The british people made a independent and conscious decision of leaving the EU, as they are intitled to. It's the british people who decides what's better for their country, not Juncker, Merkel, Schultz, Holland, or anyone else. And in a healthy and decent organization (which the EU is not) this decision would be respected. But this parade of threats, insults and blackmail it's just disgusting. It shows a complete lack of notion of what a political union is. And, above all else, it shows that the EU leaders realize that the end of the political project may be close, it shows the level of despair of the europeist politicians.

The UK needs EU, just as the EU needs UK. The EU is not in a position to say that it doesn't need the UK economy, technology, intelligence services, armed forces, etc. Just as the UK needs the EU market, and depends on the trade of knowledge with countries like Germany and France, and the labour of some continental european workers. So, it's a complex process, that if dealed in a responsable way can not translate in blackmail and threats, in a childish posture of the EU of "If you get out, we don't talk to you". And specially they can not attack a country to scare other countries. A political union based in fear not only will end, but it will end in a very bad and agressive way. Promoting a culture of fear to mantain the EU would only help the rise of parties like PODEMOS, Bloco de Esquerda, Syriza, Front National or UKIP. Precisely the opposite of what the EU desires.

[Aylinn]

And i disagree completely with what you are saying. There's no reason for hard negotiations with the UK. The british people made a independent and conscious decision of leaving the EU, as they are intitled to. It's the british people who decides what's better for their country, not Juncker, Merkel, Schultz, Holland, or anyone else. And in a healthy and decent organization (which the EU is not) this decision would be respected.
To a certain degree it’s charming how you see it. I suppose that if Scottish people decided leave UK, UK will fully respect that decision as an independent and conscious decisions of Scottish people.

[Lendo]

To a certain degree it’s charming how you see it. I suppose that if Scottish people decided leave UK, UK will fully respect that decision as an independent and conscious decisions of Scottish people.

I don't understand how you just compared two things that have nothing to do with eachother. I really don't.

And i really don't understand what's so difficult about understanding that the European Union is an international organization, a political organization. Like the UN, like OTAN, like FMI, etc. It's composed by independent and sovereign countries, that 60 years ago decided that it was a good idea to create a political and economical organization. So, and as the european treaties demonstrate, the countries are free to decide if the organization it's still good for their interests or not. If you don't understand that, you have the same missunderstandings about what's the European Union as people like Juncker or Djusselboom have.

But concerning to the scottish referendum, it's very simple: Great Britain has no other option but to respect the referendum's decision. Unless they are thinking to resuscitate King Edward I and start an independence war with Scotland 700 years later.

[Emil Miller]

Martin Schultz is going to be the socialist front-runner in this year's German election but whether he wins or Merkel prevails, it makes no difference to the two party stitch up that characterises Western politics. It beggars belief that any sane person would vote for mad Merkel but she has just won a local election in Saarland: which would indicate a further diminution in German intelligence.

[Clopin]

To a certain degree it’s charming how you see it. I suppose that if Scottish people decided leave UK, UK will fully respect that decision as an independent and conscious decisions of Scottish people.

I dunno why the rest of the UK wants anything to do with Scotland to be honest. Too bad they can't kick you guys out.

[Aylinn]

And i really don't understand what's so difficult about understanding that the European Union is an international organization, a political organization. Like the UN, like OTAN, like FMI, etc. It's composed by independent and sovereign countries, that 60 years ago decided that it was a good idea to create a political and economical organization. So, and as the european treaties demonstrate, the countries are free to decide if the organization it's still good for their interests or not. If you don't understand that, you have the same missunderstandings about what's the European Union as people like Juncker or Djusselboom have.

I understand, but I don’t see the problem. UK wanted to leave and it did. Was EU stopping UK from sending divorce papers? No, after the referendum some people including important politicians clearly expected that UK will actually do it much sooner.

And of course EU will not allow UK to talk separately with countries. This is exactly the game that Russia is trying to play at with EU. Talk with countries separately, because Russia has an advantage this way and has a weaker position during negotiations when speaking with the whole UE. Politicians leading EU would have to be morons to allow UK to do the same.

As for the fact that EU is not democratic enough for some people. There is actually a way to make it so by giving European Parliament more power, as politicians to European Parliament are directly elected by the people. However, it would mean reforming EU and strengthening the integration and many know too well that UK would be way to ready to veto such idea, so they are happy that UK is leaving and will stop being a problem. Actually, some are fed up with how often UK tended to veto ideas and how little it contributed to constructive problem solving.

[Dreamwoven]

Aylinn, I think you mean EU, not UE. There would be a lot of opposition to centralising power in the EU, especially from Central European countries which have their own group, the Visegrad Group: http://www.visegradgroup.eu, but also from many other EU member states.

