Jump to content
studiot

Interfering in other people's politics.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

I don't know about the GFA nearly enough to comment. My point is only that US diplomats can reasonably claim to have a stake in process. In a similar vein i believe the UK has a moral obligation to stand up for Hong Kong citizens against Chinese measures. China can rightly claim we are interfering in their politics - i don't see that is necessarily a bad thing. 

 

I agree with Studiot on this one. The Remain campaign should have opened with various Churchill quotes favouring European integration, even coining the term United States of Europe, and ended with an excerpt from one of England's great poets, John Donne: 

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.

 

 

What a good example of how two people with differing opinions can hold a respectful discssion. +1

 

Very poetic, Donne was a thoughtful man - did you ever come across the one about outward show ?

Quote

Donne  The Undertaking

But he who loveliness within Hath found, all outward loathes, For he who color loves, and skin, Loves but their oldest clothes.

 

Poetry aside, one of my reasons for wanting to opt out of the EU is that I don't want my children or grandchildren to be involved in Europe's next war.
I'm sorry to say the same old pressures are building up again.

I would say the main reason that the remain campaign was so insipid was that they could not open with something like

"The EU has been good for us because <long list of obvious benefits>"

That's because we haven't had one.

 

On the other foot, Leavers could have opened with their own list of proposed benefits, instead of playing the fear card.

But they don't have the vision to offer any.

 

The GFA is basically an agreement between two parties, those in Ulster and those Eire.
They are the only ones who can directly 'break' the agreement.

The rest of the parties involved are really bystanders since they are not actually present in the island of Ireland.

In my view, the correct action for the UK government would be to take no action except to promote good relations.
A border is not necessary.
It currently works very well without one and would continue to do so if unhindered by the interference of outside parties and bystanders, most of whom regard the issue as ammunition in their dealings with other outside parties and bystanders.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't want my children or grandchildren to be involved in Europe's next war.
I'm sorry to say the same old pressures are building up again.

Indeed, and the same old fragmentation is occurring. 

I want my children/grandchildren to be involved in the suppression of those pressure's, and that won't happen if we, the elders, just walk away with the ball; that won't stop the game BTW, it just means that we can't win.

 

 

50 minutes ago, studiot said:

A border is not necessary.

A whole heaping of irony...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, studiot said:

Well since I have not heard of him, he didn't do a very good job did he?

He actually did a splendid job, if you have not heard of him. I have to apologize, I think I was too unclear. What I meant was in relation to OP that the leave campaign was influenced by outside forces, just on the sly and it is a a bit funny complaining in a thread complaining about undue influence. One part of interaction was via Cambridge Analytica, which is part of a targeted advertising campaign. Now, the company is British, but had Bannon as the vice president and he used harvested data for targeted radicalization and distribution and mobilization of right-wing group throughout Europe. It could be said that his efforts have been faltering, in part because some right wing groups, including the German AfD, as support for the US has been wavering. At the same time, reports  indicate some sketchy money flows from Russia. While it is unclear how much influence that guy ultimately had, it is clear that nowadays national campaigns are not national anymore. Everyone with stakes in media, think tanks, advertising groups, consulting groups and so on, is basically playing an international game.

 

6 hours ago, Prometheus said:

The Remain campaign should have opened with various Churchill quotes favouring European integration, even coining the term United States of Europe, and ended with an excerpt from one of England's great poets, John Donne: 

As nice as these sentiments are (and I do agree that the Remain campaign did a poor job), the only thing the Leavers have to do (and they did) is to put up images (straight from the third reich, I might add) of hordes of foreign folks crossing the borders and suddenly folks want Islands all over again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, studiot said:

The GFA is basically an agreement between two parties, those in Ulster and those Eire.
They are the only ones who can directly 'break' the agreement.

The rest of the parties involved are really bystanders since they are not actually present in the island of Ireland.

In my view, the correct action for the UK government would be to take no action except to promote good relations.
A border is not necessary.
It currently works very well without one and would continue to do so if unhindered by the interference of outside parties and bystanders, most of whom regard the issue as ammunition in their dealings with other outside parties and bystanders.

