Well if Boris doest get the UK out of the EU then it's the end of the Tories.
Boris knows this and self interest will drive him.
Yes I don't trust any of them.
One knows Farage genuinely wants out on WTO terms.
Trouble is the UK needs more extreme measures to save the country from the islamification taking place.
At the Daily Express every article they have in respect of Islam is not allowed for comments. They had one where a Muslim said he would leave the Conservative Party (great positive for Boris) if Boris became PM. He sla mmed Boris BUT THE COMMENTS SECTION WAS BLOCKED.
No criticism of Islam is allowed. Ditto the Guardian. The British are waking up to the threat but time is of the essence.
Stavanger1
I believe that the reason why he Brexit supporters won the 2016 election goes deeper than meets the eye and in a way the same happened in the case of the Trump election victory in 2012.
The fact is that there are ample proof that the reason for both wins goes back to the financial situation of working class voters in both the UK and the USA. Over the last 20 years the political and financial elite arranged a new world order that enhances economic welfare for a few of the wealthier component of the two countries and did have zero benefit for the working class component of the communities - fact is their actual financial conditions worsened in the said period.
The globalist approach led to a system where factories were moved away to countries with lower wage structures and in the so-called Rust Belt states is led to increased unemployment, It seems that the main argument in the case of both the Brexit referendum and US el3ctuion was to kick the political and financial elite in the teeth.
The idea that Brexit would be a disaster maybe true - but the fact is that it will perhaps not affect the wider community negatively as they are already classed as a deprived community not sharing in the benefits the elite thrives in. Fact is there are serious unhappiness with the EU in a number of member states and the act is the latest EU elections indicate a strengthening of EU sceptics in the Parliament..
I had a serious discussion on the issue with my nephew who resided in Essex since 2001. He recently moved back to SA and when we discussed the issue of his return he ,mentioned the decline in living standards as a real phenomenon which confirmed my statement above. He did very well for himself and still owns a home and flat in Essex, but his reasons for return to SA relates more to his believe that his son would be detrimentally effected by the environment in public schools in the UK where children gets into bad habits - drugs and alcohol abuse and a total lack of respect for their parents.
Be it as it may I do not blame the working class for their choices in the Brexit referendum and the US election. The political class forgot their voters and neglected them - while playing ion the world stage and they got what they deserved. They promise the voters the earth during election time and soon as they get to Westminster and Washington they quickly forget their promises and carried on not living up to their promises.
That bring me to a question - is Boris Johnson any worse then other politicians? Most of them are totally unreliable and it is indeed a negative that so many politicians abuse the democratic system they claim to support.
Mike the economic impact of globalization on the working class in Europe and the USA has been very negative. As of course has the bogus man made climate change hoax.
But more important even than this very serious economic issue is the invasion of Europe and the USA etc by third world invaders and especially Islam. This issue threatens the very existence of the people living in these countries.
Hence the huge and growing backlash all over the world against the Globalists and their one world government project.
Everywhere I go on the internet I see a far greater degree of understanding of the threat posed by these Globalists whose immediate aim is the destruction of the nation state and a surrender of sovereignty.
The above understanding was largely absent say 3 years ago. Not so today as it has become a growing mainstream view.
There is absolutely no benefit to ordinary people in the USA re open borders. Hence the globalist forces desperation and the tide turning against them.
Personally I cannot think of a bigger act of treason than attempting to destroy the nation state you live in.
Hi clevermike
The reason for the Brexit leave vote is quite complex indeed. And your are right in the respect it was partially a protest vote to give the political establishment and the elite (whether they considered it the global elite or the elite just in their country) a good kicking. That's common in referendums in my country too (see the 1st votes on the Nice and Lisbon treaty in Ireland). I suspect some who voted leave as a protest vote didn't actually think it would happen, they should have though because the polls always showed a very tight race.
While the UK is a wealthy first world country, has a large economy and currently good employment rates, like many countries it suffers from an ever widening gap between the classes, wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few rich people while the poor and sections of the middle class struggle to get by week to week. This needs to be addressed world wide. I don't know what the solution is to be honest but I hope someone can figure it out. My issue is that the snake oil salesmen who pushed brexit, sold brexit as it was going to help the average working man, it will not. The people who pushed brexit are the elite and no matter how bad it turns out they will be fine, it will be the average joe that will be affected. The overwhelming economic forecasts (which admittedly is not an exact science) are that brexit will seriously damage the UK economy and thus lead to considerable job losses. I'm not saying the UK won't survive Brexit even a no deal Brexit but its a needlessly self inflicted wound.
But it wasn't just a protest vote there was other factors too.
What are the main reasons for Brexit?
Well according to surveys done in the UK after the vote the two primary reasons where sovereignty and immigration, I forget the order which they came in.
So regarding sovereignty, many leave votes felt that the UK had lost control of its own laws and laws where dictated to it by the EU and that its ability to trade freely with the world was impinged by being a member of the EU.
