For those still struggling to see why the EU is important

[BillyStubbsTears]

Find a spare 6 minutes and watch this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/xruiztru/status/1589622943122075650

Remember, every bump is a war.

[tyke1962]

https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1589201343499341825?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1589201343499341825%7Ctwgr%5E78c3a37a1accf0eba30dc06f69d974620764ad38%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.taxresearch.org.uk%2FBlog%2F

Probably best to find a party who support your views Billy

[BillyStubbsTears]

And what on earth has that got to do with what I posted Tyke.

I really, really don't get your attitude over the EU.

You WON! You got what you wanted. Yet you are still so bitter about it.

My post wasn't party political. It was sharing what I thought was a fascinating graphic, that demonstrates how extraordinarily stable and peaceful the last 70 years have been in Western Europe. I don't understand why you have to respond in the way you do.

[normal rules]

The sooner people stop seeing brexit as a win/ lose issue - the sooner we will move on.
It was a colliding of political planets. The will of a majority in a single moment in time vs the will of a very similar sized minority.
It’s done.
Labour have said they have no intention to reverse it.
It’s time to move on.
We continue to collaborate with the EU in hundreds if not thousands of areas of industry, business, science and education. And we will continue to do so.
We continue to be a part of NATO. A membership now Probably more important than ever.
And we will all come together in the fight against climate change. Because there will be no alternative. That’s possibly the biggest battle of all.

[phil old leake]

I think that was an interesting graphic BST I do not however see how it means that the EU is important

Normal you are right. No matter which side you were on get over yourselves and move on. In my view this is one of the main issues we have with it. Obstructive behaviour and attitude on both sides of the coin.
That does also reflect society today. Everyone out to cause problems that aren’t there. Often for their own personal benefit and agenda.

[BobG]

Thank you Billy. That is about the best visualisation I have ever seen of 400+ years of incessant conflict and 70 years of subsequent peace - harnessed, of course, by restraining the power politics of Europes' major players. It is easy to see why the EU has, and continues to be, so beneficial to the whole of Europe - and by extension, to the whole world.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Phil.

If you don't get it, I'm struggling to see how I can explain it any further.

The primary purpose of the EU always was and still is to make armed conflict between European neighbours unthinkable.

Those who like to crow over the failings and limitations of the EU, and who want to see it fail would do well to watch that video and remind themselves how uncoon the last 70 years of peace have been.

[Sprotyrover]

Phil.

If you don't get it, I'm struggling to see how I can explain it any further.

The primary purpose of the EU always was and still is to make armed conflict between European neighbours unthinkable.

Those who like to crow over the failings and limitations of the EU, and who want to see it fail would do well to watch that video and remind themselves how uncoon the last 70 years of peace have been.

Sorry Billy that is the Role of NATO not the fat bourgeoisie in Brussels

[Axholme Lion]

It was sharing what I thought was a fascinating graphic, that demonstrates how extraordinarily stable and peaceful the last 70 years have been in Western Europe.

Until the EU/NATO/US plotted the overthrowing of the legitimate government in Ukraine which has led to the current situation.

[Dutch Uncle]

Phil.

If you don't get it, I'm struggling to see how I can explain it any further.

The primary purpose of the EU always was and still is to make armed conflict between European neighbours unthinkable.

Those who like to crow over the failings and limitations of the EU, and who want to see it fail would do well to watch that video and remind themselves how uncoon the last 70 years of peace have been.

Sorry Billy that is the Role of NATO not the fat bourgeoisie in Brussels

Not strictly true Sproty.

NATO was set up in 1949 explicitly to defend Europe against external threats, particularly the USSR. Any increased co-operation and understanding internally in Europe was an important but secondary byproduct, and was/is largely limited to the military domain.

The EU was set up explicitly to engender greater co-operation between European countries in trade, economy, movement, jobs, and more political areas. 