NI an Ireland are no longer in the same Customs Union. If there is to be no free trade agreement, then past the transition period checks on goods will need to begin. It will be seen as the UK giving the EU preferential treatment otherwise.

 

Quote

1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally  Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

This principle is known as most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment (see box). It is so important that it is the first article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which governs trade in goods. MFN is also a priority in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Article 2) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Article 4), although in each agreement the principle is handled slightly differently. Together, those three agreements cover all three main areas of trade handled by the WTO.

Some exceptions are allowed. For example, countries can set up a free trade agreement that applies only to goods traded within the group —   discriminating against goods from outside. Or they can give developing countries special access to their markets. Or a country can raise barriers against products that are considered to be traded unfairly from specific countries. And in services, countries are allowed, in limited circumstances, to discriminate. But the agreements only permit these exceptions under strict conditions. In general, MFN means that every time a country lowers a trade barrier or opens up a market, it has to do so for the same goods or services from all its trading partners — whether rich or poor, weak or strong.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm

Once the transition period ends, over a hundred countries are about to become involved here.

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, now we're talking future wars on the European continent ?

You are not old enough to have lived through the last war, Studiot, and be afraid of another's impending start.
The economies of Europe, especially the two major protagonists of the last two World Wars, France and Germany, are too interconnected.
(starting a war with another country also using the Euro devalues both their currencies )
As it stands now, the Franco-German economic behemoth controls the Eurozone; the rest of the countries ( most of which are facing economic difficulties ) simply ask "How high ?" when France or Germany say "Jump".
It would have been good for the smaller economies of Europe, to have a 'partner' in the UK.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, studiot said:

instead of playing the fear card.

It wasn't " playing the fear card"; it was telling the truth.

 

8 hours ago, studiot said:

Poetry aside, one of my reasons for wanting to opt out of the EU is that I don't want my children or grandchildren to be involved in Europe's next war.

So, you decided to ditch the veto on any policy that might have led to one.
Seriously, Europe seems unlikely to have any wars.

We have avoided any European war for decades because we have a reasonable discussion forum.

8 hours ago, studiot said:

The EU has been good for us because <long list of obvious benefits>"

I'd settle for one benefit:
We have avoided any European war for decades because we have a reasonable discussion forum.

 

 

8 hours ago, studiot said:

But they don't have the vision to offer any.

Well, as has been pointed out, it's hard to show "benefits" from the status quo.
The obvious benefits involved not getting shafted in international trade deals,and not wasting huge amounts of money on bureaucracy.

8 hours ago, studiot said:

The GFA is basically an agreement between two parties, those in Ulster and those Eire.
They are the only ones who can directly 'break' the agreement.

Bollocks.
The North will do what Westminster wants, not what they want.
"Ulster" does not have self determination- that's kind of the point...

8 hours ago, studiot said:

The rest of the parties involved are really bystanders since they are not actually present in the island of Ireland.

 

Another party, Westminster (Specifically a group of politicians elected on the basis of Brexiteer lies),  is actually going to make the decision.

 

8 hours ago, studiot said:

In my view, the correct action for the UK government would be to take no action except to promote good relations.
A border is not necessary.

Not sure which of those is more absurdly ironic.

Not leaving the EU was the way to maintain good relations, yet you think they should leave.

A border isn't needed, but you support strengthening it.

 

Have you, in any way, actually though this through?

8 hours ago, studiot said:

It currently works very well without one and would continue to do so if unhindered by the interference of outside parties

Yes, it was doing fine until the brexiteers- practically none of whom live there- screwed it up.
Why do you support this external interference?

Have you, in any way, actually thought this through?
 

 

On 9/22/2020 at 6:07 PM, John Cuthber said:
  On 9/22/2020 at 5:36 PM, studiot said:

If only they had adopted my solution to the Irish border question, there would have been no problem or issue whatsoever 

On 9/22/2020 at 6:07 PM, John Cuthber said:

 

I could use a laugh.