With immigration, people felt their was too many foreign people in the country taking their jobs and living off the welfare benefits the UK offers and EU rules on free travel made it too difficult to deport them.
There was other factors at play. The cost of being a net contributor to the EU to the tune of £17 billion a year. Concerns over the possible establishment of an EU army and the EU's access to UK fishing waters (which they do somewhat have an argument on).
But frankly when examined all the arguments do not hold up. I can explain why this is if you would like but it would take quite a bit of time and I don't want to throw up a wall of text in one post.
As for serious unhappiness with the EU in member states. Its true the EU elections show an increase in support for EU skeptic parties but the pro EU parties still have the majority. The UK has always been the most EU skeptic country and that's been driven by the media in their country. The EU is far from perfect and many on all sides of the political spectrum in EU countries have urged reform to make it more democratically accountable. The EU needs to do this if it wants to counter the growth of these skeptic parties, although with the untrustworthy nature of the media in the UK there will always been a strong anti EU element in the country for the foreseeable future
But on balance the EU has been a very positive development in Europe both in terms of keeping the peace after two of the most devastating wars in history occurring there and in terms of economic growth. It really has helped the economic growth of my country tremendously.
As for Boris Johnson compared to the other candidates being worse than other candidates. Well yes even allowing for the fact that most politicans are untrustworthy he does actually seem to be worse than most other candidates.
Hi Beeno
Its true there is calls from within certain EU states for an EU army most noteworthy among them being France. Since independence Ireland has always taken a neutral stance when it comes to military matters although its neutrality has never been an official government stance here something a lot of Irish people are unaware of. Personally I have no issues with an EU army being considered among the EU and a reasoned discussion of the proposal. Russia has become increasingly belligerent on the world stage and shown aggression towards other European (albeit not EU ) states, as well as being widely suspected engaging in cyber influencing activities against EU countries to outright chemical assassination attempts in the UK. This combined by Donald Trumps erratic support of NATO has left some in the EU concerned that they need to take security into their own hands rather than rely on America. The issue citizens of the EU have with an EU army is some assume that means conscription, which absolutely no one is talking about. Also each state has a veto on the matter so it can't happen unless there is unanimity among member states. I don't see this occurring any time in the near future unless sometime drastic happens.
The EU is not failing. I can assure you as I live in a EU member state. Although if you are a reader of the Daily Express you could been forgiven for thinking its about to collapse any day now, they have been singing that song for years if not decades. Open borders is generally been a good thing for the UK and member states. The UK needed foreigners for the jobs the locals are not willing to do. Without foreign doctors their health service would most likely cease to function. Studies have shown immigrant workers are net contributors to the UK economy which dispels the myth they are their too freeload. An issue the UK has though is it doesn't properly track who's coming in and out of the country but that's not the fault of the EU.
I've also heard the German economy is in a downtown at the moment and may go into recession and being the largest economy in Europe that's not good in general for the EU. But economies go through up and down cycles all the time, just because a country goes into recession does not mean it will stay that way permanently. If you have to look at the entire picture for the whole EU block. Again the mid to long term economic forecasts for the EU on the whole are positive a lot more so than the UK's if it leaves the block.
The UK economy is indeed smaller than America. A trade deal between America and the UK has yet to be done. They haven't even started negotiating yet (we don't even know if the UK will leave the EU yet!). Trade deals take years to work out, on average 5-7 years, per country, it will take the UK forever to establish trade deals with the countries it already has trade deals with via the EU. Also there is more chance of finding snowballs in hell than the UK will get a better deal with the US than they already have via the EU. They EU and America has comparatively sized economies making trade deals more balanced. The much smaller UK will get walked over by the larger countries in trade deals. Maybe they will enjoy eating hormone injected beef and chlorinated chicken from the US, but each to their own.
No you don't have to be in the EU to succeed, the UK will survive outside the EU and could eventually go on to be successful. But its like a 99% certainty it will be less economically well off outside the EU.
I don't think I'm bonkers to think the EU has been overall a good thing for my country. I've seen the projects and infrastructure they have help build here. Not without flaws but a good thing overall. What regulations are your referring too?
We will have to disagree on who the snake oils salesman are. As far as I can tell most of the lies came from the leave side, they where given carte blanche to say whatever they wanted during the referendum campaign. But I will point out while the leave party in the UK was the single most successful party in the European elections, when you add up all the party votes, remain parties combined held a small majority in the UK over leave parties combined.
I'm not saying globalists wanted Brexit. But their a class of political elitists in the UK who want it both for political reasons and personal financial gain (believe me when I say Nigel Farage is making money out of it). That mixed with English nationalism and a view from some in the UK that being a member of the EU is beneath the UK's historical standing as a great nation/empire. They think after all they saved the French and beat the German's but now are on equal terms with them. No they should more than this. Donald Trump likes Brexit as well. He sees the EU as rival financial power block and if it fractures American can gain the upper hand in trade negotiations.
