The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:	Aeneas
	Don't feed the troll. He wants to change the argument on one about a European army, despite the fact that this has nothing to do with that and he's just introduced the topic to distract from the whoppers he's coming out with.

Troll?


On this argument, I'm 100% with Loz.


The EU wants an army because it has aspirations to nationhood. If/when it becomes a nation, it probably won't be a very nice one.


I'm glad that the United Kingdom isn't going to be part of it.

[amogles]

	Quote:
	As Edot repeated elsewhere- all this right-left dichotomy is dead. What do you mean by the 'right' - because just as the 'left' it comes in many guises and colours. Dutch elections were won by the centre right- not the extreme right.

However, in the case of the centre right in the Netherlands, they haven been fishing in the waters of the far right, far example by beating Wilders at his own game and having a pissing match at who could provoke Turkey the most, also by striking a tough language on immigration etc etc.

And if you promise things before an election, then either you must deliver on those things, and de facto become the far-right-lite, or not deliver and risk ire at the next election.

Same is happening in France by the way.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:
	The EU wants an army because it has aspirations to nationhood. If/when it becomes a nation, it probably won't be a very nice one.

No one's questioned this, from what I can see. All that's been questioned is the assertion that why would a trading block want to protect it's interests and last time I checked you don't need an army to do so. OPEC, for example, has been doing so for decades. Frankly, being genuinely ignorant of this is astonishing for an adult.

Indeed, I can't see any mention of an army or military force until his last post, so it's pretty clear it was just lobbed there to muddy the waters.

So yes, that would either be trolling or at best a straw-man argument.

[Sbrinz]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Except to get to trade on WTO terms with pretty much the rest of the industrial world, the U.K. must first be admitted to the WTO as a full member, indeed that is even a requirement for most trade deals the U.K. would like to sign after it leaves the EU. Now I understand the quickest time from application to confirmation has been about three years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization

In addition to states, the European Union, and each EU Country in its own right, is a member. WTO members do not have to be fully independent states; they need only be a customs territory with full autonomy in the conduct of their external commercial relations.

Wikipedia says the UK is a member of the WTO. If the UK leaves the EU it would still have full control of it's borders and autonomy over customs & excise.

	Quote:	Aeneas
	Indeed, I can't see any mention of an army or military force until his last post, so it's pretty clear it was just lobbed there to muddy the waters. So yes, that would either be trolling or at best a straw-man argument.

No, I think there are several posts missing from this thread - deleted or moved, not sure which.


ETA: I'm mistaken. The posts are in another thread.


Now I'm confused.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Sbrinz
	Wikipedia says the UK is a member of the WTO.

And according to the WTO it appears to derive it's membership from it's EU membership. I'm not claiming you're incorrect, but if this is the case, it's membership to the WTO may be dependant on EU membership and thus will be lost following Brexit. TBC.

	Quote:
	If the UK leaves the EU it would still have full control of it's borders and autonomy over customs & excise.

Sure, as much as any nation has full control of it's borders and autonomy over customs & excise - whether full is another matter. Did anyone suggest otherwise? All I saw was a claim that without full membership the UK would not be able to get to trade on WTO terms, but that's not the same thing.

	Quote:
	ETA: I'm mistaken. The posts are in another thread.

In other words not part of this one. TBH, the topic of a European military is a serious can of worms that ultimately has nothing to do with what is being discussed here (did anyone threaten the UK with military action over Brexit?), so it's pretty clear that it's introduction was not accidental.

	Quote:	Aeneas
	You denied that the EU needed to protect it's trade interests, not whether it presently had any so stop moving the goalposts. As to why it, or any nation, super-national, regional or other bloc or entity would need to protect it's trade interests if threatened, then it would be for the same reasons, regardless if it is a national, super-national, regional or other bloc or entity. From what I can see you have a mental block against this because it is not a nation state. So OPEC never protects it's trade interests? Oh wait, it does... Not that this is in any way relevant, because you're intentionally trying to turn the discussion away from the EU's stance with an EU Army which is more nonsense, or are you suggesting that the EU would use a military to impose it's Brexit will?

