Blog powered by Typepad

« Get your 'pid-pod-pad-thingies' ready now - and that's an order! | Main | The exceedingly long arm of the law reaches Gerry Adams »

Wednesday, 30 April 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ah the poor mademoiselle France. She has gotten so accustomed to giving in to Germany that her will and moral underpinning is in question. To abuse an old quote re said mademoiselle, "In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily." - Charles, Count Talleyrand.

Ah, Talleyrand, one of my heroes! One shouldn't, I think, be too hard on France. They were thrashed in 1870/1 by a superior war machine that no nation in Europe at that time could have withstood. And in 1914 they stood their ground against the German right hook surprisingly well. And alas, we did no better against German tanks in 1940 than they did - and we invented the bloody things!

The French have the same problem we have. The people outside Paris know what to do - but the political-media establishment in Paris isn't listening.

Indeed, "it's the same the whole world over"!

Yep, soon it'll be all over, and Europe will return to type after a 70 year peaceful interlude. Every enclave from Dublin to Moscow will cry out to its motherland, and the cries won't fall on deaf ears. Here's a guide for those who want to know where their sons, fathers, husbands bones will be mouldering into the earth: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Disputed_territories_in_Europe

Never mind, I've got enough grade 1 medical conditions to ensure I can settle into my armchair and enjoy my favourite hobby of warmongering.

How will I keep up with all those new weapon systems? Be fun trying though.

All because the Jerries don't know how to run a currency for the benefit of all its users.

They would only have had to ask the English and Americans.

Oh well, let slip ...

SoD

One hopes you are right, but does not quite believe it.

"a 70 year peaceful interlude"

Apart from the IRA, the Basque movement, all those tribes that were once the constituent parts of 'Jugoslavia', and now the Ukrainians!

I share your doubts, Philo, but a man may hope, may he not?

"Apart from the IRA, the Basque movement, all those tribes that were once the constituent parts of 'Jugoslavia', and now the Ukrainians!"

Y'what!? All those conflicts died down or fizzled out in the last 70 years! Imagine what they'd have been like without the EU?

Let's look at another example: Gibraltar and our ex-pats in the Costa Plonka's. If the EU falls apart, do you honestly think it won't be a matter of time before some Spanish demagogue-douche invades Gibraltar and robs our ex-pats of all their Costa Plonka properties to deflect public attention from economic or other failure, stir up nationalist feeling, and gain popularity?

Then what are we going to do? Send in our glorious armed forces, you know, the ones who couldn't take and hold a medium sized city in the middle east, or chase a few hairies out of the mountains?

No, in fact the £9.6bn per annum net it costs us to be a part of the EU is the money most well spent out of our total public sector bill because it guarantees we don't have to fight direct wars (like Gibraltar), or indirect ones we would inevitably get sucked into (as our history before the EU / NATO attests to, and the link above to disputed European territories forewarns us), in Europe.

What would you rather have: an extra aircraft carrier and armoured division to throw into an inevitable war in Europe, or neither and peace in Europe?

Even without reform, we're better off with an EU that survives and stumbles on. But if the North, including Britain, could reform it, well it's a no brainer.

Discuss!

SoD

I'm beginning to worry about you, SoD! Dammit all, remember you're British, er, well, English, actually!

The whole philosophical, political, social, judicial, historical ethos of Europe is almost the exact opposite of England. That is not to despise the people of Europe but it does need to be in the forefront of our minds when we think about the fact that *their* leaders are now to become *our* leaders. Are you really happy that politicians from Croatia, judges from Bulgaria, philosophers from Paris are going to become our ruling elite? If we are to have links with other nations, and that's a very 'iffy' if, then we are more connected to the English-speaking nations of the world than with Europe - and at least most of them have a faint, sentimental attachment to us, unlike the Europeans who mostly detest us!

Get a grip and read your hero's latest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10799824/Britain-should-leave-the-EU-if-Europes-judges-trample-on-our-basic-protections.html

In that article the big "if" is that if it can be reformed we should stay in. Whereas you are for out under any circumstances.

So if it cannot be reformed, then our leaving is justified because we wouldn't want to live under an unreformable mid-range tyranny - except that if we left, it might precipitate the collapse of the EU. In which case war would be inevitable (if you accept my arguments above).

So, in true Turing fashion, proceed from step one until a stop state is reached: -

(1) If it's reformable, we should stay in until it's either reformed (stop), or changes to become unreformable (in which case move to the next step).
(2) If it's not reformable, and you think we can leave without collapsing the EU, we should leave (stop).
(3) If it's not reformable, and you think our leaving will precipitate collapse, then if you prefer war to mid-range tyranny, then we leave (stop); if you prefer mid-range tyranny to war, we stay in (stop).

SoD

Neatly put, although I always distrust those logical arguments. In like mode I shall continue in your style:

1: I want out because I do not want *any* sort of tyranny and the EU is an unstoppable embryo tyranny.

2: If there is war, so be it, we should maintain our classic policy of refusing to be involved unless the Low Countries and/or France are threatened.

To that end we should maintain our nuclear weapons and concentrate on missile/e-warfare and anti-missile/e-warfare forces.

The comments to this entry are closed.