I don't see fascism in the EU, quite the opposite, in fact the Germans and the countries who fell under fascist rule during the war would be utterly horrified at the thought. After all the English newspapers like the daily express, daily mail etc are free to constantly attack the EU and have done so for years without consequence. If the EU was a fascist state they would sending in the police to shut them down and jail its editors but that hasn't happened, never mind allowing EU skeptic parties to get elected to the European parliament.
You may disagree with my political viewpoints but where I live I'm a lot closer to Brexit than you and my country is the most directly affected by it outside of the UK. Its a huge topic here and we are exposed to both sides of the arguments having easy access to UK news channels. I haven't even got to the cream dela cream of mother of all Brexit clusterf***s that is the Irish border issue.
BS again. Thanks to Trump putting pressure on EU states to pay their way NATO has 100 Billion more to spend on defence!!!!
The Globalist EU rulers want a EU army to use against their member states and in particular uppity nationalists/ populists.
Trump sent the missile defence systems back to Eastern Europe which Hussein Obama withdrew. Trump sent arms to the Ukraine and not blankets as Obummer did. Trust you heard Obummers hot mike comment - tell Vladimir i will have more leeway after the election.
Wi ll comment further after the rugby.
Your comments re open borders are crazy. Heard of Londonistan! Why the heck do you think there is such a massive backlash against the Globalists.
Hi Beeno
Did you notice I said the EU find Trumps behavior erratic. He has several times questioned the value of Nato and talked to security advisers about withdrawing from it and other occasions sung the organizations praises. I have no issues with him demanding that other nations pay their fair share of the burden. If they believe in the value of Nato and believe to be essential to their security then its only fair that they pay and risk their own lives and not rely primarily on America to do so.
Where are you getting the idea that the EU rulers want to use a EU army against member states, sounds all very conspiracy theory-ish.
There was hope for years that Russia was become more aligned with the wests way of thinking and it would become a responsible international player. Sadly its drifted more and more towards authoritarianism under Putin. I don't think Obama can be blamed more than others for not foreseeing what would happen in the Ukraine, the EU didn't see it coming either. They got the measure of Putin's character wrong. While I doubt the missile defense system would of made much a difference to what transpired in the Ukraine and Crimea, there does need to a strong deterrent to prevent future Russia aggression.
Enjoy the rugby.
Tell me this what has the EU's open borders got to do with the number of Muslims in the UK? EU open boarders is with other member states of the EU not the rest of the world and as far as I'm aware none of the EU member states are Islamic states. Muslim immigration into the UK has nothing to do with the EU.
There is no such thing as Londonistan. The number of Muslims in Greater London is about 12.5%. People of the c hristian faiths far outnumber muslims. Asides there is significantly more non religious people in London than muslims. Why not call it Soviet London or Lonbodia or something like that. London is one of the most ethical diverse places on the planet you could find, if there is going to be a backlash against globalization you think it would be in London, but they voted to remain by a significant margin.
Hi Mozart
If EU states let Muslims in large numbers they still have to become citizens of the country they first arrived in to be entitled to free movement between EU states otherwise they are the same as other immigrant group coming from outside the EU. If they are already EU citizens of another EU country why wouldn't they just stay in that country where they would have more rights (rights to vote in local and European elections for example) without having to go through another residency period if they moved to the UK. Have you traveled through EU airports?, there is checks for EU citizens and then there is different checks for non EU citizens. Also if an EU citizen goes to another EU country they are only entitled to stay there for two months, after that they have to prove they have either a job or the means to support themselves. If they don't they can be deported, Germany and Belgium do deport thousands under these rules every year. The problem is the UK never properly tracked who comes in and out of their country so they can't or not willing to do this. That is not the fault of the EU.
If you say most Muslims going to the UK come from the commonwealth I'll take your word for it. Makes sense that immigrants of all types would come from it former colonies.
Support from the EU varies from member state to member state, some strongly in favor, other have a small majority in favour. The UK was always one if not the most euro skeptic member for various reasons. Support for the EU is generally less strong in the south of Europe but having said that with the possible and noteable exception of Italy most polls and surveys indicate support for the EU in Southern Europe even in Greece.
Its not surprising Euro skepticism is on the rise in Italy, the country has been the sick man of Europe for a long economically and it was hit the hardest by the refugee crisis. I've noted resentment from Italian politicians who feel the rest of Europe abandoned them do deal with the refugee crisis almost alone.
The single currency does deprive countries the ability to devalue there currency to help in economic crisis.. But its kinda hard to feel too much sympathy for Greece who for years where cooking their books and where tax dodging is considered a birth right. Did you hear the one about Greeks claiming hazard pay for handling dangerous chemicals....what was the profession you ask. Answer....hairdresser! Countries have to take responsibility or at least part responsibility for their own economic messes sometimes as painful as it is.
You could make the argument for it just to be a trade block, but your effectively dividing the EU into 28 smaller economies. In the modern interconnected globalized world economy, there is strength in numbers and when member states speak with one voice the EU cannot be pushed around by the economical giants of the USA and China. Its not perfect by any means by for the most part the majority of European citizens still support it.
