Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

Rather a more reasoned analysis around European peace.. The EU's achievements and failures. Worth reading by both pro and anti EU...

How valid is the claim that the EU has delivered peace in Europe?

For many arguing that the UK should remain in the EU, the first and foremost claim is that it is a force for peace.

www.newstatesman.com

And author is a regular Guardian contributor.. Rather more leaning to Flecc's ideas than mine and was/is an EU supporter.. I think he exaggerates the EU achievements and under plays the rolls where they have done absolutely nothing. (by policy?)

Exactly what I've been arguing, until he makes the mistake you keep making, under his heading:

Peace beyond the border

Beyond the EU's border is nothing to do with the EU. They have no jurisdiction there since they only have the authority of the EU member countries to act within the EU. Their member countries have retained the individual right to deal with external threats, so the EU has no authority to act outside.

After the Balkan wars the member countries, shocked by such wars within Europe, did authorise the EU to negotiate with the Balkan countries with a view to them becoming EU members if and when they fulfilled the conditions for entry, so as already mentioned, Croatia did and has become an EU member, a big step forward for peace.

Serbia of course cannot become an EU member due to it's centuries old close alliance with Russia and the present state of relations with Russia due to the American NATO deliberately and very stupidly maintaining a cold war with Russia due to their phobic hatred of communism.

In year 2000 President Putin expressed an interest in Russia becoming an EU member, a golden opportunity to greatly extend peace across all of Europe, but predictably the US influence prevented anything other than opposition from some pro USA EU members. Of course since no country can join without the full agreement of all members, that scuppered any chance.

Thus rebuffed, Putin has turned to China, the worst possible thing for Europe thanks to that US stupidity. The only long term way out now is for Europe to align with Russia and thus China in turn, hence Germany favouring that course now.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Why do you try to blame the EU for something outside its constitutional treaties?
there is already a conflict resolution mechanism outside the EU, the United Nation's Security Council whose members have plenty of big sticks as you say.
NATO is an American creation, its interest is mainly to protect the USA and sell armaments to its allies. It does not keep the peace.

NATO has kept peace in Europe since its inception and was prime reason conflict in Bosnia/Serbia stopped in 1995..
Its an absolute exaggeration to suggest EU/Europe has enjoyed peace solely because of EU.
First of all Europe has not been without its disasters. And secondly there are a myriad of reasons major EU countries have enjoyed peace and freedom for past 75 years. Yes, EU economic policies /free trade amongst them. But to put peace as a result purely of EU is simplistic, wrong and very dangerous.

 

[Zlatan]

Exactly what I've been arguing, until he makes the mistake you keep making, under his heading:

Peace beyond the border

Beyond the EU's border is nothing to do with the EU. They have no jurisdiction there since they only have the authority of the EU member countries to act within the EU. Their member countries have retained the individual right to deal with external threats, so the EU has no authority to act outside.

After the Balkan wars the member countries, shocked by such wars within Europe, did authorise the EU to negotiate with the Balkan countries with a view to them becoming EU members if and when they fulfilled the conditions for entry, so as already mentioned, Croatia did and has become an EU member, a big step forward for peace.

Serbia of course cannot become an EU member due to it's centuries old close alliance with Russia and the present state of relations with Russia due to the American NATO deliberately and very stupidly maintaining a cold war with Russia due to their phobic hatred of communism.

In year 2000 President Putin expressed an interest in Russia becoming an EU member, a golden opportunity to greatly extend peace across all of Europe, but predictably the US influence prevented anything other than opposition from some pro USA EU members. Of course since no country can join without the full agreement of all members, that scuppered any chance.

Thus rebuffed, Putin has turned to China, the worst possible thing for Europe thanks to that US stupidity. The only long term way out now is for Europe to align with Russia and thus China in turn, hence Germany favouring that course now.
.

I somehow thought he, d be wrong in any negative aspects of EU.
Wiki has rather a better explanation of why Russia isn't in EU.

