Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

FUCK YES LET'S LEAVE GET HYPE YEY

Casual yes, let's leave and get independence done with

Meh, probably just scribble all over my vote ballot to spite tryhards

Casual no, let's remain and get integration done with

FUCK NO LET'S REMAIN GET CALM YEY

[Sergarr]

But where's the fundamental gap between a German dude and a Frenchman?

Frenchmen still consider war as a valid way of achieving their goals, for one. They also like to conquer territory quite a lot. France still has overseas territories, remember? And many people in Africa are still under de-facto financial dominion of France. That's one of the reason why they've decided that Gaddafi had to go, you know. He tried to change the situation, so Frenchmen have declared war on him, destroying the country in the process.

I, for one, like to believe that German dudes would not agree with doing all of these things.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: On culture (click to show/hide)

I guess I just don't think common administration necessarily means erasing local culture - again, look at the Swiss. Or hell, look at Germany! Maybe this is why I'm more optimistic than you in this regard - I've lived in a heavily federalized country all my life, much more heavily federalized than Great Britain. Bavaria has been ruled from Berlin for what, 150 years or so by now? They're still wearing Dirndls and drinking Weißbier. And in Cologne there's still Carnival, Kölsch, and Köbesse. Up North they still burn great heaps of trimmings each Easter, just like their forebears did even before the area became Christian. And in the East they also follow their ancient traditions, lighting foreigners on fire and muttering about how a dictatorship wouldn't be all that bad. And Berlin can't do shit about it - and it doesn't want to, either.
I don't see why things would have to be different on an EU level.

Your federal country's recent experiment with demographic change does not suggest a people whose ways can survive more than a generation Helgo; the 150 years of rule has not weathered a decade under such epochal change as this :D
By my shitty count from march you guys have 3 years until your under 20s are minorities and what culture thereafter shall be inevitably entirely anew that will cross beyond your old German differences. My views are coloured by growing up in London, where the notion of the English being displaced was a joke - and then it happened, and Cockney culture is about to permanently die. I find all of this to have been completely unnecessary but at the same time London is also the most successful city in the world and its certainly adapted a new cultural fabric whose hiccups have been a result of incompetent political ideologues, not cultural - with our MPs foolishly having sought to have migrants act as groups apart from Britain and not individuals of Britain. The attempt to preserve all the cultures of the world in London ended in people dying and segregating themselves, it's not functional - much better to pursue assimilation. If you try to seek both eliminating all political and cultural boundaries whilst still seeking to preserve the cultures themselves you are pursuing the worst of both ends, you will have erased your old ways and gained no profit from your new ones. The French are a great example of this; it doesn't matter if there are irrelevant minority language speakers because all speak French and act as one France. Consider the Spanish, amongst whom despite 500 years of shared history the Catalonians continue to seek independence from autonomy and use their autonomy to maintain a separate Catalonian language and culture, or more broadly in how the slavs of the Visegrad Group and the Hungarians are using their national sovereignty to maintain their separate culture from the EU. If all you find worth preserving is custom that's more achievable, so whoever can still drink their Weißbier. Promoting multi-lingualism would be a very constructive force in this regards, and I see how much money the EU spends on promoting European values to Eastern Europe, the UK and Russia so it's very clear they understand the worth of enforcing a uniform culture. Most obviously just look at their flag; it is not the flag of all the nations of Europe, it is its own symbol.

This is the Union the Americans have. Its goals are free trade and maintaining independence of all its nations. Every nation is represented.

This is the Union the Europeans have, ours wants one market, one government, one people. It wouldn't be so detestable if it hadn't been sold on false terms of free trade without referendums given to the public (that were worth a damn, lol Ireland).

Supremacy over British parliament - sure, that's sort of a given, but shouldn't be too bad if it's another parliament that's exercising that supremacy. End of British sovereignity and independence? Well yeah. End of the monarchy? Why should the EU depose the Queen?