As for making a common currency work...well all I can say is that it is working for the most part. If your criteria that the Euro can only considered a success if ever single member state is doing well economically all the time then yeah you consider it a failure but I hardly call that fair. The EU is generally economic advantageous to be in, its not however a 100% guarantee of economic prosperity.
I don't think leaving Eurozone alone would somehow make all of Italy and Greece's financial and political problems go away.
Stavangar1
I find your views very interesting - but is some cases not in line what is really happening. NATO was for years funded by the USA - but I follow US news carefully - I have never come across anything the Trump government said about reducing the effectiveness of NATO. What he did say is that NATO members should make a fair contribution to cover NATO costs. As a matter of fact Trump did the exact opposite - he modernized the US Army equipment considerably and the US is today militarily stronger than it was under previous administrations.
As to the Russian situation I seriously believe that Russia had legitimate claims going back centuries as to the Crimea.being part of Russia, More than 80% of the crimea population was ethnic Russians. and the borders of the USSR states were determined by the Kremlin, The fact is that Communism collapsed in Russia the States were given territories not logically being part of such states, A huge number of Russians lived in the Communist determined Ukraine and that normally do not cause a sound basis for states. Be it as may I think the distrust of Russia in EU countries and also the USA has to do more with the fact that Russia is more interested in being a Nation State and not part of organizations that could lead to war.
Personally I think there is too much fear spread in the world abut the Russian threat, but I do think that the influx of nearly a million ME residents that walked into Europe created chaos. I do not think that countries are against legal immigration - but what is happening in Europe and on the Southern US border is a recipe for disaster.
I do not think anybody really is against the theoretical concept of a United Europe - but I doubt very much the way it is being implemented. The idea that culture and languages can be eliminated in the ideal of a United Europe will in the end fail.
Hi again clever
The New York times reported that Trump privately discussed from withdrawing from Nato last year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html
I mean there was no point Trump demanding the other nations increase there defense spending if there wasn't a threat that America would withdraw.
I'm not actually too concerned about Russia's occupation of the Crimea, because the population there is largely in favor of it and would prefer to be part of Russia. What Russia did however was still illegal under international law. If Russia and the people of Crimea wanted to be reunited they should of sought to bring it about by diplomatic means not military (albeit bloodless) action.
More troubling is their actions in east Ukraine. While the east and south of the country is mostly pro Russian, its a case of Russia inciting rebellion there in an effort to disrupt what they see as Ukraine drifting out there orbit over to the West. They still have this idea of spheres of influence and that Ukraine is its backyard.
When it comes to cyber attacks and election/referendum influencing again I don't think Russia is uniquely alone in this attack. America for decades has intervened in other countries. But its kinda obvious that Putin would like to see the EU divided, its a potential rival for influence when it comes to Eastern Europe.
The chemical attacks in the UK resulting in the death of a innocent civilian, shows Putin really doesn't give two hoots for international law. I don't think he wants to actively start a major war with the west or anything like that but he will continue to use "salami tactics" to see how much he can get away with. Lets hope he doesn't miscalculate.
The refugee crisis of 2015 was obviously a very difficult time for the EU and the member states that where being overwhelmed by the sheer number of people flooding across the border and the Mediterranean. I can understand Italian sentiment that they where left to deal with the crisis alone. But what can you do. Block them at the border and ignore them. Let them drown at sea? Of course every country should have legal immigration and border controls, every country should have a right to know who is coming and going from their country, but you can't just ignore the humanitarian needs of others in a crisis . I wouldn't say it created chaos but it obviously put great strain on the countries hosting the refugees from an economic standpoint, many of those countries already have their own problems to deal with and that can lead to conflict between the local population and the newly arrived migrants. The EU didn't encourage all those refugees to come to it, it just happened to be neighboring a warzone and as the EU and Europe have a generally high standard of living it naturally attracts economic migrants.
Actually most of Europe's population is against a United Europe, but that's not what the EU is. I have no idea what your talking about when your say culture and languages can be eliminated...that's absolutely not true. I have traveled around Europe extensively and I can assure the different cultures and languages are all still there and intact.
Hi again mozart, Yes it is indeed nice to have a polite rational conversation with others even if you don't agree with some or many of their views. Regardless of ones views on politics or religion where one can very strong convictions on either side of a argument its important to try to get both perspectives and find common ground. Many people do have concerns for example about Islamic migrants or migrants in general coming into their country but can't express these concerns without being labelled Islamophobic or racist. You can not determine whether these concerns are justified or not if you can not have a conversation about it.
Regarding Muslims not having allegiance to a country, polls of muslims have shown the majority identity themselves as Muslim first and citizens of their countries second, be they in the UK or be they in Pakistan. That doesn't mean necessarily mean muslims with EU citizenship move to another EU state once they obtain EU citizenship. I'd need to see some evidence of that before making that conclusion. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming number of muslim migrants entering the UK are coming from outside the EU.
