UKC

Looks like we're leaving just in time!
What was that about the EU superstate being a myth?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/13/jean-claude-junker-claims-uk-wil...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, otherwise we would have been forced to go along with the evil plans. Just like the bastards made us join the euro.

In reply to Postmanpat:
No, we definitely don't want to part of an economically, politically and diplomatically powerful bloc. That would be utter stupidity. Splendid isolation like North Korea is the way to go!

In reply to Sir Chasm:
Not forced to go along with their plans but probably to pay for them.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You should be crying about the fact that what was once a respected centre right newspaper and the traditional voice of the conservative establishment has given up journalism.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Juncker is an outlier. Nobody I spoke to in Germany this week agrees with him but, as if you care, it's slightly more likely to happen with us outside the EU than it would have with us inside.

I think he genuinely believes we'll regret leaving, and he's right. It wasn't intended as a threat, which is, of course, how the Eurosceptic media will present it.

In reply to The New NickB:

Funnily enough, I was thinking the same about the guardian yesterday when I was reading about the reasons we should have a statue of Gina Miller in London

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/sep/12/move-over-horatio-thes...

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The guardian is as much of joke as the telegraph, I agree. I subscribe the NYT and their coverage of most things, even UK affairs, is more detailed and informed than either these UK "serious" papers.

In reply to Postmanpat:



It's perfectly possible to hate the idea of leaving the EU and still think Junker is a dick. Anyway, the prognostications of one person do not automatically become policy, that's more the preserve of the Tory govt.

In reply to Tyler:

It's not like he's anybody in the EU is it?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


.
You can't really compare the two as the Guardian piece was a magazine piece in G2 with various people giving their suggestions, not a news item.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Apples and pears of course, even as a bit of a lefty, I am genuinely dismayed by the state of the Telegraph. It may have been its week long hard on about HMS Queen Elizabeth that tipped me over the edge, although the batshit Brexit coverage hasn't helped.

In reply to Hat Dude:

My reply was not a serious riposte, lets face it...the linked article in the Telegraph was mainly behind a paywall and what we could read was just reporting what Juncker said and hardly evidence of "giving up on journalism" , so I assumed Nick was really just slagging off the paper in general which he is welcome to do.

I actually agree that the quality of the paper is not as good as it used to be, but I see that across the whole spectrum of UK broadsheets.

Back on topic. I actually think Juncker is right to say what he says. It's the only logical direction in which the EU can possibly work. It has been a lie from the start that a group of disparate (apart from geography) nations can unite under a single currency whilst remaining sovereign, so complete political integration for the EU is the only hope of it functioning as a "superstate"
Obviously it's perfect fodder for brexiteers, which is why we are now seeing remainers saying "he will soon be gone, it will never be agreed etc etc" and accusing papers who repeat his speech as giving up on journalism

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Are we? What I find startling is the axiomatic assumption from brexiteers than any cooperation is bad and will *obviously* fail

In reply to baron:

I think you'll concede that one of the problems with the EU is that it doesn't always speak with one voice and that makes decision making difficult. There are definitely people in the EU who would like more integration on every level, doesn't mean it will happen, it certainly wouldn't have with the UK as a member. What happens in the future, why would you care?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I was slagging off a very poor peice of journalism which is reflective of the direction of travel of the newspaper as a whole. The financial pressure on print media means they are not alone, but the model favoured by the Barclay Brothers does rather exacibate the situation, ignoring their political views.

In reply to MG:

Cooperation is good. Being part of a super-state is generally bad.

In reply to Tyler:
I only care because the EU has an impact on the UK whether we're in or out.
It's the denial of existing problems while proposing future grand schemes that I find most worrying.
But I guess that's applicable to politicians the world over.

In reply to Tyler:


It's funny, you could almost think that about the current UK government.

As you say, there are obviously those in the EU who want to see further integration, but I think Juncker is being optimistically premature if he thinks it's full steam ahead now that those tiresome Brits have gone away. I would be surprised if some of the newer entrants to the EU were so enthusiastic about his preferred direction of travel.

In reply to Tyler:


Democracies, eh? Dontyajusthate 'em!

If only THEY were strong and stable.......

In reply to Postmanpat:

Cherrypicking your good news? The cherries must be getting hard to find at the moment.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Odd, didn't post, so trying again.

My view on the EU is that it would be best as a free trade and movement bloc and not going further. So roughly what the EEC / EEA did/does.

I don't support a superstate. Superstates tend to collapse messily (though the US seems a counterexample).

In reply to MG: > "Obviously it's perfect fodder for brexiteers, which is why we are now seeing remainers saying "he will soon be gone, it will never be agreed etc etc"


please read Tylers post directly below yours (he's not my sock puppet I promise ) for a good example

"There are definitely people in the EU who would like more integration on every level, doesn't mean it will happen..."

( I have no idea if Tyler is pro or anti brexit mind you )

In reply to The New NickB:

I couldn't read the whole article so cannot comment on whether it was poor journalism . All I could read was the first paragraph which seemed to be just news repeating what Juncker had said at a "State of the Union" speech. What was so poor about the whole piece?

In reply to Postmanpat:


That was the headline in the Express this morning! What a coincidence!