[Danik 2016]

DW
UE(União Europeia) is the abreviation of EU in Portuguese.

[Aylinn]

Aylinn, I think you mean EU, not UE. There would be a lot of opposition to centralising power in the EU, especially from Central European countries which have their own group, the Visegrad Group: http://www.visegradgroup.eu, but also from many other EU member states.
Thanks for pointing that out, I have corrected it. I know that many would be against it, especially right-wing parties. However, it is ironic how their accusations that EU isn’t democratic enough could be tackled by more integration and European Parliament getting more power, which is what they don't want either.

[Dreamwoven]

In Hungarian it is Europai Unio, which happens to shorten to EU.

But this is what the Swedes call Swinglish (mix of Swedish snd English, perhaps "Hunglish").

[Dreamwoven]

You are quite right, Aylinn, about not giving the EU Parliament more power. The EU is not designed as a centralised unitary democracy, the design owes much to the interwar fascist states that were dominant in Europe, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and others.

It seems the "Reply with quote" doesn't work either! I wanted to include your post in my reply, but it now cannot be done.

[Aylinn]

You are quite right, Aylinn, about not giving the EU Parliament more power. The EU is not designed as a centralised unitary democracy, the design owes much to the interwar fascist states that were dominant in Europe, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and others.
Not really, it was designed after WWII in Europe so that something like WWII will not happen again, so I think the idea of EU was good and noble. Besides the idea of giving European Parliament more power and making the European Union more democratic is not new and it is not like European Parliament is not slowing becoming more powerful. However, this means that the European Union is more and more like a nation-state.

So on one hand giving European Parliament, where politicians are elected by people, more power would solve the problem of EU not being democratic enough, but on the other hand it means that EU, as a natural consequence, will become a federation and that is something that some don’t want to happen.

So it is a basically a bit of a stalemate. EU cannot stay the way it is, because it will be accused of not being democratic. It cannot give European Parliament much more power, because there are those who will not like it either. Going back is not a good option too, because only together do all the European countries really count on a global level. Separately none of them is big enough.

[Emil Miller]

You are quite right, Aylinn, about not giving the EU Parliament more power. The EU is not designed as a centralised unitary democracy, the design owes much to the interwar fascist states that were dominant in Europe, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and others.

It seems the "Reply with quote" doesn't work either! I wanted to include your post in my reply, but it now cannot be done.

There is enormous irony in the fact that it is the left-wing who are the mainstay of support for the EU when the original plan for it was promulgated by National Socialist Germany in 1942.

[Dreamwoven]

Perhaps it doesn't work in some countries. You seem to be able to "reply with quote" alright in your own country. It doesn't work in Sweden.

[Clopin]

Thanks for pointing that out, I have corrected it. I know that many would be against it, especially right-wing parties. However, it is ironic how their accusations that EU isn’t democratic enough could be tackled by more integration and European Parliament getting more power, which is what they don't want either.

It's not ironic at all. They don't believe that "reforming the EU" to be more democratic is ever going to happen, so they want to leave.

[Dreamwoven]

Europe is no longer where the major conflicts in the world exist. it has gone world-wide. In fact, it has always been world-wide, especially since 1914. The USA, Russia (and increasingly China) have always been the main countries where the big conflicts take place. They are involved and have been for more than 100 years. So the EU has not contributed to peace but has become incorporated into the Cold War on the USA's side

[Aylinn]

Europe is no longer where the major conflicts in the world exist. it has gone world-wide. In fact, it has always been world-wide, especially since 1914. The USA, Russia (and increasingly China) have always been the main countries where the big conflicts take place. They are involved and have been for more than 100 years. So the EU has not contributed to peace but has become incorporated into the Cold War on the USA's side
Yes, EU is no longer there just to keep peace, though I disagree with the claim that it didn’t contribute to peace. It made the idea of war between European countries seem ridiculous. Besides, EU was actively involved in bringing and keeping peace in, for example, Northern Ireland. However, going back to my point. Of course EU is no longer there to just keep peace in Europe. It is necessary for Europe to count on a global level. None of the countries in Europe can separately compete with big countries like Russia or China, however EU can.

The idea of Europe going back to how things used to before EU appeared, while very romantic, is just impossible. Even if EU disintegrates, time cannot be turned back and the world will never be what it once was. The problems that globalization brings will not magically disappear, so the best one can do is to prepare and make the best out of changes. And united Europe has a bigger chance of successfully tackling this issues than each country individually.

[Emil Miller]

Yes, EU is no longer there just to keep peace, though I disagree with the claim that it didn’t contribute to peace. It made the idea of war between European countries seem ridiculous. Besides, EU was actively involved in bringing and keeping peace in, for example, Northern Ireland. However, going back to my point. Of course EU is no longer there to just keep peace in Europe. It is necessary for Europe to count on a global level. None of the countries in Europe can separately compete with big countries like Russia or China, however EU can.