[phil old leake]

Billy I’m still struggling to see how that graphic supports staying in the EU and world peace

The EU is an internal European trade market which obviously helps to build close relationships between nations.
We are still a very active member of NATO along with our European friends so I would hate to think that leaving the EU would make us more susceptible to been at war with our European neighbours

[BobG]

You're missing the point Phil. It's not Briitain and it's role in wars that mnatters here. Historically, Britain only ever gets involved in European wars when one power appears close to creating a European hegemony. That is hardly likely today given the restraint and respect which the last 70 years has seen between pretty well every single European nation. No. The point is WHY has a 400+ year tradition of continual warfare been stood on its head in the last 70 years?

The graphic Billy linked to shows the regularity and frequency with which wars in Europe have occurred over at least 400 odd years - and it graphically demonstrates a distinct lack of wars in the last 70 years. The question is why might that curious circumstance have arisen? What happened to change a centuries old pattern of behaviour?

BobG

[phil old leake]

Bob it wasn’t the EU. 70 years takes us back to 1952.  We didn’t join the EU until 1973. The distinct lack of war within Europe is as a consequence of the last war and all nations working closely together against an initial common enemy of the USSR. That threat however large has now become Russia and it’s that close relationship with European and other NATO countries that has kept the peace
I’m quite sure that a common economical market may have been advantageous in cementing good working relationships but I don’t think it has kept the world at peace

[wilts rover]

The sooner people stop seeing brexit as a win/ lose issue - the sooner we will move on.
It was a colliding of political planets. The will of a majority in a single moment in time vs the will of a very similar sized minority.
It’s done.
Labour have said they have no intention to reverse it.
It’s time to move on.
We continue to collaborate with the EU in hundreds if not thousands of areas of industry, business, science and education. And we will continue to do so.
We continue to be a part of NATO. A membership now Probably more important than ever.
And we will all come together in the fight against climate change. Because there will be no alternative. That’s possibly the biggest battle of all.

Agreed. Politics is all about compromise and as soon as the government accepts (and is prepared to admit to its most hardline supporters)  that our prosperity and security depend on dealing/negotiating with a country/continent only 20 miles away the sooner we can move on.

[wilts rover]

Bob it wasn’t the EU. 70 years takes us back to 1952.  We didn’t join the EU until 1973. The distinct lack of war within Europe is as a consequence of the last war and all nations working closely together against an initial common enemy of the USSR. That threat however large has now become Russia and it’s that close relationship with European and other NATO countries that has kept the peace
I’m quite sure that a common economical market may have been advantageous in cementing good working relationships but I don’t think it has kept the world at peace

Phil, it's no consequence that Putin thought able to invade a neighbouring sovereign state after the UK had left the EU.

It wasn't the only world event that made him think Europe was divided and would allow him to do what he wanted - but it is undoubtably a factor.

[phil old leake]

Wilts I have to disagree. Your argument doesn’t stand up. Putin took the crimea in 2014. We were still in the EU then.
He had the confidence to invade the Ukraine because when he annexed crimea everyone stood around and let him get away with it. It had nothing to do with the UK leaving the EU

[scawsby steve]

There's only one on here that constantly keeps harping on about Brexit, and that's Sydney. Yet he worships Keith, who doesn't intend re-joining the EU, or increasing immigration.

Are you listening, Syd? I keep telling you Ed Davey is your man.

[belton rover]

Phil.

If you don't get it, I'm struggling to see how I can explain it any further.

The primary purpose of the EU always was and still is to make armed conflict between European neighbours unthinkable.

Those who like to crow over the failings and limitations of the EU, and who want to see it fail would do well to watch that video and remind themselves how uncoon the last 70 years of peace have been.

Then don’t.

[BobG]

Phil. Britain joining the EU is utterly and completely irrelevant. The EEC was set up in the early 1950's and it followed the even earlier ECSC.  Britain has no history of starting European wars. The EEC brought together those that did - Germany and France. Three huge wars in the space of 70 years. And in the 70 years since? Not one war. Because the tenor of European relationships was utterly transformed by the then EEC.

BobG

[SydneyRover]

There's only one on here that constantly keeps harping on about Brexit, and that's Sydney. Yet he worships Keith, who doesn't intend re-joining the EU, or increasing immigration.

Are you listening, Syd? I keep telling you Ed Davey is your man.