In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes, what a disaster that would be when we can still follow the Brexiter's vision and turn the clocks straight back to 1910:

youtube.com/watch?v=cYQF5xX3OVI&

In reply to David Riley:

That's an interesting assertion. What do you base it on? There aren't that many super-states. Examples that do spring to mind are the Soviet Union, and the United States - I think most people would agree that's one bad, one good. (Yes, I know... 'most people agree' on UKC is probably like a red rag to a bull...)

In reply to Postmanpat:

My word! Lucky escape for us there, eh? After all, cooperation is a quite deplorable evil, isn't it?

In reply to defaid:

Even by the standards of this thread that is a spectacularly irrelevant comment.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Even Nigel Farage got a very supportive and approving applause from around the EU chamber yesterday when he compared Juncker's plans with the USSR.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yeah because we were just along for the ride with no say in where the project went and no way to you know, veto changes we weren't comfortable with, right...

You used to be honest and sensible.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:

Never though I would ever agree. Rise of militarism in Germany is also very frightening.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Would you be keen to join the US ?

In reply to David Riley:

Is that relevant? You said 'Being part of a super-state is generally bad.' If you want to make that case you have to show that it has been generally bad for the majority of states. It really doesn't make any difference if I'm keen or not. So. looking at my question about the US again, has it been a bad thing for Texas for example? Or Vermont? Another example of a federated state is Germany - how has it worked out for Prussia or Bavaria? I suspect that the answers to all these may involve the idea that it's been rather equivocal, with pros and cons, and various trade-offs. Rather like Scotland in the UK actually.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

It was you that made it relevant.
"There aren't that many super-states. Examples that do spring to mind are the Soviet Union, and the United States - I think most people would agree that's one bad, one good"
If you think USA is good then it is relevant that you don't want to join it. Why not ?
We have more in common with California than with Bulgaria.

In reply to David Riley:


Having been to both I'd say apart from language that's doubtful.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I have too and disagree.

In reply to David Riley:

Simply because something is good it doesn't mean I'd want to join it, and my opinion on it doesn't matter. The local railway modelling club is probably good, and the allotment society. But I don't wish to join them or many other good institutions. It's utterly irrelevant.

In reply to Sandstonier:

Militarism over here? Not that I would have noticed. Xenophobic and other rightwing idiots, sure, but people in general being in favour of the military playing a dominant role in society as, say, in 19th century Prussia (the textbook example of militarism)? No idea where you got that one from.

Maybe it was our militaristic refusal to burn 2% of our GDP for defense, which pissed off the Trumpster quite bad. Seriously, we are not the US, where they applaud their war criminals returning from Iraq at the airport gates...

CB

In reply to cb294:
Did you accuse US service personnel of being war criminals or have I completely misread your post?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Had a look at the Telegraph in the last few minute?. Boris is going to rescue the UK. He's published his bid for a bold and bright Britain . 4000 words of guff, not a penny more to the EU, glorious future as a low cost , low tax manufacturing base and , best of all, yes, the famous 350 million a week for the NHS has reappeared. Boris clearly states this

I'd say it looks like an attempt to be PM, but as he's a conniving spiv you have to pay to read it which doesn't strike me as a masterstroke

In reply to Postmanpat:


It was a myth as long as the UK was in it. For the simple reason that treaty change cannot happen without all the members agreeing.
A simple, basic fact that still eludes you it seems, but I guess it's probably too much to ask.

But well done, your EU superstate "nightmare" may well become a reality, thanks to Brexit, with the added bonus of the UK having zero influence on it, almost guaranteeing our relative decline.

In reply to Postmanpat:

David Cameron had got an agreement that the UK wouldn't be integrated any further into the EU. The UK staying in the EU needn't mean it'd be drawn into some kind of superstate.

In reply to Timmd:


David Cameron got his @rse handed to him in his hat.

In reply to Big Ger:
I wouldn't say you're wrong, but, technically, he did obtain agreement of no further integration of the UK into the EU.

2 truths can exist at the same time.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So, in a post designed to be unpleasant.

You think it was a good thing that the UK was preventing the rest of the EU doing what it wanted (??)
and that would have continued.

Then you seem to imply it is currently our influence that is preventing the success of the EU.

We are right to leave the EU either because we are the only country that does not want to be reduced to a state of the European Union or because the European Union intends to force this on their members.

In reply to baron:

No, you did not misread me, even though, of course, I was being a bit hyperbolic.

Defending your country is obviously fair enough, and most US soldiers will not have personally carried out any war crimes. However, while waiting at San Diego airport last year I was asked to stand up and applaud a bunch of soldiers returning from Iraq. I find this uncritical hero worship in equal parts cheesy and disturbing.

Want to see militarism (which my country was accused of in the post by Albion I responded to) in action? This is precisely what it looks like to start with. Next, you will have civilian officials deferring to anyone in uniform, and voila, you are back to pre WWI Europe, or to a 1980s Argentina style military junta.

The war crimes jibe was just an extra to piss off Albion. Again, though, there is a kernel of truth in it:

IMO, no US soldier has any business being in Iraq, the pretence to the war was obviously faked, and the massive war crimes of the US army during their illegal war there are well documented (never mind the civilian deaths that were caused indirectly). Anybody still participating in this campaign is therefore a war criminal by association.