The documentary you watched. Where the muslims interviewed EU citizens living in Calais or where they the people living in the migrant camp in Calais?
Regarding immigration policy. If your a member state of the EU you must permit free travel of EU citizens across member states. Its one of the central pillars of being a member of the EU. If your in the schengen area of the EU you can cross borders freely without passport checks but the UK and Ireland have opt outs of schengen so that does not apply to them. Immigration policy regarding countries outside the EU remains the competency of each member state.
Membership of the Eurozone is indeed a double edged sword. But like any club if you want to remain a member you have to abide by certain rules, you can't for example use the local gold club and not pay the membership fee. You have to weigh the pro's and con's of being a member and determine if its worth it.
Germany is indeed renowned for car manufacturing, exporting and engineering in general. I don't see why the German would not be able to adapt to making electronic cars. Aside from the which, the push for electronic cars is being driven by environmental issues. With Donald Trump being a climate skeptic he's hardly likely to push for America car manufacturers to take the lead in this area and if they currently have the lead they might not be able to maintain without government support.
The majority of economic projections (and I'll again stress its not an exact science) show better growth prospects mid to long term for the EU then the UK outside of the EU.
The UK doesn't have anything to pressure the EU with. This is the fundamental mistake brexiteers make when it comes to negotiating with the EU and changing PM won't change that.
Yes the UK imports from the EU than it exports from the EU. The EU stands to lose more money as a result than the UK does as a result of no trade agreement. But its a far larger economy so in percentage terms it stands to lose far less than the UK will. Ireland for example imports far more from the UK than we export too but we don't see this as given us the advantage because again the UK economy is far larger than Ireland's is. Whats worse from a UK perspective is a large amount of the trade they do with the rest of the world is done via the EU and then those imports/exports are routed through Europe (known as the Rotterdam Effect). No trade deal with EU disrupts that trade.
As for negotiating a trade deal with the USA. Firstly its very difficult for the UK to negotiate a trade deal with any nation currently because they don't know what sort of relationship they will have with the EU first, they could remain part in (the customs union) or be fully out of it. Two trade deals take years to negotiate, I believe the average is 5-7 years and sometimes up to a decade, even if they started on day 1 after the referendum negotiating with America on a trade deal it would not be ready by the UK's original withdrawal date. Three even if they had a deal in place with America, America alone even if it wanted too would not come anywhere close to off setting UK the loss of trade to the EU and the rest of the world it currently does via the EU. Finally the UK has to trade with the EU, it simply will cease to function as a state and that's not hyperbole.
Then you have to look at the big picture from the EU's perspective. The loss of the UK as a member state is a significant political blow to the EU. Yes a no deal Brexit is damaging to them in terms of trade. Yes the loss of the UK as a contributor member state is damaging to the EU, yes the loss the £39 billion divorce settlement would be another significant blow to them. But that's peanuts compared to given in to UK demands which would in all likelihood mean the end of the EU, which in financial terms would be in order of magnitude far greater than a no deal Brexit. They cannot give the UK want they want, a better agreement than they already have as member state of the EU because that defeats the whole purpose of the EU. Why be a member state when you can get a better deal outside of the EU, the member states would all be queuing up looking for their own bespoke deals. Why would you want to be a member state if its shown to throw a loyal member state in Ireland under the bus to do a trade deal with what is to become a third party country. Why would the worlds largest economies China and America take the EU seriously if the EU allowed itself to be pushed around by a much smaller power like the UK?
No the UK fundamentally got this wrong when they said, "the German car industry will never allow a no trade deal with the UK, they export too much to us and stand to lose far more than we do. If we hold out and say we are willing to go for no trade deal, the leaders of the German car industry will be in Angela Merkel's office demanding she do a trade deal". This never happened because German car manufacturer see the bigger picture.
In a traditional negotiation if you don't like the way negotiations are going, you can always walk away from the deal and go back to your current status quo situation. If your looking at buy a house and decide its not for you, you can back to your old house. But this is not a traditional negotiation, if the UK walks away they they don't go back to the current trade arrangements, they have to start from almost scratch. Its like selling your house before your start looking at houses you want to move into.
The UK negotiating position is pretty much the equivalent of walking into the room where all the EU members leaders are, pulling out a gun and pointing it at its own foot then declaring give me what I want or I pull the trigger. When the member states point out the UK is going to blow its own foot off they respond by saying well yeah but there will blood all over your carpet!
Stav
Maybe I put it badly - fact is there are elements in the EU that wants nation states becoming provinces of the EU and that is not going to work out, That can obviously have a detrimental effect on the culture of specific countries.
I do not think the circumstances leading to the two world wars are similar to the present environment and there is no real danger of similar wars in future, Fact is the do-gooders are getting it wrong, They obviously believe the treaty with Iran would be adhered to by Iran Instead the money released to Iran granted then a war chest to interfere in other ME counties and they would never comply with any treaty since he Ajatolla and the Miuslim leaders are effectively the Government - the negotiations with their minions are not worth the paper it is written on.