Didn't you get a missive last week to behave better? who's your next leader Steve, who is your person of the month, you just seem to pick anyone that dares to put their head up for a second

[Dutch Uncle]

Wilts I have to disagree. Your argument doesn’t stand up. Putin took the crimea in 2014. We were still in the EU then.
He had the confidence to invade the Ukraine because when he annexed crimea everyone stood around and let him get away with it. It had nothing to do with the UK leaving the EU

Wilts, Phil, IMHO the argument of UK in or out of EU is a red herring wrt Ukraine.

My personal opinion is certainly that Putin wanted UK out of the EU under a general divide and conquer principle. But in decisions on action in Crimea in 2014 and in Donbas/the rest of Ukraine this year he would have been looking far more at reactions in the US and possible moral support from China.

The relatively muted reaction from the west in 2014, plus Putin's success in weakening the US by supporting Trump, will have encouraged him enough not to bother too much about any EU reaction.  Also earlier this year he would have believed calculations re Ukraine folding within a few days which in his mind would have rendered moot the issue of any conventional military support from US or any other NATO nations to Ukraine.   

[phil old leake]

Bob
Have you read any of the threads by others inferring that our leaving the EU has weakened the security of Europe
My point is that it hasn’t.  I’m sure that the EU nations would come to our aid as we would them.we are duty bound through our NATO membership   
The whole argument is not valid   Germany and France are now close through trade but that does not involve the UK any more The point that we weakened the defence of Europe by leaving the EU is absolute nonsense

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm not sure I entirely agree Dutch.

EU countries have given great support to Ukraine, financially, with military equipment, and opening borders to let in millions of refugees. They've shown a willingness to do that despite Putin cutting off gas.

I think Putin made a massive mistake there. I think he genuinely believed, back in February, that the EU was too weak, too flabby and top fragmented to take that stand. There's plenty of evidence that he expected the EU to strongarm Zelensky into agreeing a compromise when he cut off the gas.

If he'd known that the EU was going to be as resolute as the USA and UK, I suspect he'd never have launched this action.

He's now in massive trouble of course, because he's forced Europe into weaning itself off his oily tit. There's no going back on that now. So he's lost a very lucrative market forever.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bob
Have you read any of the threads by others inferring that our leaving the EU has weakened the security of Europe
My point is that it hasn’t.  I’m sure that the EU nations would come to our aid as we would them.we are duty bound through our NATO membership   
The whole argument is not valid   Germany and France are now close through trade but that does not involve the UK any more The point that we weakened the defence of Europe by leaving the EU is absolute nonsense

Phil.

I agree that the EU has shown itself, in the response to the Ukraine war, to have resolution.

But I think you're asking the wrong question.

The question is not so much: did Brexit weaken the EU?

It's more: Did Putin believe that Brexit had weakened the EU?

I think the answer to the second question is unequivocally "yes". Otherwise, why would he have invested so much effort in bringing it about?

[SydneyRover]

It's only common sense that a divided Europe is weaker in the face of an enemy, look how much weaker the uk is having left the EU, when sunny puts his budget statement together there will bound to be noises suggesting that the UK should let others take the lead with financing the war effort.

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm not sure I entirely agree Dutch.

EU countries have given great support to Ukraine, financially, with military equipment, and opening borders to let in millions of refugees. They've shown a willingness to do that despite Putin cutting off gas.

I think Putin made a massive mistake there. I think he genuinely believed, back in February, that the EU was too weak, too flabby and top fragmented to take that stand. There's plenty of evidence that he expected the EU to strongarm Zelensky into agreeing a compromise when he cut off the gas.

If he'd known that the EU was going to be as resolute as the USA and UK, I suspect he'd never have launched this action.

He's now in massive trouble of course, because he's forced Europe into weaning itself off his oily tit. There's no going back on that now. So he's lost a very lucrative market forever.

Don't think we disagree too much BST. I am not denying in the slightest the magnificent support to Ukraine that has come from the EU. I am just saying that in February that would not have occurred as a possibility to Putin because he expected it to be over in 3 days. IMHO his decision making at that time would have been more concerned with no strike action from the US and support from China in the UN.