CB

In reply to cb294:
>. Seriously, we are not the US, where they applaud their war criminals returning from Iraq at the airport gates...


Seriously, you are not the US but you are an idiotic arsehole, not to mention an offensive prick for thinking that, never mind posting it. Well done you.

In reply to David Riley:

The facts can be unpleasant sometimes when they just don't match deeply held beliefs.


Yes, I think it was a good thing for the UK to be able to prevent the EU to go in a direction that is not favorable to us. Besides, there was always a variety of opinions between and within the members states as to what the general direction should be. this is not a problem, in those situations grown ups find a compromise and move forward.


Not necessarily preventing the "success" of the EU, the EU is already pretty successful, but rather, the presence of the UK in the EU guaranteed that it would not go in a direction that is incompatible with our interests.



Strange logic you have, you seem to consider that being able to block the EU from going in a direction that may go against our interests is a bad thing, and not being able to do anything about it a good thing.
Odd.


Except the EU cannot force any treaty change on any members. Looks like this simple fact is eluding you as well...

In reply to Gone for good:

Great debating style!

What are your arguments against my accusation that the entire Iraq war amounts to one big war crime? The nonexisting WMDs, and the blatant lie by Powell at the UN? The invented link betweeen Saddam and 9/11? Abu Ghreib? The hunting of civilians from a helicopter, with live comments on video (as exposed courtesy of CM)?

The list could go on and on. How would you classify someone why participates in such a war, long after its illegality has been proven? The defense that these are the orders, and as a soldier you do as told does not cut it since Nuremberg.

I am not naive, and of course war crimes will happen in any war whether justified or not. Since they cannot be avoided, they are a cost to be taken into account when entering in a justified war. FWIW, I found the US intervention in Afghanistan post 9/11 entirely justified, after the Taliban hosted Bin Laden. Similarly, I would have been OK with a decision to take out the Saudi leadership. But a war that has in the long run killed hundreds of thousands, just to be seen to be "doing something"?

Unforgivable.

And to go back to the key point: Standing and applauding these people is militarism, and it starts with half price coffee for uniformed personnel.

CB



CB

In reply to David Riley:

The Commission can propose policies, but the Parliament needs to approve them before they go any further.

In this case, I suspect that such blatant federalism will probably not be universally popular, but whatever happens, nobody will force anybody to do anything.

In reply to cb294:
The USA has a long tradition of honouring its military and its veterans (with the exception of Vietnam).
Your idea that this will somehow lead to something approaching Germany in the first half of the twentieth century is absurd and shows a total lack of understanding of the American.
If you don't like what you see in the US then don't go there.
Your assertion that military personnel are free to disobey orders is incorrect and also supposes that they are engaged in illegal activity.
It's strange how you can be so offensive to the US when Germany has been cowardly and content to hide behind the US's coattails since 1945.

In reply to RomTheBear:

(Half a ParkRun later. I tried to stay with the 20 minute pacer. It was never going to work out well.)

Your post was unpleasant, not the facts.
This post continues that.
>Strange logic you have, / Odd.
>Looks like this simple fact is eluding you as well...
Possibly the reference to "grown ups" is intended as an insult too ?

But beyond that you took the trouble to make a sensible reply that advances the discussion.

>I think it was a good thing for the UK to be able to prevent the EU to go in a direction that is not favorable to us.
>not go in a direction that is incompatible with our interests.
>to block the EU from going in a direction that may go against our interests

The idea that everybody is in it only for their own advantage seems somewhat against the idea of a union.
That there is a constant power struggle, and necessary compromise, against other members with different objectives is a good reason for leaving.

As for my strange logic. The EU is no longer going to have the power to take us in a direction that is incompatible with our interests.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I said intends. Not that they could directly.
Is the EU a utopia where every member gets what they want, nobody gets what they don't want, even though they want opposite things ?
It's not a good idea to share government with countries that have different objectives.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Not to mention another elite with it's own agenda.

In reply to cb294:

I know Germany is still on some guilt trip over what has happened in the past but unlike you I wouldn't make such insulting sweeping statements about a countries citizens or it's institutions. The facts are all armies commit crimes in war to a greater or lesser degree and I don't think the USA is any different other than having a much larger army therefore likely to commit more crimes than say Dennmark or Belguim.

It's time Germany got over it's past and started making some meaningful contributions to NATO.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41279300

In reply to Gone for good:
And time for us to accept the Iraq invasion was not self defence which means accepting it is a war crime.

From wiki

In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[

In reply to elsewhere:

I agree 100% that Iraq 2 was wrong but that doesn't make American soldiers mass murderers and war criminals nor does it make the American public war mongering and militarist for showing support for those who serve in the military.
The world would be a very different place and the freedoms we enjoy today may not exist if it werent for the Americans and their military.

In reply to elsewhere:
So if it's not self defence we never intervene?

In reply to David Riley:

"That there is a constant power struggle, and necessary compromise, against other members with different objectives is a good reason for leaving."

A constant power struggle, and necessary compromise is just as likely to be the case in or out of the EU.

In reply to David Riley:

No, Donald Trump is...

Less flippantly, on the subject of power, this is an interesting analysis of the EU and Uk's power status:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/would-the-uk-gain-or-lose-power-if...