1. The Russians in WWII had the decision to fight for Hitler who wanted to genocide most of them and Stalin who wanted to genocide most of them. The Russians decided they would fight for the one that at least spoke Russian. If the seat of Parliament was moving to York or Glasgow I'd give far less care than if it was moved to the Continent. I find it odd that you genuinely think I should be fine with rule by the Parliament of Belgium or Zimbabwe simply because they are all Parliaments. They are clearly not the same thing.
2. Our Monarch is our head of state and represents conflicting authority with such a head of EU state. The EU is already trying to push our understanding of subjects and citizenry in line with EU citizenry, they've even made our Monarch their citizen. Out Republican movement is led by the AERM, headquarters Stockolm, Sweden.

What really gets me about this is: Are you really attached to the English state, as opposed to the English nation? Because all you're saying is that the English state would dissolve, yet you freely talk about the English nation living on...

The British state would dissolve, most of the British would become globalized and those returning home will find they no longer recognize it as home; but it can be made to be prosperous further still. I want as much of Britain to live on in either result so of course I would freely talk of finding something about the nation to live on; intentionally destroying the UK just to spite the EU doesn't make logical sense.

Spoiler: On war (click to show/hide)

Well, before WWI quite a few people considered the economic interdependence of the European states big enough to prevent big wars. They were wrong. Who says that we're right when we claim the same thing? Just look at Russia - there you can see without trouble that politics still trump economics.

Economic interdependence was not significant, English and German economic rivalry guaranteed military opposition and free trade was sought, instead protectionism and imperialism. Lacking any notion of mutually assured destruction, the British believed they could secure victory in one decisive naval victory as in Trafalgar, the French believed they could as in Austerlitz and the Germans as in the Franco-Prussian war. When the two armies mobilized for war they envisaged quick, gargantuan yet decisive battles ruled by mobility of cavalry and train - not the devastating trench warfare to unfold.
Nowadays with free trade, no Empires to support protectionism and immense economic interdependence the European states cannot wage war upon one another, (Germany and Britain for example could not even start a trade war let alone a military one and hope to have any gain), and with mutually assured destruction there can further be only civil war.
Just look at Russia. Not only was Germany, France and the UK incapable of delivering devastating sanctions needed to cripple Russia, they limited it to arms embargo and freezing of the Russian cabinet's assets held in the West. And look at who provoked this war - the Germans and French warned George Bush that giving NATO membership to Ukraine would be an unnecessary provocation and force a military confrontation, as the Russians cannot tolerate Western soldiers within quick striking distance of Volgograd.
2007 - EU and Ukraine begin talks of integrating the country offering closer economic and political cooperation. Free trade negotiations begin in tandem.
2008 - The Russio-Georgian war begins and prompts a quick condemnation from George Bush, seeking to expand NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine, whilst removing Russian opposition to missile defence systems in Eastern Europe. Angela Merkel is upset and angry. Germany and France say they believe that since neither Ukraine nor Georgia is stable enough to enter the program now, a membership plan would be an unnecessary offense to Russia which firmly opposes the move. Putin, has threats to cancel his planned visit to the NATO meeting on Friday if the two former Soviet states enter the program for eventual membership. Senior German diplomat, Wolfgang Ischinger, says that offering membership to a divided Ukraine could destabilize the new government there, and that not enough diplomacy had taken place beforehand with Russia.
The EU Commission that year begins talks in Brussels of visa free travel between the EU and Ukraine.
2009 - the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda is adopted. Its intentions included promoting a gradual convergence toward the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy and European Defence Agency policies. Eastern Ukraine is lukewarm, Western Ukraine supportive.
2010 - the French constitution is modified in order to remove compulsory referendums for the accession of Ukraine and Turkey to the EU.
2012 - the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement is initiated in Brussels but not signed, with EU leaders citing their opposition as resulting from Ukraine's deteriorating democracy.
2013 - President Barroso makes it clear to Yanukovych that Ukraine cannot both be a member of the Customs Union of Belarus, Russian and Kazakhstan, and a member of the European Union. The Russians and the EU attempt to compromise with individual treaties, observer status of the Customs Union without membership of it and statements of neutral intent from both sides.
2014 - Prime Minister Azarov's admin draw up the plan to be implemented upon Ukraine and the EU's ratification of the Association Agreement. Yanukovych's refusal to sign the Association Agreement leads to protests, his security forces' crackdown and escalation leads to the Euromaidan revolution. The Russians denounce this as a coup and Eastern Ukrainians begin stirring up trouble. The Crimean peninsula is annexed by Russia. Russian humanitarian convoys begin entering Eastern Ukraine, carrying paramilitary soldiers and equipment to launch a covert invasion.
2015 - the Minsk II ceasefire is placed in effect with no significant territorial changes, turning the war into an unresolved conflict.