Europe has their own problems - the population is aging and the reluctance to have children and having small families are adding to a worker deficiency. That is why the Germans wants open borders to allow in workers and the largest segment available are from the ME and North Africa. That is not the answer since the Muslims are not interested in the States they live in and the problem is that due to their deficient legal control it opens ways for radicalization - a very dangerous situation for themselves,
Be it as it may -I think living in a multi-cultural country taught me a few lessons about the problems facing people in such an environment and I am afraid that me also have a serious illegal migrants problem. There are reputedly 8 million such migrants in SA and there is constant unrest as a result and actual attacks on migrants.
Hi Clever
Those elements in Europe are generally referred to as federalists. They want a United States of Europe, they do exist alright, but as it stands currently there is no widespread political or popular support across Europe for it. The EU had great difficulty in getting poltical changes passed by various member governments and national referendums where required, and the general feel is the EU has gone as far as it can go from a political point view at least for the time being. Concerns about the concept of a United Europe and the term ever closer union did play a contributing role in the leave vote in the UK for sure.
The proponents of an EU army have been around for years, well before Donald Trump came to power. They believe its not enough to be a great economic power but to be a great power you need a military as well. As Europe's relationship has been strained with the US since Trump came to power the calls for the need of a military have become louder as Trump is viewed as unreliable and that the security of the Continent should not be dependent on America. I'm personally not in favor of an EU army but I would willing to hear out the proponents of the EU army and let them take it to the member states to decide.
Regarding Iran, they didn't break the nuclear agreement (at least they haven't yet but may well do shortly according to new reports from today) America where the ones who did break the agreement. All the intelligence agencies of the respective signature countries including America's and the UK's said Iran was honoring the deal. The only ones who said Iran where not honoring the deal was Israel and with all due respect to Israel one can hardly considered trust worthy when it comes to Iran. Trump unilaterally decide to pull out. Yes Iran may be engaging in proxy activities against other countries, its their modus operandi but that was never part of the nuclear deal.
Regarding migrants into Germany. The Germans also had another reason for taking large numbers of migrants in, particularly during the refugee crisis. It was seen as almost a sort of atonement for WWII.
As for muslims not being interested in the states they move into, what are you basing that on? It's not a topic that comes up in converstation often so I've not really seen much data to suggest if they integrate well into European society or not.
I only personally have met a handful of muslim people living in Ireland. One from Pakistan a former Councillor who owned a small news agent down the road. I asked him what he thought of Ireland and he said he was very happy here, much more peaceful and stress free than Pakistan. He said he hoped more of his family members would join him over here. I worked with him for a few months on an I.T project. Very friendly guy with a good sense of humor. Never really asked him what he thought of Ireland though. He did get a little angry with me once when I made a joke about the conflict between India and Pakistan, but in fairness he said is family was leaving in the area most likely to be affected if another conflict errupted, so I wouldn't hold that against him.
Looking at the numbers the muslim community in Ireland is about 64,000 or about 1.3% of the population. You hear very little about them. There has been no serious crime committed by or against them here. Police reports here indicated a very small amount of them may be radicalized, depending on who ask that's between a handful and over 100. A couple of muslims from countries like Albania who obtained Irish citizenship went off to fight for ISIS as did one or two Irish nationals who converted to Islam, one of them blew himself up in Syria in a tuck loaded with explosives. Thankfully he killed no one but himself.
I've generally found multi-culturism to be quite a positive development for Irish society. It hasn't brought up any major issues here yet. Having said, I do believe immigration into any country needs to be controlled. The rate of people coming into a country should be sustainable and closely monitored.
Just a note I can't edit the post above. I left out a line where I mean't to say I worked with another Pakistani for a few years. Wasn't the same person who owned the newsagent.
Stav
I have many Muslim friends and think there are great people amongst that community. However, a Black friend of mine pointed out something which hurts them. When there is a sports game between SA and Pakistan or India the People of sub-continent origin who came to SA many years ago all go to games in the colours of their countries of origin and they were mostly in SA for more than 100 years,
The locals - especially the Black community - think it is a sign of disloyalty and that is why the relationship between Blacks and Indians - also the Muslim community - is strained
Stavanger's description of the EU status is certainly much closer to the real-life situation than the fantasy conspiracy globalist of CleverMike and CleverBeeno.
People in the EU see the benefits of being part of an organisation- but they do not want a centralised authority.
The EU has seen better relations between European Countries since history began. It was less 100 years ago that Europe fought to World Wars. Linking up the economies is a great deterrent to war.
Stavanger's description of the EU status is certainly much closer to the real-life situation than the fantasy conspiracy globalist of CleverMike and CleverBeeno.
People in the EU see the benefits of being part of an organisation- but they do not want a centralised political authority.
