The EU straddles the Cold War and afterwards, it's legitimate to compare both periods. Conflict outside Europe occurred in both periods. Major conflict between major nations didn't occur in both periods.
Furthermore, the EU didn't have a military capability for much of TS existence, member states were bound into NATO, mostly. Therefore, the only way the EU could keep the peace was ecnimically and culturally. Arguably it did succeed in that objectives for its member states.
You can try to frame their argument any way you want. But the notion that the EU stands for peace or economic stability is risible.
The Germans are strangling the place.
Germany is hugely dominant and I won't argue with you regarding Greece, which is what I assume you meant by economic warfare?
I recall a founding principle of the eu was to keep the Germans in check and avoid another war. In that regard it has been a success. Is that outweighed by other factors? Could the same effect be achieved by a our economic block? Did NATO play a more important role? Points not covered by Cameron.
Sandydragon wrote:
The EU straddles the Cold War and afterwards, it's legitimate to compare both periods. Conflict outside Europe occurred in both periods. Major conflict between major nations didn't occur in both periods.
Furthermore, the EU didn't have a military capability for much of TS existence, member states were bound into NATO, mostly. Therefore, the only way the EU could keep the peace was ecnimically and culturally. Arguably it did succeed in that objectives for its member states.
You can try to frame their argument any way you want. But the notion that the EU stands for peace or economic stability is risible.
The Germans are strangling the place.
Germany is hugely dominant and I won't argue with you regarding Greece, which is what I assume you meant by economic warfare?
I recall a founding principle of the eu was to keep the Germans in check and avoid another war. In that regard it has been a success. Is that outweighed by other factors? Could the same effect be achieved by a our economic block? Did NATO play a more important role? Points not covered by Cameron.
Not just Greece. The whole continent.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UG, you'll note my previous post confined itself to actual wars between the major west European powers. I deliberately did not seek to claim that the EU was completely peaceful or that it didn't have other problems. I agree that it would be risible to say "Europe stands for peace" which is why I did not say that, or anything approaching it. (Good job demolishing that straw man, though).
My point is that even if Europe does have economic issues, and continues its centuries old tradition of extra-territorial military unpleasantness, I believe that any consideration of the EU's net worth to humanity ought to include consideration of the fact that under the EU there has been no Battle of the Somme, no Holocaust, no Napoleonic wars. For centuries it was routine for western Europeans to slaughter each other in the greatest numbers their prevailing technologies would allow. Now this is not just absent, it is largely unthinkable despite the current economic and societal issues. Previously, such ructions would already have caused some mustachioed in-bred to issue an ultimatum or invade Belgium or something.*
The mere fact that Europe has a refugee issue that is externally generated rather than internally generated is actually progress even if it is far from ideal. I haven't researched the numbers but I expect that the Huguenots still rank as one of biggest single sources of British immigration in history, and the numbers of displaced persons caused by the World Wars within Europe would out-weigh even the current Syrian diaspora.
You may think that the admittedly modest achievement of getting long-civilized nations to behave civilly among themselves does not outweigh the negative aspects of the EU. i would argue that given that no other system has ever achieved this since humankind first set foot on the west bank of the Bosphorus, it should at least be part of the equation.
*I've just had an idea for developing an Historical Index of European Bellicosity based on the frequency with which Belgian and Polish territories have been invaded.
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
Lizard wrote:UG, you'll note my previous post confined itself to actual wars between the major west European powers. I deliberately did not seek to claim that the EU was completely peaceful or that it didn't have other problems. I agree that it would be risible to say "Europe stands for peace" which is why I did not say that, or anything approaching it. (Good job demolishing that straw man, though).
My point is that even if Europe does have economic issues, and continues its centuries old tradition of extra-territorial military unpleasantness, I believe that any consideration of the EU's net worth to humanity ought to include consideration of the fact that under the EU there has been no Battle of the Somme, no Holocaust, no Napoleonic wars. For centuries it was routine for western Europeans to slaughter each other in the greatest numbers their prevailing technologies would allow. Now this is not just absent, it is largely unthinkable despite the current economic and societal issues. Previously, such ructions would already have caused some mustachioed in-bred to issue an ultimatum or invade Belgium or something.*
The mere fact that Europe has a refugee issue that is externally generated rather than internally generated is actually progress even if it is far from ideal. I haven't researched the numbers but I expect that the Huguenots still rank as one of biggest single sources of British immigration in history, and the numbers of displaced persons caused by the World Wars within Europe would out-weigh even the current Syrian diaspora.