Russia–European Union relations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And US does not have power of veto, it isn't in the EU. And your mention of power of veto is exactly why EU ends up doing nothing.. One state votes an amendment down... Its done with. Another EU fault. Well spotted, but there are many.
Why can't you accept peace in EU/Europe is as a result of literally hundreds of issues, histories and organisations. Yep, EU has as much as it can played a part but equally so the individual countries have, NATO has and I suspect not much would have to change for that peace to evaporate.

If I remember correctly it was Berlusconi wanting Russia in EU, has he gone to gaol yet?

 

[Woosh]

NATO has kept peace in Europe since its inception and was prime reason conflict in Bosnia/Serbia stopped in 1995..

NATO's purpose is the use of force for security. It does not keep peace.
It wages wars, nevermind what you want to call them, war on terror, war in Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.
It threatens essentially those who are enemies of the USA. One thing it does not do is to keep peace. Europe would be better without it.

 

[Zlatan]

NATO's purpose is the use of force for security. It does not keep peace.
It wages wars, nevermind what you want to call them, war on terror, war in Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.
It threatens essentially those who are enemies of the USA. One thing it does not do is to keep peace. Europe would be better without it.

You can't have peace without security Woosh. Nato stops doing its job and how long does peace last. They are mutually inclusive..
And that Force stopped the European conflict in 1995..and kept Europe peaceful throughout the cold War...(mostly)
Its got to be an idealists idealist who thinks we can just all throw our arms away. Unrealistic and dangerous. Not all folk are like you Woosh. Besides, it's not me you need to be convincing... Its every government on the planet. USA spend 750 billion annually on defence, China tell us they spend a third of that. Some experts suspect China is currently spending double that USA does. UK, Germany, France spend around 60 billion euro per year.. (each) All not needed??? They all have it wrong then Woosh???
And amazingly none of any of that spending has kept us safe.. The EU has.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

Meanwhile in other news, only the BBC could send a correspondent called Phil McCann to cover a story about people panic buying petrol.

 

[flecc]

I somehow thought he, d be wrong in any negative aspects of EU.

It's not a negative aspect of the EU. Those exist only in the imagination of yourself and such as that writer, due entirely to a lack of knowledge of what the EU actually is. It exists only to try to bring about a union of all member countries as one country, which then can act physically in the way you desire.

Meanwhile the EU can only act independently internally since that is all they were set up to do. To carry out any external political action it has to be with the agreement of affected EU members, implementing their foreign policy will.
.

 

[Woosh]

You can't have peace without security Woosh. Nato stops doing its job and how long does peace last. They are mutually inclusive..
And that Force stopped the European conflict in 1995..and kept Europe peaceful throughout the cold War...

you close your mind to the idea that many NATO members - UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy etc can defend themselves without the USA.
They have already enough sticks to wipe out humanity.
They are bullied into joining and buying US armaments under the excuse of compatibility but they don't need NATO for their own security.

 

[Zlatan]

you close your mind to the idea that many NATO members - UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy etc can defend themselves without the USA.
They have already enough sticks to wipe out humanity.
They are bullied into joining and buying US armaments under the excuse of compatibility but they don't need NATO for their own security.

No, I agree with that. I don't think we should rely on NATO at all. We should by now have a viable EU or European force. That's the point I, ve made all along. If we need NATO, which it's spending suggests we do, it should be European based. Not US. If we don't need it, we'll send it home.. But dont grumble at US for supplying NATO, enjoy its benefits (which there has been) and then make out any fruits of its making are the responsibility of EU.
40 years after its inception the EU should by now have replaced NATO... Its a failing of EU... Why hasn't it cooperated enough to form a similar force? Power of veto,? Outside pressure? Members infighting?
Took NATO 5 years to form. EU has had 40...done nothing but still accepts help and works with NATO.