The EU has seen better relations between European Countries since history began. It was less 100 years ago that Europe fought to World Wars. Linking up the economies is a great deterrent to war.
Hi Clever
That's quite interesting. I'd imagine if I was born as the 2nd or 3rd generation child of a migrant family I would see myself first as citizen of the country I was born in, not the country where my family migrated from, though I could imagine being proud of my ancestry.
When SA is not playing against the their ancestral nations do those who are 1st/2nd/3rd generation children of migrants support SA. Is SA at least their second team?
Secondly in the grand scheme of things is is that important?. I think alot of concerns stem from culture and religious differences. If as you say muslims they getting along great in the community then does it really matter what team they support. As long as they are integrating well and respecting the countries laws and are not living off a states benefit system then it really wouldn't bother me much to be honest.
Hi Sharkbok
While I don't share some of Clever or Beeno's views regarding the EU, where they are coming from have a germ of truth about them. I do not believe for example Beenos comments that the EU would direct an army against its own member states. But some people are genuinely concerned when the hear talk about an EU army. People have fears that their countries armed services could be sent to fight a war by the EU possibly over ruling their own government. Many also worry when they here the term every closer union being used by politicians in Europe, which in their view is more and more political authority been taking away from nation states and handed over to the EU. Some influential figures in Europe are in favor of these concepts. So its not beyond the realms of possibility that either thing could eventually happen but as it stands their is no widespread political will or public support for either, neither thing is likely to happen anytime soon.
I agree with your other points.
Slav
Just a question - You called Trump a racist - have you proof of that statement?/
The fact is that Martin Luther Kings family has worked with Trump on projects - and made a very strong statement stating clearly that he is no racist and said that story must stop.
Hi Clever
I don't recall doing so, I'm going back through my posts here and I'm genuinely not sure what your referring too. If you can point it out to me I'll address it.
What I've said about Trump is that he's a climate change skeptic. Which I believe is widely known.That he has made erratic comments towards Nato that made some in Europe question America's commitment to European security which to them adds weight to the argument for an EU army and that he decided to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal pretty much by himself when none of the other signature countries believed Iran where violating the deal and none of their intelligence/monitoring agencies where saying they had violated it either.
I've plenty other opinions on Trump. Not all of them negative. But I don't recall posting them here.
Hi mozart
While the intuitive line of thinking to think that something that makes up such a small part of our atmosphere can't make that much of a difference, in the case of CO2 its simply not true.
The scientific consensus at this point is overwhelming in agreement that its extremely likely that recent warming trends have been caused by human activities.
I believe its the most pressing issue of our generation and Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate agreement is his biggest failing since becoming President.
I think that I am not to be classed as a climate change sceptic, but the fact is that climate change is to my mind inevitably the result of over-population and if you want a real improvement of the situation it is no use to have treaties governing climate change when China, India and even Russia are not going to destroy their economies to support climate change policies the Greens want implemented,
The problem is that climate change has become the hobby horse of radical socialist groupings as well. In the USA for example there is about 50% of the Democratic Party members of the Congress who preach the new Green New Deal and these same members are also supporting -
* open borders for whomsoever want to enter the US illegal or legally;
* the policies of Extreme Socialism - they classed themselves as Democratic Socialists - where the Government must pay for everything like Free University Education - free Health Care, etc and they wants taxes to increase drastically to cover the costs of those services.
The fact is that extreme socialists are dangerous people and the US Democratic Party is moving into that sphere, The problem also is that the US press and tv services are radicalized as well and the distortions on their part as to what actually is happening are totally unreliable.
Take for instance the mantra about Trump getting the support of the Russians in the 2016 elections and that he colluded with them in the process. The real situation has caused political instability in the House of Representatives and nothing comes through from a legislative perspective. The real situation is that Clinton was in fact the claimant and potentially the main beneficiary of Russian interference - while paying for the discredited Steele Dossier. Trump has been cleared of the allegations of collusion by four independent investigations - yet the Trump story now is obstruction of justice in the investigations.
Trump is more interested in enhancing US interests and the interests of the American people giving the impression by the media that he is an extreme nationalist. That makes him being regarded as unstable by elements in the political environment in Europe who may face a similar backlash as happened in 2016.
I am not really a supporter of Trump - but some of the rubbish claimed by his political opponents are unbelievable and actually false. That makes a real analysis of his Presidency totally unreliable. The fact is that the US economy has grown substantially and this time around the workers did benefit from the growth through reduction in unemployment and better wages, That is bad news for the media and for the DP in the 2020 elections. What is coming out now is a consequential radical economic policy approach by the DP that would create even more uncertainty in Europe and they may in fact need an EU army in future,
Obama was a weak President - he would never ever act on what he said about crossing the :red line": One easy example was the Syrian Government gassing their own people - he said the US would act against Syria and they never did when Syria just ignore him. There are both internal and external examples that can be quoted about weakness in Government,
The Bush and Obama presidencies both had serious deficiencies and the result was wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the rising of El-Qaeda and ISIS in the ME countries - with consequences being felt in Europe and beyond. Where Bush and Obama interfered in anything foreign chaos was the result and in countries like Iraq and Libya we have seen what happened.