The other big danger is: What if France elects an irrational leader who does not see those benefits? Or, God forbid, my countrymen do? Especially in an economic downturn, where those benefits are less pronounced, this is a real possibility. And in such a situation the old saying 'Blood is thicker than water' holds true: Friendship can wither, so it's better to be brothers than just friends.

You would have to elect an irrational leader who is incapable of seeing there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost completely unrestrained by the workings of the state, nothing I expect to see from anything short of a military coup. And then what? It would take the dissolution of NATO and rapid rearmament escaping the attention of the USA by one of Europe's two nuclear powers. Neither Britain nor France hold the capability to occupy Europe in the event that they conquered it and their home nations were fine with their actions.
You are also yet to demonstrate why in response to the threat of imagined warlords you would rather preemptively surrender all of your sovereignty just to avoid fighting against a threat that does not exist! Switzerland is your neighbour, if Germany or France were genuinely worried about having to fight off foreign invasion why didn't they keep NATO membership or adopt armed neutrality instead of surrendering everything?
This line of thinking, it is sadly too influential. It is one the biggest talking points by the remain campaign and none of it makes sense. You don't defend against enemies by giving them your country just to spare them the effort of fighting your soldiers, and these enemies are yet to appear! Why do you give away everything just to avoid losing it to enemies that do not exist?!!

And where ideals and political views are concerned, the (EU) European nations are pretty similar already, so living under the same roof would hardly be a burden. It would be different with, let's say, Russia - that's why I'm not advocating the integration of that country, at least not to the same degree. But where's the fundamental gap between a German dude and a Frenchman?

Besides one being German and the other French, it is as you say their differences shall become irrelevant and not even Russians or Turks will escape integration.

Well, it's equally important to me that it's possible to kick my country in the teeth as well - I thought that was a given. Again: I find the idea of one country dominating its neighbors to be abhorrent.

Then why do you support the EU? Its inception, purpose and practice is hegemony

http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/poll-majority-of-swedes-want-to-leave-eu-in-case-of-brexit/
If Britain left, Swedes would wish to follow us in seeking independence.
This is the least likely ally to have ever expected but given recent EU mismanagement. Of course it is a double-edged sword, if our independence bid fails we will likely not only kill British independence, but the entirety of all European independence bids. Really Sweden, you're full of surprises o_O

Frenchmen still consider war as a valid way of achieving their goals, for one. They also like to conquer territory quite a lot. France still has overseas territories, remember? And many people in Africa are still under de-facto financial dominion of France. That's one of the reason why they've decided that Gaddafi had to go, you know. He tried to change the situation, so Frenchmen have declared war on him, destroying the country in the process.

I, for one, like to believe that German dudes would not agree with doing all of these things.

You may have missed it but the financial dominion of Francafrique was transferred to the European Central Bank when the French adopted the Euro and it's not like German ministers are at all opposed to the already existing militaries fighting for them. Point and case, given Russia's recent blockheadedness with Europe and gas, and ISIS threatening Libya's oil and gas fields - a second intervention could be in the brewing with SAS troops apparently running around Libya in preparation for several thousand more European and American troops. Interestingly led by Italians, which is a phrase that fills me with fear. Also to be fair France is not doing anything Russia's not already done :P

[Helgoland]

You are also yet to demonstrate why in response to the threat of imagined warlords you would rather preemptively surrender all of your sovereignty just to avoid fighting against a threat that does not exist!

Because I will not lose anything I care about through further integration. All that will happen is better coordination with my neighbors across the border - I don't give a shit about whether I'm ruled from Berlin or from Brussels, as long as I can get my voice heard in that place.

I find it odd that you genuinely think I should be fine with rule by the Parliament of Belgium or Zimbabwe simply because they are all Parliaments.