In reply to baron:


Yes

Can you give some examples where we should be taking military action other than for self defence?

In reply to elsewhere:



In support of an ally such as the UK declaring war on Nazi Germany after the invasion of Poland?

In reply to Gone for good:

Protection of independent sovereign states in opposition to a continental military hegemony has been considered a vital interest for centuries.

WW2 was defence of that UK vital interest, a 20th century equivalent to the Napoleonic wars.

NATO is the current incarnation of this policy. I'm not sure what counts as the earliest, maybe the Spanish Armada.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

The conclusion of that report is :
This indicative analysis suggest strongly that the UK would lose voting power if it left the EU.

(They didn't even write their conclusion correctly.)

Do you care more about our ability to boss other countries around than having to compromise on our own laws because Latvia does not agree ?

In reply to Gone for good:


But it does make those who fight in the Iraq war criminals, without any doubt. I am decidedly not a pacifist, and did my compulsory military service at the arse end of the cold war (when Germany had a large contribution and would have been obliterated even if a war with the Eastern block had been confined to conventional means, which would have been unlikely). However, I registered my conscientious objection and refused to be called up to guard US nuclear ammunition depots (for which I had the security clearance, hence the call up) when the US units were moved out for Iraq 1. I had sworn to defend Germany and, by extension, the other NATO countries, not US oil interests in the gulf.


I totally agree, and in any case have nothing against most individual American soldiers. While there still was a US garrison in my home town, most years we even had one or two soldiers over to our house for Christmas diner.

That does, however, not absolve any soldier from being a war criminal if they participate in an illegal war. But back to the issue of militarism, which triggered my first post on this thread. The constant flag waving and the never ending support-our-boys patriotism is a form of insidious brain washing that does IMO lead to a general acceptance of war being normal. I challenge you to name the last year that the US have not fought a war somewhere under some pretext. To me, that is just as blatant militarism as the deference to uniform wearers in mainland Europe at the end of the 19th century.

That one ended badly, and I very much believe that the constant need of an external enemy the US has exhibited after the end of the cold war (when I agree that there was a real enemy) is also headed for disaster. Does anyone seriously believe that North Korea, the bogeyman du jour, is an actual, credible threat to the US? If not, why is it then presented as one? Cui bono?

CB

In reply to cb294:

I thought it was more that they are treaty bound to help defend Japan?

In reply to cb294:

Any casual glance at the history books will tell you war is normal.
Im not sure why you seem fixated on the end of the 19th Century to set the example of deference towards military uniform wearers. Again, the military have been respected and admired throughout history and it is only very recent modern history where some elements of society have taken an anti war stance and vented their anger against those who wear uniform.
And yes, left unchecked North Korea poses a very credible threat whilst developing and testing nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

In reply to elsewhere:

I give you Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Kuwait from the past.
Or you could have Rwanda where we didn't.

In reply to baron:


Yes. The only exception being UN sanctioned interventions.

In reply to baron:
Support of friendly govt, peace in europe and oil respectively.

In terms of UK interests Sierra Leone < Kosovo << Kuwait

Rwanda - direct UK interest not sufficient given scale and difficulties

In reply to David Riley:


Which laws have we had to compromise on because one particular country disagreed?

And again, it doesn't matter what I care about. I'm interested in the truth or otherwise of the various assertions you make.

In reply to Gone for good:
"Again, the military have been respected and admired throughout history and it is only very recent modern history where some elements of society have taken an anti war stance and vented their anger against those who wear uniform."

Not entirely true. I don't know about this world-wide but it's certainly the case that at various points in British history standing armies have been a focus for dislike and distrust - eg. seen as a threat to civil liberties after the Restoration and the experience of the New Model Army. It was the same in the US after the Revolution. (I know this isn't simply an anti-war stance, just pointing out that the military haven't always been universally respected and admired.)

In reply to Gone for good:
The expression “scum of the earth” uttered by Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, has become etched in history as a great commander's miserable opinion of his men. In a letter to Henry, Third Earl Bathurst, from Huarte Spain, on 2 July, 1813, Wellington wrote, “we have in the service the scum of the Earth as common soldiers.”

His opinion did not change with time. On 4 November, 1813, he declared in a conversation with Philip Henry, Fifth Earl Stanhope, “I don't mean to say that there is no difference in the composition or therefore the feeling of the French army and ours. The French system of conscription brings together a fair sample of all classes; ours is composed of the scum of the Earth—the mere scum of the Earth. It is only wonderful that we should be able to make so much out of them afterward. The English soldiers are fellows who have enlisted for drink—that is the plain fact—they have all enlisted for drink.”

https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/book-review...

In reply to elsewhere:
So are those service personnel who fought in Kosovo, etc war criminals because they certainly weren't fighting in. defence of the UK.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Remember I was referring to the future imposition of a superstate where all laws would be agreed by all countries.
But already there is a lot to convert to just UK as currently in the news.
However we are unable to prevent the payment of child support for children that have never been to the UK, because the parent is working here, although that persons country would not provide any child support for a UK person there, or indeed anyone else.

In reply to baron:


Suggest it would be worth reading the article I linked in this thread. Very useful in setting out the context for when states can legitimately wage war, and how this is very different from what it used to be...