The idea of Europe going back to how things used to before EU appeared, while very romantic, is just impossible. Even if EU disintegrates, time cannot be turned back and the world will never be what it once was. The problems that globalization brings will not magically disappear, so the best one can do is to prepare and make the best out of changes. And united Europe has a bigger chance of successfully tackling this issues than each country individually.

You seem not have noticed the dissappearence of the USSR and the dissolution of CzechoSlovakia back to their former independent states, not to mention the break up of Jugoslavia. The EU is also fragmenting despite German efforts to keep their hegemonic creation afloat and with the polarisation of rising nationalism and an increasingly discredited liberalism there is, for those of us who have read their history books, a distinct whiff of the 1930s in the air.

[YesNo]

Suppose Scotland left both the EU and the UK, set up its own currency, government and defense, what problems would that create?

[Dreamwoven]

Thats still a hypothetical question, perhaps we should wait until to see if (a) Scotland votes for independence from the UK in the forthcoming referendum, and (b) if they then having done that want to adopt the Euro, join NATO, etc.

[Clopin]

Suppose Scotland left both the EU and the UK, set up its own currency, government and defense, what problems would that create?

They wouldn't get their welfare money from England.

[YesNo]

It is true they haven't done it yet and they would lose some benefits from membership in the UK and the EU, but this looks like an opportunity to unwind any debt they might have and protect themselves from a possible EU collapse.

[Aylinn]

You seem not have noticed the dissappearence of the USSR and the dissolution of CzechoSlovakia back to their former independent states, not to mention the break up of Jugoslavia. The EU is also fragmenting despite German efforts to keep their hegemonic creation afloat and with the polarisation of rising nationalism and an increasingly discredited liberalism there is, for those of us who have read their history books, a distinct whiff of the 1930s in the air.
As I am from Eastern Europe, I can assure you that it would be damn hard for me not to know about the dissappearence of the USSR, etc. I can also assure that most comparisons that far right makes between USSR and EU is shallow at best.

[mona amon]

Suppose Scotland left both the EU and the UK, set up its own currency, government and defense, what problems would that create?

Not my country but I'm curious - what's with all these 'referendums'? I know it is democratic, but do we really need this much democracy? Is it not better to leave these important policy decisions to the lawmakers we elect?

[YesNo]

One of the reasons for the referendums is to silence those who want to leave the EU or the UK when the referendums fail.

[Emil Miller]

Not my country but I'm curious - what's with all these 'referendums'? I know it is democratic, but do we really need this much democracy? Is it not better to leave these important policy decisions to the lawmakers we elect?

The obvious answer is NO because in a de facto two party system they gang up and run the country to suit themselves. Government by referendum restricts their power in favour of the electorate.

[Dreamwoven]

Well said, Emil!

[Magnocrat]

We have no choice but to leave it to the elected representatives its as near as you can get to democracy. As long as power never gets concentrated into a ruling elite we are safe. Dissention brings safety; the necessity to reelect confirms it.

[Emil Miller]

. As long as power never gets concentrated into a ruling elite we are safe.
But it always does in a two party system.

[Dreamwoven]

Again, I agree with you, Emil. Sweden has many parties which keeps the options open. Thats just good.

[Dreamwoven]

Sunday 28 May 2017 Dagens Nyheter has a discussion on the growing tension in the EU over the deadlock re the Visegrad Group - http://www.visegradgroup.eu - vetoing the chance of the EU to block all attempts to admit refugees to the EU. Social Democratic Minister for Migration Morgan Johansson threatens to support a proposal to enable a majority of countries to force a decision to admit refugees. The majority for this admit this can be done, with Sweden and Germany leading the wish to do so. Hungary and Poland lead the no-sayers.

[Dreamwoven]

Does anyone know what is happening to the Brexit negotiations since Theresa May's second referendum? It was supposed to give her enough support to strengthen her position, but the opposite happened. Many people changed their position and opposed Brexit. With the strength of the Unionist Irish MPs she had enough support to continue but its been quiet since then.

[Danik 2016]

I hope that some of the British peers return to answer that.

[Dreamwoven]

Eurocrats are planning to expand the eu's activities into the military field. AN EU-Army comes a few steps closer, no doubt with its own military budget. Merkel, the German Chancellor, put it like this: "it make possible for all participant EU-states to execute different tasks "over the whole world". Within a few weeks or months we will look at various projects and the criteria that must be established (my translation from p.4 of "Kritiska EU fakta" Nej till EU"(September 2017).

[Dreamwoven]

The point about this is to pave the way for militarisation, without it even appearing to be that.

[Dreamwoven]

http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/government-must-scrap-its-compromises-over-eu-military-schemes