I find it odd that you would object to being ruled by a parliament that hears your voice, whose composition you can influence. I'd fight tooth and nail against the Rhineland being turned into a French colony - but that's different from being ruled by a parliament that both the French and the Germans elected, and that rules over both peoples.

You envision subjugation; I envision unity. That's the difference between us:

Then why do you support the EU? Its inception, purpose and practice is hegemony

You act like the EU is some foreign power taking over the European countries, when really it is (or ought to be, and should be shaped to be) precisely what it says on the tin: A union, in which the peoples of Europe govern themselves as a whole.



Maybe the EU is like the League of Nations: Maybe it has to fail, only to be re-formed in a more functional manner after a great catastrophy. Only time will tell, I guess.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: Stuff (click to show/hide)

Because I will not lose anything I care about through further integration. All that will happen is better coordination with my neighbors across the border - I don't give a shit about whether I'm ruled from Berlin or from Brussels, as long as I can get my voice heard in that place.

It would be nice if it was about just better coordination but it is not, it is about centralization and uniformity. It's one thing to have the EU give suggestions and it's another for it to become the supreme executive branch over everyone's governments. If your voice is getting quieter what can you do to make yourself heard if you've surrendered everything? Greece: The life story

You envision subjugation; I envision unity. That's the difference between us:

Then why do you support the EU? Its inception, purpose and practice is hegemony

You act like the EU is some foreign power taking over the European countries, when really it is (or ought to be, and should be shaped to be) precisely what it says on the tin: A union, in which the peoples of Europe govern themselves as a whole.

The unity is subjugation, making all the nations of Europe subject to the European Commission. The two are inseparable; without the former the latter is unreachable and for the latter it is already done, with only the eurosceptic movements remaining to hinder this. Frankly a foreign power subjugating Europe would at least have the benefit of them paying for their efforts to make a European dominion, with the EU we're paying for our own subjugation. Honestly why are we paying the EU just so they can use some of that money to gift our public services and private institutions to gain their loyalty? Why could we not just be using that money to pay them ourselves? It should have been what it said on the tin: A free trade union, but instead we get a political force subjugating the nation state.

Maybe the EU is like the League of Nations: Maybe it has to fail, only to be re-formed in a more functional manner after a great catastrophy. Only time will tell, I guess.

You fill me with confidence 

If you're going to do it don't aim for catastrophe, Europe is fast running out of things and people to sacrifice for pointless calamities

Spoiler: in other news (click to show/hide)

The remain campaign want to deport Marine Le Pen, but Theresa May was rather embarrassed to admit that like the quarter million who just arrived, for as long as we stay in Cameron's camp we have no hope of ever gaining full control of our borders and deporting Le Pen

[Sheb]

I think part of the difference between the British and the Continental point of view is that here, the EU was never sold as "just a free trade area". It was always first and foremost a political project, a way to unify people that have too much in common for fighting each others. Later, for many Eastern EU countries it also became a way to join the West and leave the corrupt post-Soviet system before. Arguably, that's still the attraction in place like Ukraine.

I really wonder how your politicians managed to spin it if you think that "free trade area" was what was on the tin. Gosh, there is even a black-on-white "ever closer union" article.

[Loud Whispers]

I really wonder how your politicians managed to spin it if you think that "free trade area" was what was on the tin. Gosh, there is even a black-on-white "ever closer union" article.

Tony Blair is the guy who managed get an approval rating above 90%
Today he is known as the Blood God and peace ambassador of the Middle East
We have produced some elite bullshitters capable of selling anything in our time :P
Currently they just maintain that this is about free trade and we're voting to leave Europe, not the European Union

Also more hilariously George Osborne's aunt has joined in his family's revolt against his anti-UK stance. COME HOME OSBORNE, STOP GIVING OUR SHEKELS TO CAMERON, WE MISS U

"Speaking to the Standard, Mrs Little said: “My husband and I are very fond of George but we totally disagree with him on Brexit.”
While the Chancellor’s aunt is very enthusiastic towards him, she also has a soft spot for the Mayor of London. “I love Boris,” she said."