 

[flecc]

UK, Germany, France spend around 60 billion euro per year..
And amazingly none of any of that spending has kept us safe.. The EU has.

When will you get into your head that these are two separate things.

The EU alone has kept us safe from the internal wars continuing between member countries. There were lots of those in recent times, two of them devastating.

That 60 billion euros was to keep us safe from external attack from outside of EU countries. There were none of those in recent times so it was only a hypothetical threat, our money wasted on something that wasn't going to happen, solely because the USA hates communism.
.

 

[Zlatan]

EU and NATO leaders aim to expand cooperation, despite dreams of 'strategic autonomy'

EU leaders on Friday (26 February) debated efforts aimed at beefing up the bloc's defence capabilities. The discussion comes as ambitions of the EU as a 'geopolitical actor' remain unheeded.

www.euractiv.com

That's not the way EU are thinking Flecc. They (or according to this) are wanting closer liason... To an entity you say is not needed... Paid mainly by US..
Time EU sang from same hym sheet. Does it need NATO or not?.
For once I agree with Micron. Time EU can stand alone without US paid defence/security. But if EU has enjoyed peace, security freedom all on its own merits without help from NATO WTF is Micron, this article and all those MEPs talking about.
Fact is the EU defence policy is a complete shambles. Got one half saying they want "military autonomy" for the region, individual countries unwilling to hand over any forces to central control, some saying, as you and Woosh do, NATO isn't needed yet others (as of Feb 2021) trying for closer liason with NATO..
Sounds typical EU to me. Outcome will be nothing changes. Nato stays. Status quo maintained. Paying US..

June 2021??

 

[oyster]

U2 batteries I’ve not heard those mentioned for many years. M

Get some EverReady Number 800s in too for your bicycle lamp.

Gary Powers, and vibrators, that's what U2 brings to my mind, for some reason.

 

[Danidl]

Since you, ve stuck your oar in..
Perhaps you, d like to explain the roll NATO and EU played in stopping the last European war in 1995...(Serbia)
EU did nothing.
NATO stopped the hostilities.
And still not a word about how EU have made peace and maintained it without a defence budget, any forces or influence over anyone. You, ve believed the EU BS aswell yet still accept the freedoms and peace we, ve got through NATO and countries spending on defence.
Amazing, when something goes wrong you say its individual countries problem.. Then a massive issue like peace and our freedoms and the toothless, pointless EU has earnt it.
And perhaps pair of you would like to explain why countries throughout Europe spend trillions on maintaining peace, on top of that spent by NATO... When actually it's all utterly wasted. EU can do it for free.

You are correct that the EU did not stop a war OUTSIDE of its borders. Certainly some within the EU wanted to have that capacity. But what you fail to appreciate is that the EU and the UNO were the people who then enforced the peace afterwards. How do I know ..an neighbour was one of the Gardai who served there. There are typically three phases to any of these conflicts ... A grievance or perceived grievance which is not being addressed and hot heads and military types think direct action will sort it out .. deaths and real grief follows,and eventually people tired of killing accept a ceasefire. Then comes the ling long road to accommodation and with luck and perseverance some elements of reconciliation. That is what the EU brought .. again how do I know ?. My sister in Berlin was dealing with the orphaned children from that conflict in her school.

 

[flecc]

Time EU sang from same hym sheet. Does it need NATO or not?.
For once I agree with Micron. Time EU can stand alone without US paid defence/security.

No, it doesn't need NATO and its warlike provocations.

But here I agree with you that the member countries do need their own defence force. A stand alone defence force to replace NATO and its undue US influence. It will need its own name and cannot be called EU anything, since the EU has no external authority and is not a country having international rights to wage defensive war.

As such any action by an EU named force would be akin to ISIS action, a terrorist action in international law. Probably why such proposals in Europe so far have suggested European Army as the name, rather than EU army.

Europe needs more than an army of course, air and sea defence are important, so I'd suggest the name FDE, (Force de Défense Européenne), following the custom of using French as the language of interchangeability at the UN.