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=671143

In reply to baron:

If the weren't fighting for British interests how did the govt justify asking them to risk their lives?

In reply to elsewhere:

They joined the services, as volunteers, they do what they're told.
The armed forces are many things but they're not a democracy.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

An interesting read.
Thanks for that.

In reply to baron:

Thanks- I was completely unaware of much of the stuff in it- very useful summary I thought...

In reply to baron:

America has destabilised many countries, and been at war for most of it's history as the United States.

In reply to Timmd:


And it's only because of America that we are not part of a fascist German dominated Europe or a Communist Soviet dominated Europe.

In reply to Timmd:
It has indeed.
It's also played a major part in two world wars, been the backbone of NATO and provided the majority of armed power for the UN since 1945.

In reply to David Riley:

"But already there is a lot to convert to just UK as currently in the news."
This is EU law that the UK has had to follow, and which will require adoption in UK law otherwise legal anarchy will apparently prevail. The UK has had power of veto over much of EU law (alone on some areas, with other states in other areas), and has been involved in negotiations to reach acceptal agreements on the rest. That's not the same as the UK wanting to enact laws that are then vetoed by other EU states, which is what you were talking about to begin with. I would still be interested to hear examples of this - I can't think of any myself at the moment.

In reply to Gone for good:

Both are true, I would suggest it's impact in the middle east has been almost entirely unhelpful towards a peaceful world. We did indeed need their help in WW2.

In reply to Timmd:


And between 45 and 89 during the Cold War as well as the 1st Gulf War.
It does somewhat belittle their war effort and horrendous loss of life in the Pacific, in Europe and in the Atlantic not too mention their industrial might and the materiel support given to the Soviet war machine, to begrudgingly admit "we did indeed need their help in WW2."
I would think the middle easts problems extend far beyond purely American influence.

In reply to Gone for good:

As indeed, they needed ours. And after the war they royally f*cked us over, knowingly consigning the UK to decades of austerity - when I was born there was still rationing in place - and quite consciously enforcing the dissolution of our empire - which we were already committed to - in favour of their own perceived interests. The fact they got their perceived interests wrong so often - with idiotic pseudo science political theories like 'the Domino effect' - is just a sour irony.

As the world's global policeman, the US has been as venal and self centred as any Irish/US cop ever was in downtown Bronx.

In reply to Gone for good:




To say 'indeed' is to agree...

In reply to Gone for good:



Without doubt this is true; and we should be very thankful that it was the US that became the hegemon, and not nazi germany, or the USSR, or communist china, or imperial Japan.

But America is a complicated place; indeed that's part of its attraction. The contrasts between its founding legend, as the 'shining city on a hill', and the reality of its genocidal subjugation of the original inhabitants of the land find an echo in modern times, with its status as the protectors of liberty and freedom contrasting with it's disgraceful support for fascist dictators in central and South America, and its more recent adventurism in the Middle East.

Our gratitude for America's role in facing down the two greatest threats of the 20th century should not blind us to its culpability in interventions that have left entire regions of the world in chaos. And respectful celebration of armed forces, and the sacrifices they make on our behalf, must not cross over into fetishisation, and demonisation of anyone that raises doubts over their actions.

In reply to Gone for good:

Whilst Europe was indeed helped by the USA, it only joined through self interest, as is always the case. If it remained 'neutral' and sat it out, the Japanese would have brought the war to mainland USA, and the threat of either Hitler or Stalin would have found its way across the Atlantic. Not forgetting that both of these were trying to also develop nuclear weapons. It wasn't a fight the USA could sit out indefinitely. Had they waited just a few more years it would have been a full-blown nuclear war. The USA intervened to avoid war on their own soil, nothing has changed.

In reply to David Riley:





Or maybe you're just incredibly thin-skinned.



No, that's a terribly bad reason for leaving. The whole point of the EU is to provide a democratic platform to resolve these differences, something that cruelly lacked in the past.
Before the EU everything was dealt through threat, coercion, and bargaining, instead of compromise.
And we know where it led us.




They never had this power in the first place.

In reply to cb294:


In which court or tribunal was the Iraq war declared illegal?
In the absence of such ruling there must be legitimate doubt whether you and I have such doubts or not.
I think you are being overly hard on those at the bottom of the chain of command.


Yes, but I would add 'knowingly'

In reply to David Riley:


So you're a Scots Nat then, not to mention Plaid Cymru.

In reply to summo:


I'd say that 'joined' is being over generous to the Americans. 'Dragged kicking and screaming' would be more apt.
America largely sat on the sidelines until Japan attacked them. The next day Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

In reply to Stichtplate:



Fine, dragged kicking and screaming and then leading, directing and dominating the war through to a successful conclusion on 2 long distance fronts.

In reply to Gone for good:


Still rather over egging it. Undoubtedly the USA dominated the western allies but the Soviets suffered by far the most casualties and did the Germans the most damage in return.

German combat deaths caused by the Soviet Union - 2,742,909.
German combat deaths caused by other allied forces - 534,683.