SHOTS FIRED
BORIS NEW ADOPTED NEPHEW OF THE OSBORNES CONFIRMED
C
  O
    M
       E
   H
     O
       M
          E

Also something very interesting which I think you guys may find interesting the Guardian's grabbed some Swedes, Germans and Spaniards to write articles discussing wtf they think about brexit. Keep in mind the Guardian are also writing articles saying the BBC has to be less impartial in order to get pro-EU arguments across and that impartiality is not even worth it so they're not really subtle about what they want to push, but this is interesting because it's their attempt at getting "outsider perspective". Does it hold water?

When David Cameron first promised a referendum on British membership of the EU if he were re-elected as prime minister, the idea baffled most Germans. They could not believe that the British could be contemplating leaving the EU. What future could they possibly think they might have outside Europe?

What was the bafflement level of Germans? We have such unique perspectives I feel 

[Loud Whispers]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poll-idUKKCN0XN1W9
FRESH POLLS
UK's got 2 point lead but as usual, undecideds will decide the referendum

[Flying Dice]

cassetteboy is at it again, this time on Jeremy (c)Hunt and the NHS.

[Reelya]

China doesn't lack the ability for force projection. They lack the need to do that. The UK's enemies are all distant. China has a huge land and sea border, with fairly hostile nations on all sides. They don't have the rationale to project troops to the other side of the planet, whereas UK is an island nation, surrounded by mainly friendly nations. Sure the UK could build up huge land forces like China, but it would not make sense for the UK to do that. Their real threats are all remote.

And consider that China spends $150 billion to UK's $60 billion. Those are in the same ballpark, so to speak. China has much more than twice the firepower of the UK, so the idea that UK is somehow super-efficient with resources is not borne out.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=china
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom

e.g. 1230 fighters vs UK's 91 fighters. The only category where UK is equal to China is on Armored Fighting Vehicles, e.g. APCs. China has an absolutely insane amount of tanks (9000 vs UK 400), towed artillery guns (6200 vs UK 138), self-propelled guns (1700+ vs UK 89), and Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems  (1700+ vs UK 42).

[Loud Whispers]

China doesn't lack the ability for force projection. They lack the need to do that. The UK's enemies are all distant.

China and the UK don't have enemies so far, but that's just a semantic issue. Consider how China started broadcasting amphibious assaults and exercises in warning against Taiwan, as a threat to their independence-leaning parties, or how Obama redeployed most of Europe's American personnel East in order to counter China's military flexing in the disputed seas. China's even said as much, their aerial intrusions towards Japanese islands are drills to improve their long-range combat abilities.
The Chinese military is a powerful avalanche, it just takes time to get the snowballs rolling!
The British military is more akin to an arrow, quick to flight, deadly and targeted - yet woe if it misses its mark or its flight loses momentum. Also the bow needs maintenance Cameron, you can't keep cutting the ends off and expecting the arrows to fly all the same u poncey mup
Anyways China still must develop and continues to develop its power-projection capabilities, or perhaps has already gotten there given China's love for secrecy. It's an ever-refining process.

China has a huge land and sea border, with fairly hostile nations on all sides. They don't have the rationale to project troops to the other side of the planet, whereas UK is an island nation, surrounded by mainly friendly nations. Sure the UK could build up huge land forces like China, but it would not make sense for the UK to do that. Their real threats are all remote.

China's land borders are all mostly insignificant threats to China, they really only have to worry about Korea in that regards. Maybe dickwave a bit in Kashmir. The Pacific is another issue entirely as they will inevitably butt heads with the USA's will to continue rule over the Pacific, and that is where their attention will be mostly focused - the other direction of course being focused inwards at maintaining civil order.
The UK locally need only worry about terrorists, spies, wayward Russian patrols and European fishermen, whilst its trade interests, business interests and shipping interests are global. Protecting Britons from sea mines, pirates and terrorists requires global reach - this is something China will have to do for its own citizens as its own citizens increasingly enter the global financial stage. Consider that the PRC is dealing with immense internal pressure and international pressure to stop their own people/foreign civilians from being murdered by Jihadis in the Middle East or West Africa, and in response they are stepping up counterterrorism drills and have already passed the legal framework to allowing Chinese deployment overseas. I'm pretty certain I forgot what the point was, but the takehome is China doesn't really care much beyond the backyard in Xinjiang and the Pacific but it could in future. Oh yeah! Something about not needing ludicrous amounts of power to get shit done, only a certain amount wielded effectively. I suppose points about how America's immense power having not exactly succeeded in the ME are poignant. I also don't think China needs the same force-projection capabilities as say, the USA does for example, to get most all they want.