Remind us what this solution was- the one that teams of trained deal breakers didn't spot, but you did.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what that "solution" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what that "solution" is

When I read this first half of this post of yours, I though you were discussing reasonably for once and I considered replying to your points,

Sadly in the second half you returned to being offensive, so all I will say is that the answer has already been given.

And yes, I do have a coherent strategy that does not involve the same personality assasination strategy employed by both sides of the brexit debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, studiot said:

Sadly in the second half you returned to being offensive, so all I will say is that the answer has already been given.

They're just word's, it's difficult to have a discussion without them; so please with extra sugar, when the phuq was that???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

We have avoided any European war for decades because we have a reasonable discussion forum.

I find it rather insensitive to ignore the pain and suffering of the people of the Balkans over the decade from 1991.

20 hours ago, MigL said:

You are not old enough to have lived through the last war, Studiot,

Unless Studiot is a teenager you appear to share the same indifference to the violence, ethinic cleasing and atrocities of this period.

My comments are on topic, since this was an example where NATO countries certainly interfered in other peoples politics - justifiably in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 1:53 PM, studiot said:

Poetry aside, one of my reasons for wanting to opt out of the EU is that I don't want my children or grandchildren to be involved in Europe's next war.
I'm sorry to say the same old pressures are building up again.

I wanted to stay in for the very same reason (except i guess it'll be me fighting in the war) - the EU was formed primarily as a peace keeping entity by tying economies so tightly together war between members becomes unfathomable. 

What old pressures do you see? Russia? Serbia? Whatever the pressures, surely the approach should be to stick together not divide. 

If anything the EU seem very reluctant to go to war, to the point that they should have done more in the Balkans a few decades ago. 

 

On 9/24/2020 at 1:53 PM, studiot said:

In my view, the correct action for the UK government would be to take no action except to promote good relations.
A border is not necessary.

Isn't that what the EU is pursuing, but most Brexiteers want a border between it and the EU (Eire) - wasn't that the whole point of leaving, to regain control of our borders and all that jazz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I find it rather insensitive to ignore the pain and suffering of the people of the Balkans over the decade from 1991.

It is a bit sad that "never again" was just a pretty lie. I understand what you are saying and just focusing on the major member states is a rather narrow view.  However, I think it is quite clear that the overall point was that the EU was instrumental in avoiding a continuous conflict between these member states, resulting in the longest peace period between those nations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, studiot said:

And yes, I do have a coherent strategy that does not involve the same personality assasination strategy employed by both sides of the brexit debate.

Which is...?

On 9/24/2020 at 1:53 PM, studiot said:

Poetry aside, one of my reasons for wanting to opt out of the EU is that I don't want my children or grandchildren to be involved in Europe's next war.
I'm sorry to say the same old pressures are building up again.

This seems quite a peculiar reason, considering we're military allies with the US. 

Edited by Royston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I understand what you are saying and just focusing on the major member states is a rather narrow view.  However, I think it is quite clear that the overall point was that the EU was instrumental in avoiding a continuous conflict between these member states, resulting in the longest peace period between those nations. 

The difficulty is that having a "rather narrow view" contributes, in my  opinion, to increased risk of conflict. I hesitated to mention it since it my observation might be viewed as aggressive, but I would have felt irresponsible if the oversight were not pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CharonY said:

It is a bit sad that "never again" was just a pretty lie. I understand what you are saying and just focusing on the major member states is a rather narrow view.  However, I think it is quite clear that the overall point was that the EU was instrumental in avoiding a continuous conflict between these member states, resulting in the longest peace period between those nations. 

I think it is a very naive and narrow view to suggest the EU being the reason for the prolonged peace. It was not the longest in history, however. Pax Romana lasted at least 10 timesas long as the European Coal and Steel Community and its successors have been in existence. I can only think of two of the later members that were not involved in PR.

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

I wanted to stay in for the very same reason (except i guess it'll be me fighting in the war) - the EU was formed primarily as a peace keeping entity by tying economies so tightly together war between members becomes unfathomable. 