Admittedly these figures don't tell the whole story but they do lay bare the common misconception (in the West) that the Americans played an overwhelming role in winning the war.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I don't disagree and that's why I refered to 2 fronts, the Pacific and the Western front and didn't mention the Eastern front. I am aware the Americans didn't contribute men to that front but did contribute a huge amount aid and war materiel, something like 18 million tonnes worth close to 50 billion US dollars, without which the Russians might not have turned things round so quickly after Moscow.

In reply to Gone for good:


They werent the only nation that paid heavy price in retaking Europe and when you consider all the other nations, in many major battles they weren't the majority either.

In Asia, 1000s died and millions suffered, long before the Americans could bother themselves, and only because the war came to them.

The individual American servicemen were undoubtedly very brave and their efforts appreciated, but the USA hierarchy would have watched Europe and Asia burn, if they thought they could escape the war.

In reply to Gone for good:

End of 19th century is the textbook example of the modern societies of mainland Europe drifting towards militarism, with the well known catastrophic consequences, hence my choice of example. Respecting and honouring soldiers for their legitimate service, the uncritical, brainwashed, flag waving claptrap something else and entirely more sinister.

And North Korea being more of a threat than the established nuclear powers, who did not adhere to their side of the NPT? You must be joking. Russia, China, and the US have all used their possession of nuclear weapons to wage conventional wars with impunity. Ukraine, Iraq and Libya are great lessons in what happens if one does not have nukes, or gives them up in exchange for security guarantees.

CB

In reply to cb294:




Your just making stuff up as you go along. At no point did I say NK were more of a threat than other nuclear powers. I did say they were a credible threat and don't see why you dismiss them so readily.
And who are these brainwashed flag wavers?
How do you seperate respecting and honouring military service and flag wavers or are we no longer allowed to wave our countries national flags? Like I said earlier, it's time you Germans stopped your guilt trip and got over your past.

In reply to Gone for good:


You don't, it's the same thing


You'll probably find they got over it a long time ago. Brits are the only people i have met who are still obsessed with events that occurred 80+ years ago and for which so few people as to be negligible are still alive to have had anything to do with it.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41279300

In reply to Gone for good:

Nothing in that article supports your view, barring the opinion of the far-right politician.

Opinions there range from

"I don't think anyone perceives anything the German army did then as positive," he says.

Many children of the post-war generation felt a strong sense of guilt over what their parents had done.

Mr Krueger says that has changed. For his generation "it's about looking at it from a neutral space".

"The lessons from the past, as horrible and bad as they are, need to be confronted and understood."

to

"And sometimes someone would say: 'But what do I have to do with it?'

"And the teachers would be really upset and give them a hard time. They would say stuff like: 'You should never forget what happened so it never happens again, and although you yourself have nothing to do with it we need to remind ourselves what could happen.'"

which is not so much guilt, but just sensible common sense

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Just off the top of my head and just stories in the news recently....
Charlottesville, USA.
Mussolini on wine bottles, Italy.
Legacy of colonialism, South Africa.
Cancelling Australia Day, Australia.
The rehabilitation of the Romanovs, Russia.
The continuing Shia/Sunni bloodbath originating in events far in the past.

Brits are about as obsessed with the past as any other nation.

Edit: in fact we're fairly relaxed about our history, considering how many other nations are still rioting or killing each other over theirs.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Not sure how you reach that view, and you missed a bit out -

"But Amy Iman Zayed, someone detached from this controversy because her parents are Egyptian, has noticed guilt among her classmates. In the mandatory classes about World War Two, she saw that her friends would "sound and look embarrassed as if it was them or their parents who did all these terrible things".

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

That's the pre-amble ot the paragraphs i c&p'ed

"But Amy Iman Zayed, someone detached from this controversy because her parents are Egyptian, has noticed guilt among her classmates. In the mandatory classes about World War Two, she saw that her friends would "sound and look embarrassed as if it was them or their parents who did all these terrible things".

"And sometimes someone would say: 'But what do I have to do with it?'

"And the teachers would be really upset and give them a hard time. They would say stuff like: 'You should never forget what happened so it never happens again, and although you yourself have nothing to do with it we need to remind ourselves what could happen.'"

Again, i can't see how

"And sometimes someone would say: 'But what do I have to do with it?'

"And the teachers would be really upset and give them a hard time. They would say stuff like: 'You should never forget what happened so it never happens again, and although you yourself have nothing to do with it we need to remind ourselves what could happen.'"

is a sign of guilt or embarrasement.

I spend a fair amount of time in Germany, and know and spend a lot of time with Germans, and i can assure you there's no feeling of responsibility, guilt, or embarrasement about what happened decades before they were even born.

In reply to Mr Lopez:
Well there should be.
It wasn't that long ago that Germany allowed itself to run riot in Europe and commit some of the most horrible crimes on a scale never seen before.
While a handful of Germans were punished for their crimes most were not.
How one could hear of the way their parents, grandparents and great grand parents behaved and not feel shame, guilt and embarassment is beyond me.
To that you can add the way that East Germans treated their own countrymen before unification.
It's history but not ancient.

In reply to baron:

And has a strong impact on commitment to the EU amongst our negotiating partners but then I guess we all know that.

In reply to baron:


Why should Germans (or anyone else) feel guilty for actions of others they could not possibly have affected in any way!?

Anyway, I get the sense Germany has handled it's past rather well -acknowledged it and moved on. Not sure the same could be said of Japan or Austria.