But above all it needs to be a defence force in truth and not the international aggressor that NATO has been turned into by the USA, costing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
.

 

[Danidl]

I somehow thought he, d be wrong in any negative aspects of EU.
Wiki has rather a better explanation of why Russia isn't in EU.

Russia–European Union relations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And US does not have power of veto, it isn't in the EU. And your mention of power of veto is exactly why EU ends up doing nothing.. One state votes an amendment down... Its done with. Another EU fault. Well spotted, but there are many.
Why can't you accept peace in EU/Europe is as a result of literally hundreds of issues, histories and organisations. Yep, EU has as much as it can played a part but equally so the individual countries have, NATO has and I suspect not much would have to change for that peace to evaporate.

If I remember correctly it was Berlusconi wanting Russia in EU, has he gone to gaol yet?

You are absolutely correct that EU member states can or could ( it is now more nuanced) veto actions. That is because the EU is NOT A SUPER STATE. Sovereignty remains with the individual members . Decision s to move forward are at the pace determined by the most reluctant member, not the most noisy or belligerent. I recall debating this back in time with you when you refused to accept these features of the EU.. and yes they are features not bugs.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Our local petrol stations have limited fuel to £40 or less after this photo emerged at
a Pontefract Shell station.


View attachment 44161

Boris say its temporary, 'since no one drive more than usual it will be back to normal in few days'. I'm not sure, lockdowns lifted, in my middle class neck of the woods for fear of delta nobody use public transport anymore and ev's are surprisingly scarce

 

[GLJoe]

I have 2 smart meters that can't communicate with a home display sitting on top of the communication hub, so how can they communicate with a long range radio mast several miles away.
The whole thing is a complete clusterfuck and I don't see it ever being fixed.

I totally agree with the last sentence, but FWIW, regarding the first one, the reason they can send the meter reading is because that uses what is effectively a standard mobile phone SMS module - so it just sends a text message.
The 'home display' communication is via a pretty weak LE Bluetooth module. And yea ... its crap!

What I find frustrating is that since I foolishly allowed a smart meter to be installed something like a year and a half or more ago, my provider (SSE), still hasn't provided the service on the website that allows you to view your usage over time! I'd have thought that was a pretty fundamental feature! The button is there, but it's just stuck with 'feature not available at the moment' or something and has been like that since the very beginning

 

[Woosh]

Nato stops doing its job and how long does peace last. They are mutually inclusive..

are you saying that without NATO, this country would have been invaded and can't defend itself? by who?

 

[Woosh]

John Simpson interviewed Pakistan's PM Imran Khan on News24, Afghanistan: the Pakistan view.

@Zlatan: you should watch it. How the American politicians always prefer military solutions and end up making every situation worse.
NATO is the typical American solution to contain Russia.
It's on right now.

 

[Zlatan]

John Simpson interviewed Pakistan's PM Imran Khan on News24, Afghanistan: the Pakistan view.

@Zlatan: you should watch it. How the American politicians always prefer military solutions and end up making every situation worse.
NATO is the typical American solution to contain Russia.
It's on right now.

Woosh
I, m not an inherent supporter of NATO but do recognise the significant roll they have played in maintaining peace in Europe. And no Europe would not have been capable of defending itself against USSR... Had they chosen to be beligerant.
Its the, EU's (Europe's) continued alliance and reliance with NATO I see as problematic. Yep, we can all see you and a few others can not recognise what NATO has achieved or see that the EU will continue both to need that association and even seem intent on having a closer association than in past. (as my previous links demonstrated)
That is purely because EU has been incapable of developing its own similar force, even though it admits itself that force is required. (read the article supplied earlier)
That simply means US via NATO continues to have massive influence over Europe. Yes, send NATO home. But there needs to be something to take its place, if not why is EU continuing to foster a relationship with it.