And consider that China spends $150 billion to UK's $60 billion. Those are in the same ballpark, so to speak. China has much more than twice the firepower of the UK, so the idea that UK is somehow super-efficient with resources is not borne out.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=china
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom

We're not super-efficient with usage of resources m8, we're only quite efficient with application thereof, and have a much better ability to do whatever abroad
To give you an example, our carriers will be outfitted with F-35s [budget screams internally]
Yet the Brits are deployed in 80 countries and spearheading the possible Italian freedoming of Libya to come (or not come)

e.g. 1230 fighters vs UK's 91 fighters. The only category where UK is equal to China is on Armored Fighting Vehicles, e.g. APCs. China has an absolutely insane amount of tanks (9000 vs UK 400), towed artillery guns (6200 vs UK 138), self-propelled guns (1700+ vs UK 89), and Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems  (1700+ vs UK 42).

In the Falklands War if we had an airfleet that blotted out the sun with missiles and dollars, it would have meant absolutely nothing if we lacked any ability to actually use them. I agree with you on the efficient usage front because... Well, F-35s. Fortunately my current rulers haven't deemed fit to scrap operational ability ;D
Money to Materiel =/= Materiel to Objective

I do wonder how much is necessity and how much is strategy. I suppose it's strategy that takes account of the necessary. I still await our flying death robot squads with interest. Also seriously the UK and China are not in the same ballpark, this gulf is going to only grow wider as time goes on and China's military modernizes further Reelya; outspending us three times over is a significant advantage and one that will continue to grow - we are a great power, they are a rising economic superpower. They are on the list of countries to not poke, the hornet hive cannot fly beyond the ocean - leave it there.

[Loud Whispers]

President Xi Jinping taking command of the PLA.

Well isn't that topical

Four days earlier, Mr. Xi had started to implement a plan to transform the Soviet-modelled military, long focused on defending China from invasion, into a smaller, modern force capable of projecting power far from its shores.

NAILED IT

[ChairmanPoo]

China's land borders are all mostly insignificant threats to China, they really only have to worry about Korea in that regards.

Don't be ridiculous. Supreme leader Kim Jong Un might be able to annihilate the Chinese single-handedly, but he regards them as family, and he would never hurt his family (uncles excluded)

[Loud Whispers]

China's land borders are all mostly insignificant threats to China, they really only have to worry about Korea in that regards.

Don't be ridiculous. Supreme leader Kim Jong Un might be able to annihilate the Chinese single-handedly, but he regards them as family, and he would never hurt his family (uncles excluded)

I'm sort of expecting a DPRK invasion from Metalslimehunt any time now

[MetalSlimeHunt]

China's land borders are all mostly insignificant threats to China, they really only have to worry about Korea in that regards.

Don't be ridiculous. Supreme leader Kim Jong Un might be able to annihilate the Chinese single-handedly, but he regards them as family, and he would never hurt his family (uncles excluded)

I'm sort of expecting a DPRK invasion from Metalslimehunt any time now

YOU RANG?

PREPARE TO BE A S S I M I L A T E D, PLOT TWIST BREXIT ENDS IN US ANNEXATION, FIVE YEARS MAXIMUM

[Loud Whispers]

STAY CALM AND POST BANTER NEWS

EU referendum: 110 bosses say City will 'thrive' outside EU

More than 100 business figures have thrown their weight behind the campaign to leave the EU, arguing the City would "thrive and grow" outside the EU.
Ex-HSBC boss Michael Geoghegan, former Channel 4 chairman Luke Johnson and the stockbroker Peter Hargreaves are among those backing a Leave vote on 23 June.
Excessive regulation, they argue, poses a threat to London's pre-eminence in the global financial services industry.

The Shekel Wizards and Mr. Bones have cast their die, the shadow war is in the light of kek

Praise the Sun