Brexit vote

dunstonh

OldBeanz wrote: »

Having worked in defence for nearly 40 years the impact of the EU has never been a factor. It is NATO endof.

It has been a factor because it was set up to try and prevent future European wars. The aim of uniting the countries politically and economically was to avoid future conflict.

So, in terms of defence, it has actually done that very well. Of course, it has had significant mission creep since then.

JezR

robin61 wrote: »

Being in the EU is like watching someone run a bath with both taps on full. You can see the bath is going to overflow and you are suggesting that the taps need to be turned off. Meanwhile the guy running the bath insists it will have no impact and calls you a bigot for suggesting it will.
I like the EU as an organisation to support free trade but this freedom of movement rule where there seems to be no chance of a sensible compromise is bizare to me.

Freedom of labour is a fundamental for a Common Market and was in place when we entered. It goes back to the treaty that formed the European Steel and Coal Community in 1951. Indeed the UK was not subject to any transitional period on this and people could go and work in the other countries of the EEC from 1973.

OldBeanz

dunstonh wrote: »

It has been a factor because it was set up to try and prevent future European wars. The aim of uniting the countries politically and economically was to avoid future conflict.

So, in terms of defence, it has actually done that very well. Of course, it has had significant mission creep since then.

By disarming the major protagonist and stationing 200,000 troops in the country was how this was achieved. The major protagonist has achieved its aim of dominating the continent without resorting to war. The EU contribution to peace is as relevant as the contribution of Premium Bonds to pensions.

bigadaj

dunstonh wrote: »

It has been a factor because it was set up to try and prevent future European wars. The aim of uniting the countries politically and economically was to avoid future conflict.

So, in terms of defence, it has actually done that very well. Of course, it has had significant mission creep since then.

Maybe, but remember the French weren't part iof Nato for decades.

bigadaj

I think one of the real problems is that the current state for the uk is untenable.

The majority of the members want to progress into a more federal Europe, the U.K. Would be left behind and ignored if it didn't join in, join the euro, subsume further into the project etc

The free trade element is great but it's not going to be possible just to pick and choose.

With regards to German domination, the inevitability of that was the main argument for those against war in Germany in 1914, little has changed in a century, apart from common sense prevailing ultimately.

Chickereeeee

OldBeanz wrote: »

By disarming the major protagonist and stationing 200,000 troops in the country was how this was achieved. The major protagonist has achieved its aim of dominating the continent without resorting to war. The EU contribution to peace is as relevant as the contribution of Premium Bonds to pensions.

Looking back over major European wars, I think you will find France was the 'major protagonist'. They (France and Germany-precursors) attacked/retaliated multiple times. In WW1 Germany had the 'misfortune' to be the agressor when society, weaponary and communications allowed the conflict to become global. A decade or two either way and it could have been France.

C

Chickereeeee

As far as I can see, if UK left EU, we would not be able to rejoin (or at least under anything like currect favourable terms.)

If we stay in, we can still leave at some future date if we do not like it.....

C

dunstonh

bigadaj wrote: »

Maybe, but remember the French weren't part iof Nato for decades.

Not sure if you were meant to quote me or oldbeanz. I suspect old beanz as your response is about Nato. Mine was about the original intentions of the EU and France was a founding member.

robin61

JezR wrote: »

Freedom of labour is a fundamental for a Common Market and was in place when we entered. It goes back to the treaty that formed the European Steel and Coal Community in 1951. Indeed the UK was not subject to any transitional period on this and people could go and work in the other countries of the EEC from 1973.

Indeed. So we need to be agreeable with an open border to 500 million people and rising and to treat them pretty much the same as our own citizens if they want to come here.
We will all need to make up our minds whether we think this is a sensible idea or not.

bigadaj

dunstonh wrote: »

Not sure if you were meant to quote me or oldbeanz. I suspect old beanz as your response is about Nato. Mine was about the original intentions of the EU and France was a founding member.

Both, as there was a connection between NATO and the post war peace. The French were very much independent militarily and so didn't contribute to the post war peace as much as they didn't participate in the guarantees of peace that came with NATO membership.

The iron and steel federation was a trade agreement, I don't think anyone is arguing with the benefits of that, but the European project isn't going to stop halfway, and surrender of national sovereign powers will be inevitable, with adoption of the euro and ultimately a United States of Europe. The difference with the us is that there is very much more of a welfare state across Europe, largely free healthcare, and with an even more unequal spread of wealth.