Agree fully with your comments as to how it has panned out, and that Putin made a huge miscalculation probably via an emperor's new clothes situation 

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way (and I KNOW I've said this before) I agree that NATO has played a role in bringing European countries into a common group of democracies, working together. But it's willful blindness to claim NATO is the only factor there.

Keeping peace in Europe requires there not to be gross discrepancies in wealth or prospects between adjacent countries. It requires all countries to buy into the idea that they can get richer by collaborating than they can through taking up arms. That was a founding principle of the EU.

Also, peace only remains strong if all countries buy into, more or less, the same common political ideals. Democracy. The rule of law. Respect for human rights. Etc. The EU has been a massive success in turning what were dictatorships (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Croatia etc) into modern democratic states.

I really don't get the insistence of some people in refusing to acknowledge this. 

[wilts rover]

Wilts I have to disagree. Your argument doesn’t stand up. Putin took the crimea in 2014. We were still in the EU then.
He had the confidence to invade the Ukraine because when he annexed crimea everyone stood around and let him get away with it. It had nothing to do with the UK leaving the EU

Wilts, Phil, IMHO the argument of UK in or out of EU is a red herring wrt Ukraine.

My personal opinion is certainly that Putin wanted UK out of the EU under a general divide and conquer principle. But in decisions on action in Crimea in 2014 and in Donbas/the rest of Ukraine this year he would have been looking far more at reactions in the US and possible moral support from China.

The relatively muted reaction from the west in 2014, plus Putin's success in weakening the US by supporting Trump, will have encouraged him enough not to bother too much about any EU reaction.  Also earlier this year he would have believed calculations re Ukraine folding within a few days which in his mind would have rendered moot the issue of any conventional military support from US or any other NATO nations to Ukraine.   

I disagree Dutch. He thought Europe was divided (Brexit) and dependant on him for gas (Germany) so would just allow him to walk in and take over Ukraine with no opposition.

These were not the major factors he invaded - but certainly added to it. I think it is unlikey he would have gone in if we were still in the EU (as we would have been clamping down on Russian money in the City under EU tax laws too).

There will be books on this for many years to come for us to discuss I bet.

[Dutch Uncle]

Wilts I have to disagree. Your argument doesn’t stand up. Putin took the crimea in 2014. We were still in the EU then.
He had the confidence to invade the Ukraine because when he annexed crimea everyone stood around and let him get away with it. It had nothing to do with the UK leaving the EU

Wilts, Phil, IMHO the argument of UK in or out of EU is a red herring wrt Ukraine.

My personal opinion is certainly that Putin wanted UK out of the EU under a general divide and conquer principle. But in decisions on action in Crimea in 2014 and in Donbas/the rest of Ukraine this year he would have been looking far more at reactions in the US and possible moral support from China.

The relatively muted reaction from the west in 2014, plus Putin's success in weakening the US by supporting Trump, will have encouraged him enough not to bother too much about any EU reaction.  Also earlier this year he would have believed calculations re Ukraine folding within a few days which in his mind would have rendered moot the issue of any conventional military support from US or any other NATO nations to Ukraine.   

I disagree Dutch. He thought Europe was divided (Brexit) and dependant on him for gas (Germany) so would just allow him to walk in and take over Ukraine with no opposition.

These were not the major factors he invaded - but certainly added to it. I think it is unlikey he would have gone in if we were still in the EU (as we would have been clamping down on Russian money in the City under EU tax laws too).

There will be books on this for many years to come for us to discuss I bet.

Obviously I have not expressed myself very well if both Wilts and BST are misunderstanding me 

My whole point is that when Putin was making his decision in February to invade Ukraine I don't think he would have been worried about any response from EU. He was expecting the operation to be over in 3 days and his main worries would have been US and trying to get China onside for political support in the UN.  So I totally agree with your first sentence. He wanted to invade for his legacy as a restorer of a greater Russia.

Whether the UK being in EU would have made much difference to his thinking I don't know, but I don't think it was his top priority.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yep, I'll take that take Dutch. Perhaps it's fair to say that him doubling down and switching to a grinding war in the south and east once he realised Kyiv wasn't going to fall was predicated on his assumption that the EU would buckle and strongarm Zelensky into submission.