In reply to elsewhere:

It does indeed explain why many countries are commited to the EU.
Now if they could just show the same commitment to NATO.

In reply to baron:



Of course they should be. They should have been born 65 years earlier so they could prevent all that happening. Instead the lazy feckers just hung around in limbo for decades while all that shit was going down, took their time floating about carefree as an sperm, and even had the audacity of spending 9 full months chilling in their mother's womb instead of jumping out immediately waving freedom flags to defeat the worlds evil. It really is all their fault...

In reply to baron:

So what does that mean for Brexit negotiations?

In reply to MG:

Nice that, acknowledge that you, your parents, grandparents or great grandparent commited unspeakable horrors.
Now can we kindly move on.
And yes Germany has handled it slightly better than Japan but considering that Japan didn't see that it had done anything wrong that wouldn't have been difficult.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Now if you're not going to be sensible about this........

In reply to elsewhere:

I'd like to think that EU countries are sticking together so as to prevent a re run of WW2 which was one of the reasons for it's formation.
Today I think they're more interested in their economic well being.

In reply to baron:



What do want? Germans born decades after any atrocities, who run a peaceful, successful country to go around apologizing for ever more?

Do you feel terrible guilt about say the Boer War concentration camps?

In reply to MG:

I think I'm supposed to.
And feel guilty for slavery and other sins commited by my ancestors even though, as far as I know, they weren't involved in any of these things.
Guilt, it's the new 'in thing' - didn't you know?

In reply to baron:

Are yiu changing your mind? Above you were saying Germans should feel guilty. Now you are making sarcy comments about what you are "supposed" to do.

In reply to baron:



As long as you realise they don't think like the UK.

In reply to MG:
You asked me if I felt guilty about the Boer War.
I replied that feeling guilty about your countries past misdeeds seems to be in vogue.
As to how long Germans should feel guilty about their countries past, well I guess one's opinion might depend on how much one was affected by their actions.

In reply to baron:


Practically all Nazi era Germans are dead, so the answer the answer is that practically no one has been affected by their actions, which is the whole.point.

In reply to baron:

The way you write that, baron, it's like you dont really think you should feel guilty, but you believe other people, whose opinions you don't really value, think you should

Why do you think young german adults, born half a century after nazi Germany was defeated, should feel guilty for what their ancestors did, but you feeling guilty for your ancestors actions would be a fad you don't really buy into?

In reply to elsewhere:
I think each EU country has its own way of thinking.
At the moment it suits them to show a united front and for most of them it makes economic sense.

In reply to MG:
My mum might disagree with you as would many people of her generation.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
The misdeeds of Germany from WW2 are within living memory of many people and including East German times are relatively recent.
If the UK had slaughtered millions of people and then cooperated with occupying forces in the subjugation of their fellow countrymen would we not feel any guilt, embarassment,etc.

In reply to baron:


Frankly, I think you are wrong. Most of that generation don't think Germans born decades after Nazism need to go around apologizing. Your mum sounds odd.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yo, I've just achieved my maiden (I think) half century of dislikes!! Thank you to all those who met my expectations. I shall now celebrate with a glass of wine

Job done, Bottoms up!!

In reply to MG:
You can't have just insulted my mum, can you?

In reply to rogerwebb:


Look, you know full well that the regime that waged the war was really anxious to be put to trial on this and did everything within their power to facilitate such a trial, such is the custom of those who wage wars of aggression and commit crimes against peace within the meaning of the Nuremburg Articles.

However, no one took any interest in their volunteering to be put to the legal test did they?

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

Glad to say that some of my former professors at Durham were involved in some of the declarations prior to the invasion that it would be illegal

In reply to baron:

So when is it a nation is allowed to stop feeling guilty? Are Germans meant to keep an eye on when the last British person who remembers WWII pops their clogs, and then switch off the guilt? Or is it a number of generations thing- you know, if it was your grandad, then it's 'guilt on', but if it's your great grandad, youre excused? What about what your ancestors actually did? If they were in the German resistance, are you exempted, or do you have to feel the guilt whether your relatives were nazis or not? And what about people who have migrated to Germany from other places since the war- do they have to take on German guilt? My brother has married a German- if they move to Germany, as a brit, should he start feeling guilty about what his new country did to his ancestors?

I think we should be told.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That's pretty good work, pat.

But you're still an amateur compared to real pros, like the lemming....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Thank you, kind sir

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It's not for me or you to decide when Germans should stop feeling guilty,etc
Then again when did Germans ever express guilt about what took place.
The Germans I worked with in the 1970's, many of whom had served in the German forces couldn't have cared less about what they'd done.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

My kids are half German - should they have a half-guilt, or a guilt with a half-life?

Just off out to apologise to some folk about my heritage as a nation that traded in slaves

In reply to baron:


Why?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Should be easy for PMP now he has Boris onside...

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yo! I don't think I have had three quarter century of likes before. I have some sherry...

In reply to Postmanpat:



Seeing as this is UKC, you're a rampant Tory and a Leaver, I think I'd be a bit disappointed at only achieving the 50 mark after three and a half days if I was you.