You may think that the admittedly modest achievement of getting long-civilized nations to behave civilly among themselves does not outweigh the negative aspects of the EU. i would argue that given that no other system has ever achieved this since humankind first set foot on the west bank of the Bosphorus, it should at least be part of the equation.
*I've just had an idea for developing an Historical Index of European Bellicosity based on the frequency with which Belgian and Polish territories have been invaded.
My comment was not a strawman. It was an additional viewpoint to consider. Adding to the context so to speak.
I'd also offer that the assault on Yugoslavia, largely led by Germany, began almost immediately after Germany was reunited and the Warsaw Pact dissolved. Not a coincidence for mine.
The case for the EU being the reason that there has been no internal wars is not very strong in my view. The EU is but one of the means that the US uses to suppress European power.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
I take your point on your comment not being a straw man. I read it as misconstruing my point. Sorry.
The Cold War did perhaps provide stability within the former Yugoslavia (and Balkans generally). Isolating the 1990s from their fairly relentless history of hideous to each other is possible unfair. There have been no shortage of greater powers using/creating Balkan internal rivalries for their own ends. From my limited knowledge and brief visits, my strong impression is that the underlying grudges remain carefully nurtured and it wouldn't take an awful lot to spark the region off again.
So, I take your point that EU engendered, post-Cold War peace in Western Europe (if any) hasn't helped TFY, but even the Ottoman's struggled to keep a lid on that region.
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
Lizard wrote:I take your point on your comment not being a straw man. I read it as misconstruing my point. Sorry.
The Cold War did perhaps provide stability within the former Yugoslavia (and Balkans generally). Isolating the 1990s from their fairly relentless history of hideous to each other is possible unfair. There have been no shortage of greater powers using/creating Balkan internal rivalries for their own ends. From my limited knowledge and brief visits, my strong impression is that the underlying grudges remain carefully nurtured and it wouldn't take an awful lot to spark the region off again.
So, I take your point that EU engendered, post-Cold War peace in Western Europe (if any) hasn't helped TFY, but even the Ottoman's struggled to keep a lid on that region.
The actions of NATO, and Germany especially, were somewhat more concrete than removing lids on grudges. And the fact that it happened before is no mitigation for what NATO did in the 90s. Especially when the subject is the peaceful nature or not of the EU.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
At the same time, Greece will continue to struggle with high unemployment rates for decades to come. Its current unemployment rate is around 25 percent, the highest in the OECD, and, after seven years of recession, its structural component is estimated at around 20 percent. Consequently, it will take significant time for unemployment to come down. Staff expects it to reach 18 percent by 2022, 12 percent by 2040, and 6 percent only
by 2060.
From the IMF's latest Debt Sustainability Analysis.
And people wish to remain in this depression cult?
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
The Euro is the problem more than the EU itself, although of course they do go hand in hand somewhat.
Also, I think that Article 104 of the Maastricht treaty is a problem... in fact there are many problems... but I'd still vote in, unless our government had good reasons for wanting out, which they don't have. If they said that they wanted to directly finance their deficit but can't because of the EU, that would be sufficient reason to vote out for me.
Zhivago wrote:The Euro is the problem more than the EU itself, although of course they do go hand in hand somewhat.
Also, I think that Article 104 of the Maastricht treaty is a problem... in fact there are many problems... but I'd still vote in, unless our government had good reasons for wanting out, which they don't have. If they said that they wanted to directly finance their deficit but can't because of the EU, that would be sufficient reason to vote out for me.
I don't know what that means.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Zhivago wrote:The Euro is the problem more than the EU itself, although of course they do go hand in hand somewhat.
Also, I think that Article 104 of the Maastricht treaty is a problem... in fact there are many problems... but I'd still vote in, unless our government had good reasons for wanting out, which they don't have. If they said that they wanted to directly finance their deficit but can't because of the EU, that would be sufficient reason to vote out for me.
Zhivago wrote:The Euro is the problem more than the EU itself, although of course they do go hand in hand somewhat.