That has been promoted as a benefit, yes.
But I think the real reason there has not yet been another war was fear of the Soviets.
In infant school, the other side of my back garden fence was an RAF station. They flew Hunters and then Lightnings. Very frightening things to  5 year old, as they skimmied over the hedge.
Later mine was the first year at grammar school that did not have to do compulsory military preparation training  -- Yippee.
I grew up in a generation that fully expected to have to go to war again and a nuclear one to boot.
Ironically this was prevented by MAD.

Do you really still want to go to war again ?

 

2 hours ago, Royston said:

This seems quite a peculiar reason, considering we're military allies with the US. 

I think that the UK benefitted by not being involved with the US in the Vietnam debacle.

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Isn't that what the EU is pursuing, but most Brexiteers want a border between it and the EU (Eire) - wasn't that the whole point of leaving, to regain control of our borders and all that jazz?

Yes, control means we can do what we like with our side.

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

I wanted to stay in for the very same reason (except i guess it'll be me fighting in the war) - the EU was formed primarily as a peace keeping entity by tying economies so tightly together war between members becomes unfathomable

 

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

I find it rather insensitive to ignore the pain and suffering of the people of the Balkans over the decade from 1991.

Unless Studiot is a teenager you appear to share the same indifference to the violence, ethinic cleasing and atrocities of this period.

My comments are on topic, since this was an example where NATO countries certainly interfered in other peoples politics - justifiably in my view.

I was in Hungary during the Uprising of '56.
NATO was not actually at war in the same way as the Soviets then.


During the aforesaid Pax Romana the Romans carrried out substantial ethnic cleansing east of the Rhine in the part of Germany that was not within their empire.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, studiot said:

In infant school, the other side of my back garden fence was an RAF station. They flew Hunters and then Lightnings. Very frightening things to  5 year old, as they skimmied over the hedge.

I'm an aviation fanatic; I would have traded places with you in a minute.

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think that the UK benefitted by not being involved with the US in the Vietnam debacle.

Which ironically enough, was started by the French; remember Dien Bien Phu ?
(  you guys should have gone to their aid according to the Entende Cordiale )

There are also tensions between Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, and possibly the one thing keeping hostilities from going 'hot'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear sometimes forget that all this is real. Took way too long to figure out why Bloomberg would be interviewing the Irish Ambassador on EU-US relations. 😐

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, studiot said:

I think that the UK benefitted by not being involved with the US in the Vietnam debacle.

Except that Britain along with Vietnam, France, Japan, China and later the US were all involved in the Vietnam war.  

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

I swear sometimes forget that all this is real. Took way too long to figure out why Bloomberg would be interviewing the Irish Ambassador on EU-US relations. 😐

It's interesting how Brexit talks are influencing the Irish-American vote. All thanks to our 'special relationship'.

As for chlorinated chicken, the House of Lords have recently blocked the move to import food that yields lower (than our current) animal welfare standards...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-food-standards-house-lords-government-deal-b537450.html

Edited by Royston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, studiot said:

I think it is a very naive and narrow view to suggest the EU being the reason for the prolonged peace. It was not the longest in history, however. Pax Romana lasted at least 10 timesas long as the European Coal and Steel Community and its successors have been in existence. I can only think of two of the later members that were not involved in PR.

It is weird that you need to go back to a time before any of the modern countries or even their predecessor existed (or even the concept of nation states). And even then of course Pax Romana was not a peace in the modern sense but rather has to be seen in contrast to the concept of ongoing conquest that predated it. There were plenty of border skirmishes, rebellions and short bouts of civil wars.

I do not think that this in any way invalidates the idea that forming an Union has prevented conflicts. Quite the opposite, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Royston said:

It's interesting how Brexit talks are influencing the Irish-American vote. All thanks to our 'special relationship'.

Pretty much yeah, easy way for Biden to show what sort of President he would be, while placing Trump in an awkward position.