My argument is that in its 60 year history the EU has never had a need to "protect its interests" at home or abroad. Why start now? Any time time the EU has been in a position to exert its power its made a pig's ear of it. See Ukraine and Yugoslav wars for details.

There is no argument for an EU army, and I find the proposition very concerning. I see it as one step closer to a superstate. Let's call it Eurasia. And if history has taught us anything, it's that when large armies form in Europe with the intention of creating a superstate; someone else normally has to come in and clear up the mess.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	My argument is that in its 60 year history the EU has never had a need to "protect its interests" at home or abroad. Why start now?

False. The EU has had numerous trade disputes and even trade wars with other blocks and nations.

You seem completely obsessed with military means being the only means to protect one's interests. This is also false. It also has nothing to do with the EU protecting it's interests over Brexit. Seriously, stop trying to sell this straw man.

[lewton]

	Quote:
	The EU wants an army because it has aspirations to nationhood. If/when it becomes a nation, it probably won't be a very nice one.

It will have a long way to go to get as "not nice" as the British Empire.

	Quote:	lewton
	It will have a long way to go to get as "not nice" as the British Empire.

So what? We're talking about the future here.

[marton]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	And according to the WTO it appears to derive it's membership from it's EU membership. I'm not claiming you're incorrect, but if this is the case, it's membership to the WTO may be dependant on EU membership and thus will be lost following Brexit. TBC. Sure, as much as any nation has full control of it's borders and autonomy over customs & excise - whether full is another matter. Did anyone suggest otherwise? All I saw was a claim that without full membership the UK would not be able to get to trade on WTO terms, but that's not the same thing. In other words not part of this one. TBH, the topic of a European military is a serious can of worms that ultimately has nothing to do with what is being discussed here (did anyone threaten the UK with military action over Brexit?), so it's pretty clear that it's introduction was not accidental.

Roberto Azevedo, director-general of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

	Quote:
	"The UK is a member of the WTO today, it will continue to be a member tomorrow. There will be no discontinuity in membership. They have to renegotiate [terms of their membership] but that doesn't mean they are not members."

Source

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	My argument is that in its 60 year history the EU has never had a need to "protect its interests" at home or abroad. Why start now? Any time time the EU has been in a position to exert its power its made a pig's ear of it. See Ukraine and Yugoslav wars for details. There is no argument for an EU army, and I find the proposition very concerning. I see it as one step closer to a superstate. Let's call it Eurasia. And if history has taught us anything, it's that when large armies form in Europe with the intention of creating a superstate; someone else normally has to come in and clear up the mess.

"Any time time the EU has been in a position to exert its power its made a pig's ear of it. See Ukraine and Yugoslav wars for details" So now you are putting forward an argument for an EU army?

	Quote:	Aeneas
	You seem completely obsessed with military means being the only means to protect one's interests. This is also false. It also has nothing to do with the EU protecting it's interests over Brexit. Seriously, stop trying to sell this straw man.

This is the point I'm making, there are other means to protect EU's interests, therefore an army isn't necessary.

[aSwissInTheUS]

Looks like we can mark March 29th 2017 as the day when Brexit finally starts to happen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39325561

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	This is the point I'm making, there are other means to protect EU's interests, therefore an army isn't necessary.

Yet you didn't bother to qualify that you were discussing military means when you did so, which was deceptive to say the least given we weren't even talking about them. So was that a troll or just a straw-man?

[lewton]

	Quote:
	So what? We're talking about the future here.

Right, so one of the least nice nations in human history is leaving a club of generally nicer nations because they are not nice enough?

	Quote:	lewton
	Right, so one of the least nice nations in human history is leaving a club of generally nicer nations because they are not nice enough?

If you think Belgium, Germany, France and Greece are "nice" nations, you need to buy yourself a good history book.

[Rob]

	Quote:	aSwissInTheUS
	Looks like we can mark March 29th 2017 as the day when Brexit finally starts to happen. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39325561

I would have thought that 3 days later would be more appropriate.

[amogles]

	Quote:
	If you think Belgium, Germany, France and Greece are "nice" nations, you need to buy yourself a good history book.

Are there any truly "nice" nations in the world?

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	amogles
	Are there any truly "nice" nations in the world?

Ireland, but only because we blame the English for anything nasty we do.