.
. .
Hi Mozart
One should never suspend critical faculties but apply them equally to all claims. There have been people who support climate change that have made absolutely BS claims that have been proven not to be true or completely exaggerated, most notably Al Gore and they rightly should be pointed out. But the evidence for man made climate change should be considered overwhelming at this point.
I'm not sure what survey you where referring too but according to Nasa multiple studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals show over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree with the assessment that recent climate warming trends are due to man made activity. I would place my trust in these climate scientists who publish peer reviewed work over activists, politicians, internet bloggers, conspiracy theorists, the media and people who may be scientists but are not climate scientists and are speaking outside their field of expertise.
Your right when you say CO2 is tiny % of the atmosphere. I believe its somewhere in the region of 0.039% or 390ppm of the atmosphere. However even putting aside climate change for a moment, that CO2 already has a huge impact on the planet. Effectively its essential for plant life on the planet. CO2 could basically be considered plant food. So even being a tiny % of the total atmosphere it plays a huge role even before bringing climate into the debate.
Another example would be arsenic, the maximum permitted level of arsenic in public water supplies in the US is 0.01PPM even less. Even at trace levels arsenic can still be dangerous.
Add 390ppm of ink into a bucket of water will turn the water blue, even though the ink is a trace amount of the total content in the bucket.
Small things can make big differences.
Your right to say man made CO2 emissions are much much smaller than naturally occurring CO2. But in effect the planet has ways of dealing with the natural occurring emissions, the problem is it can't deal with all of the added man made emissions, the land and seas's can only really absorb about 40% of the additional emissions releasing the other 60% back into the atmosphere which is accumulating year on year causing the problem.
I don't think they dissenters are being silenced, the evidence is just not on their side. Claims of being silenced are IMO people deflecting away from there lack of evidence. Dispassionate science is on the side of climate change because that's where the evidence is.
I would agree that Kyoto made minimal actual difference to the actually climate but was significant in establishing political will to deal with the problem. Paris is an improvement but likely not enough, particularly with America withdrawing from it.
Clever I'll try to respond to you later, on a break at work at the moment and haven't time right now to post a lengthy response.
Hi Mozart
There are some legitimate scientists in the field of climate science who are skeptics, but they are very very small minority. Sometimes its hard to tell who is a legitimate scientist and expert in the field of climate science and someone implying they are scientist or expert when they are not, given the impression there is a larger degree of descent then there actually is. I suspect the majority complaining of censure are people who can't get published because they are not meeting the standards required to legitimate peer reviewed scientific journals. Would be like me going down to the local rugby team for a try out and when I don't get picked I claim to be discriminated against, when the actual truth is I'm simply not any good at rugby.
I've heard of solar fluctuations and so have climate scientists. They have already ruled it out as the cause of climate heating. In the corresponding time frame solar sunspot activity has decreased and does not correlate to the rise in temperatures.
I wasn't aware of any increase in forests. Looking it up it has increased since 1982. Quite interesting to know. I'd would need to look into this more before having an opinion on what effect it has. One would assume an increase in forest cover would be a good thing overall for the environment and climate.
I've also heard that there will be some benefits to global warming, some area's on a localized level might benefit. I've heard for example Scotland might become a wine producing region. But on the global level the negatives far far out weight the benefits.
Stav
The scientists may have a point - but the one ignored is the constant rise in human population and the resultant activities of humans. That automatically would lead to changes in the environment.
The worst polluted areas are in fact relating to China and India - with Russia no innocent by-stander as well.
Hi Clever
I don't think its ignored, but already factored into climate change debate. It makes sense that as the worlds population increases, the worlds energy demands increase along with it, causing more pollution. You could call it an automatic change to the environment but its still a change because of man made activity and its something that needs to be addressed.
From looking at the figures America is the biggest CO2 emitter by a notable margin when when looking at emissions from 1970 to 2017, next up is China and the EU 28, followed by Russia, Japan and India. Looking at current CO2 figures China is far and away the biggest CO2 emitter with America in 2nd place and the EU28 in third, followed by India, Russia and Japan.
The biggest polluters are the ones who most urgently need to take action, but all countries need to take action even if they are not currently heavy CO2 emitters at least if you want to operate on the principal of fairness. My country has been a complete laggard on the issue for years.
I think many who have issues with climate change are not really taking issue with the evidence supporting man made climate change, its more out of concern that it will put them at a disadvantage from a economic competitive point of view. If the big economies like the USA and China suddenly have a load of environmental restrictions placed on them and many other industrial nations don't have the same restrictions, they will left at a disadvantage. That's why their needs to be a unified approach to the problem.
Regardless dealing with climate change is going to very expensive. The argument is that inaction on climate change will be even more expensive long term.