 

Quote

As for chlorinated chicken, the House of Lords have recently blocked the move to import food that yields lower (than our current) animal welfare standards...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-food-standards-house-lords-government-deal-b537450.html

We'll have see what happens but is nice to see a measure of sanity returning to the UK.

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 8:44 PM, studiot said:

That has been promoted as a benefit, yes.
But I think the real reason there has not yet been another war was fear of the Soviets.
In infant school, the other side of my back garden fence was an RAF station. They flew Hunters and then Lightnings. Very frightening things to  5 year old, as they skimmied over the hedge.
Later mine was the first year at grammar school that did not have to do compulsory military preparation training  -- Yippee.
I grew up in a generation that fully expected to have to go to war again and a nuclear one to boot.
Ironically this was prevented by MAD.

Do you really still want to go to war again ?

I'm sure the Soviet threat played a part, but it seems a stretch to say peace in Europe has nothing to do with the EU and its antecedents. Do you have a specific reason for believing this? Has the EU dragged us into any wars - ever? Do you have a specific reason to believe that the EU is about to engage in a war? The US seems more likely to drag us into wars than the EU, as was the case in Iraq.

No, i don't want to go to war, hence i'll be voting to rejoin the EU when the chance comes back round in 20 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 5:59 PM, Area54 said:

I find it rather insensitive to ignore the pain and suffering of the people of the Balkans over the decade from 1991.

OK, I apologise for sloppy wording. I said

"We have avoided any European war for decades because we have a reasonable discussion forum."

I should have said that the EU hadn't had a war, rather than that Europe hadn't. I had thought that was obvious from the bit about the discussion forum.

As you point out, other bits of (geological/ geographical) Europe did. So, thanks for illustrating my point.
The Balkan peninsula includes 

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia

and parts of Croatia,  Greece,  Italy,  Romania, Serbia,  Slovenia,  Turkey 

Of which, the bits that were part of the EU at the time, were not at war.

So demonstrating my view that the EU has maintained peace.

On 9/25/2020 at 8:44 PM, studiot said:

Do you really still want to go to war again ?

No, I doubt anyone does.
And having more opportunities for "jaw jaw" means a lesser probability of "WAR WAR".

That's the big point of the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

I'm sure the Soviet threat played a part, but it seems a stretch to say peace in Europe has nothing to do with the EU and its antecedents. Do you have a specific reason for believing this? Has the EU dragged us into any wars - ever? Do you have a specific reason to believe that the EU is about to engage in a war? The US seems more likely to drag us into wars than the EU, as was the case in Iraq.

No, i don't want to go to war, hence i'll be voting to rejoin the EU when the chance comes back round in 20 years or so.

I didn't say that peace has nothing to do with the EU, I said I (and many others) consider it the principal reason.

Yes a much smaller EU maintained a peace, now there are borders and restrictions between various countries of the enlarged organisation and internal pressures are building up.

Again I did not suggest any war would happen tomorrow or that it would be an external one.

You have a point about Iraq, but it could also be looked at another way: we were silly enough to allow ourselves to be dragged into that one. Should the EU as a whole go to war, we could not opt out.

You might like to read the book by Historian John Grainger

 

The United Kingdom

The Unification and Disintegration of Britain since AD 43

 

It is highly illuminating about the stories of the individual 4 entities, England, Scotland Ireland and Wales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, studiot said:

You have a point about Iraq, but it could also be looked at another way: we were silly enough to allow ourselves to be dragged into that one. Should the EU as a whole go to war, we could not opt out.

Essentially, you want us to be Switzerland, who BTW, just voted to maintain the status quo with the EU (freedom of movement etc...); a pragmatic nation with questionable morals...

A fine model in some respects...

44 minutes ago, studiot said:

You might like to read the book by Historian John Grainger

 

The United Kingdom

The Unification and Disintegration of Britain since AD 43

 

It is highly illuminating about the stories of the individual 4 entities, England, Scotland Ireland and Wales.

I wonder when they were strongest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And yes, I do have a coherent strategy that does not involve the same personality assasination strategy employed by both sides of the brexit debate.

You've still failed to present what this strategy is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.