In reply to baron:


But you say that they should still feel guilt now. And seem to reject the notion that we should feel guilt for the actions of the British in previous generations. You also seemed to be tying it to some sort of notion of events being in living memory; so I think you do appear to believe that there is a point where guilt is 'time served', and that this is something to do with the people who were the victims. That's where your posts on this thread lead us. I'm just trying to explore your ideas further...

And just to add to the mix- there will be Kenyans alive today whose 1st degree relatives were murdered or violently sexually assaulted by British troops in the mau mau uprising in what can only be described as a crime against humanity; indeed, there may well still be survivors of the concentration camps we set up.

If Germans should feel guilt at what their relatives did in the 30 and 40s, then surely you must feel shame at the actions of the British 20 years more recently?

In reply to Lusk:


A rampant Tory? You must have got the wrong guy! But I am a glass half full type of guy unlike you downcast remainer chaps

In reply to Postmanpat:

I thought you're a thoroughbred Tory, I lose track of you lot on here
I'm more of a glass containing liquid to the half way mark type of guy at the moment. Need to consult an expert as to whether I'm half full or empty.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
There should be a time limit on individuals but not governments so people who are the victims can have access to redress even when the perpetrators are dead.
This could of course lead to Britains suing Romans so there would be problems with that approach.
Should the U.K. apologise and make reparations to Kenyans - yes.
Should I feel guilty, embarrassed or ashamed.
Probably. Definitely if one of my close relatives was involved.
Germany is a strange situation in that after WW1 the victors punished the losers and in doing so laid the ground for WW2.
After WW2 the western allies were keen to avoid a similar situation so Germany and individuals weren't punished in the way that some would have wished.
There was denazification and move on.
So from 1945 onwards it was about rebuilding Germany and not much else.
If I believe that victims of UK crimes should be apologised to and compensated then I have to believe that victims of Germany's crimes
should be treated in a similar way.
Maybe the scale of what took place in WW2 and the DDR prevents this.

In reply to baron:

There was denazification and move on.


Well, apart from the Nuremberg trials which in many cases resulted in execution!! What do want - extended torture if all Germans!?

In reply to MG:
The Nuremberg trials affected how many Germans.
If they'd put all those Germans on trial who were probably war criminals there would have been a queue nine miles long.

In reply to baron:
The role of governments, which you are now bringing into the debate, is a completely separate issue; you've been talking about personal shame and guilt in all of your posts up to this point.

Your willingness to accept guilt on behalf of the British people for the conduct of the British state in post war colonial Africa shows some consistency at least (though is a little at odds with the rather dismissive replies you made earlier, about it being a fad to feel guilt for your countries actions, and not one you seemed to subscribe to).

But unnecessary. Why should I feel guilt for mau mau? It happened over a decade before I was born. Even if a relative had been directly involved, the notion I should feel guilty for something people in my family chose to do before I existed seems very Old Testament to me. I might well be disgusted at them, but I wouldn't feel in any way responsible.

Likewise the germans. The notion that as a nation, the current Citizens should be required to carry, and presumably make displays of, guilt (else how would we know they felt guilty?), for events that took place three quarters of a century ago, strikes me as absurd.

I'm not to blame for the slave trade, the opium wars, the Amritsar massacre, the potato famine, the boer war, or atrocities committed in Malaya or Kenya, and anyone that thinks that I should feel guilty for them because they were the responsibility of the British, is just wrong. Anyone who expects the same from Germans under the age of about 90 for the actions of the nazis is making the same mistake.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Do you want me to reply to your post just so you can see what I think and then take the opposite view.
Like I said previously I wasn't surprised when real life nazis wouldn't apologise back in the 1970's.
Many young Germans don't even know who Hitler was.

In reply to wercat:

I am not doubting any of that however in the absence of any kind of judicial ruling it is not possible to say it was illegal, just that you, and I, your professors at Durham and many others believe it was illegal. Others did and do think it was legal.
In those circumstances condemning all servicemen and women who served in Iraq as war criminals simply because they were there is not a reasonable position. Further I don't think it would be reasonable to condemn all Iraqi soldiers who invaded Kuwait as war criminals which by logical extension would be the case or Argentinian soldiers who remained in the Falklands after UN resolution 502 (I think it was 502).
Whether or not those who ordered them there are guilty of any kind of crime is a different issue and I think the poster to whom I was replying had conflated the two.

In reply to baron:


Unless you are talking exclusively about the under-twos, then that is utter rot.

In reply to baron:

Not sure what you mean...!

We do appear to have opposite views on personal feelings of guilt for past actions of a nation. But I haven't taken that position just to be in opposition to you; it's what I actually think, indeed I struggle to understand how it's possible to think otherwise...

I did think you were operating a double standard, of expecting others to display guilt but not doing so yourself, but that doesn't seem to be the case- hence my acknowledgment of your consistency.

We've managed to establish each other's positions, and keep a level of civility in the process- a result for this place, I'd say...



Cheers

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Civility, good heavens man you'll get us banned from here!

In reply to David Riley:

I'm not sure that's true. Assuming you mean benefits (not child maintenance), then this suggests otherwise:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/14/uk-can-refuse-benefits-to-u...

In reply to The New NickB:


Read it the other day and it was just right wing propaganda from cover tocover. It used to be centre right but not any more.