Also, I think that Article 104 of the Maastricht treaty is a problem... in fact there are many problems... but I'd still vote in, unless our government had good reasons for wanting out, which they don't have. If they said that they wanted to directly finance their deficit but can't because of the EU, that would be sufficient reason to vote out for me.
I don't know what that means.
Overt monetary financing.
Which, in reality, just means not issuing securities to soak up the excess reserves.
The current lot in Lab/Con/Lib/Green don't understand any macro at all so they can't argue for it.
But a future government might but would be bound by the absurd EU rules. Worse, even if they still issued securities, they'd still be constrained by the excess deficit rules anyway.
Why add another layer of madmen to hobble the UK economy?
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Which, in reality, just means not issuing securities to soak up the excess reserves.
The current lot in Lab/Con/Lib/Green don't understand any macro at all so they can't argue for it.
But a future government might but would be bound by the absurd EU rules. Worse, even if they still issued securities, they'd still be constrained by the excess deficit rules anyway.
Why add another layer of madmen to hobble the UK economy?
I just don't think there will be a future UK government that would take such a step. If we left the EU future UK governments would be more likely to remove employment rights than reform the monetary system.
Which, in reality, just means not issuing securities to soak up the excess reserves.
The current lot in Lab/Con/Lib/Green don't understand any macro at all so they can't argue for it.
But a future government might but would be bound by the absurd EU rules. Worse, even if they still issued securities, they'd still be constrained by the excess deficit rules anyway.
Why add another layer of madmen to hobble the UK economy?
I just don't think there will be a future UK government that would take such a step. If we left the EU future UK governments would be more likely to remove employment rights than reform the monetary system.
Laughable. What is the EU doing for employment rights in Greece right now? Not to mention everywhere else.
It's just a meme being floated. It has no connection to reality.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UGagain wrote:
Which, in reality, just means not issuing securities to soak up the excess reserves.
The current lot in Lab/Con/Lib/Green don't understand any macro at all so they can't argue for it.
But a future government might but would be bound by the absurd EU rules. Worse, even if they still issued securities, they'd still be constrained by the excess deficit rules anyway.
Why add another layer of madmen to hobble the UK economy?
I just don't think there will be a future UK government that would take such a step. If we left the EU future UK governments would be more likely to remove employment rights than reform the monetary system.
Laughable. What is the EU doing for employment rights in Greece right now? Not to mention everywhere else.
It's just a meme being floated. It has no connection to reality.
I agree that the way Greece has been treated has made me more anti-EU. Just not enough to want to leave.
Zhivago wrote:
I just don't think there will be a future UK government that would take such a step. If we left the EU future UK governments would be more likely to remove employment rights than reform the monetary system.
Laughable. What is the EU doing for employment rights in Greece right now? Not to mention everywhere else.
It's just a meme being floated. It has no connection to reality.
I agree that the way Greece has been treated has made me more anti-EU. Just not enough to want to leave.
Your (their) 'argument' regarding Labour rights is pants. It is the opposite of the reality.
The EU is an unaccountable corporatist body that opposes labour rights that the populace of the UK would have no means to fight were it of a mind to do so.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UGagain wrote:
Laughable. What is the EU doing for employment rights in Greece right now? Not to mention everywhere else.
It's just a meme being floated. It has no connection to reality.
I agree that the way Greece has been treated has made me more anti-EU. Just not enough to want to leave.
Your (their) 'argument' regarding Labour rights is pants. It is the opposite of the reality.
The EU is an unaccountable corporatist body that opposes labour rights that the populace of the UK would have no means to fight were it of a mind to do so.
What EU laws are there that restrict employment rights?
Zhivago wrote:
I agree that the way Greece has been treated has made me more anti-EU. Just not enough to want to leave.
Your (their) 'argument' regarding Labour rights is pants. It is the opposite of the reality.
The EU is an unaccountable corporatist body that opposes labour rights that the populace of the UK would have no means to fight were it of a mind to do so.
What EU laws are there that restrict employment rights?
Oh do fuck off.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UGagain wrote:
Your (their) 'argument' regarding Labour rights is pants. It is the opposite of the reality.
The EU is an unaccountable corporatist body that opposes labour rights that the populace of the UK would have no means to fight were it of a mind to do so.
What EU laws are there that restrict employment rights?
Oh do fuck off.
Ok then in what way is opposed? Are you referring again to the monetary & fiscal policy constraints?
