UKC

Very good article in that bastion of left-wing lunacy, the Financial Times:

https://www.ft.com/content/fde7616a-e6cf-11e6-967b-c88452263daf

A few standout quotes:-

"The election of Mr Trump has transformed Brexit from a risky decision into a straightforward disaster."

"Mrs May says that she wants the UK to be the champion of global free trade. But Mr Trump is the most protectionist US president since the 1930s. This is a stark clash of visions that will be much harder to gloss over"

"any trade deal with the Trump administration is likely to be hard to swallow for Britain and would involve controversial concessions on the National Health Service and agriculture."

"The reality is that the UK is now faced with a US president who is fundamentally at odds with the British view of the world."

"As it is, Britain has been thrown into the arms of an American president that the UK’s foreign secretary has called a madman."

In fact, almost every sentence is quotable!

In reply to john arran:

We're doomed I tell you, doomed....

In reply to john arran:


It has been bastion of Europhilia for forty years. Not exactly objective on the topic.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Why is that do you think?

In reply to Tyler:


Institutional prejudice I imagine

In reply to Postmanpat:

Or maybe just common sense. You know, like the telegraph 10 years ago - before it turned into a click bait factory.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Unlike The Sun or The Daily Mail or The Telegraph or The Express?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Is it telling that the only criticism you chose to make was of the messenger and not the message?

In reply to john arran:
Your link sent me to a site that requires payment.
Have you got another link?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hmmn, my Dad's new partner (a Conservative voter) came out with 'Probably some silly EU rule' when my brother recounted talking to somebody who didn't look over 18 not being allowed to buy metal BBQ skewers when he went into some hardware/DIY shop in the UK. It was quite random seeming.

The UK seems to have done okay out of trading with the EU it seems to me, with us having 46 percent of our export going there. If the FT thinks there could be harsh times ahead, it could be worth paying attention?

In reply to baron:


You're right. It seems to have been paywalled since I posted it. Sorry.

edit: maybe I should have quoted every sentence after all, while I had chance!

In reply to Postmanpat:

That's because being in the EU is a good thing.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well fair play to you, that wasn't one of the reasons I was thinking of

In reply to Postmanpat:

As opposed to individual prejudice?

In reply to john arran:

I think your quotes are sufficient!
And tell it like it is.

In reply to john arran:

There you go, have some google cache magic whilke it lasts

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1XmT5PPi6c4J:https://...

In reply to john arran:


Not really, just that the OP appeared to be an appeal to the authority of the organ as much as anything else.

As the FT, amongst others, has pointed out, Trump appears to want to use the UK as a weapon against the EU. The UK doesn't offer any real threat the the US so he he might decide to offer a reasonable deal.

We can all agree that he is unpredictable so it seems unwise to predict anything.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Thanks Mr Lopez (and Mr Arran). Not sure I really wanted to read it though.

In reply to Postmanpat:



"Sovereignty" out of the EU is great isn't it, now we are finally "free" (ahem, desperate) to be used as a vassal state of the US to screw our friends, allies, and collegues in the EU, so that we can get a (likely poor) deal with the worst US administration in living memory, a madman who advocates torture and discrimination.

It's gonna be great, I'm telling you, it's gonna be huge.

In reply to RomTheBear:

>
So we agree as usual

In reply to RomTheBear:


. . . and we're gonna have all the best deals for our friends, we have all the best deals, all the best friends.

In reply to Postmanpat:





I believe that if you read his books, he makes it a point of pride to avoid offering reasonable deals. His other literary confessions no doubt would have left old Ms May desperate to wash her hands shortly after shaking his...

In reply to john arran:

"But the Emperor Nero has now taken power in Washington — and the British are having to smile and clap as he sets fires and reaches for his fiddle."

In reply to Oldsign:

It doesnt even matter whether we get a good deal or not, who cares about trade deals anymore, this is really about whether we want to divide Europe, throw away our British values of basic decency and tolerance, for a madman, a dictator and a criminal.

Actually I think the UK will probably get a good deal with the US, because geopolitically it satisfies Trump's objectives : destroy and fragment Europe, and screw china.

Unfortunately this country put itself in an impossible position, a significant part of the population has been hoodwinked by a vile trend of anti EU, anti foreigners trend promoted by unscrupulous politicians. And in the end, they'll side with Trump.

In reply to john arran:

FT gives some of the most insightful, and unbiased, reporting and commentary of the print media in the UK.
A breath of fresh air. Unfortunately painfully expensive.

In reply to ClimberEd:



I agree. It just happens to have a bee in its bonnet about the EU.

In reply to john arran:

So we've gone from a US president who wanted to put us at the back of the queue when it came to negotiating a trade deal to one who is anxious to conclude one as soon as we have left the EU. How is this bad for us?

In reply to John2:

In Trump's own words:

" The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood,
then you’re dead!"

This is why.

Wally

In reply to John2:

How much chlorine do you like in your chicken ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

It does actually include articles arguing both ways on the EU, but the ones arguing for leaving are inevitably less persuasive...

In reply to John2:


FTFY

In reply to andyfallsoff:


You forgot the smiley

In reply to john arran:

Yes, I agree. I voted remain, but saw some strong arguments for leave as well. With changing world events, I now strongly think we need to move towards primary trade being with the EU.

If that's been my shift, it's also no doubt been that of others - so I think a rerun of the referendum given new evidence, or a General Election fought on that ticket, is necessary.

In reply to Bogwalloper:

Plainly you have studied the 'thought' of Trump more closely than I have, but I don't understand why you think that our wish to negotiate a trade deal betrays any hint of desperation.

In reply to John2:

Rushing to be the first to visit. Offering state visit. Refusing to condemn. You can't see any desparation??

In reply to Postmanpat:

Look in the mirror ?
Btw the author of this article is far from an europhile, he was strongly against the euro and always advocated for a more flexible EU.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Look in the mirror ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

The author is not even really pro-eu, seems to me his analysis of the duration is rather sensible.
And BTW he predicted long ago a shift from globalisation to the kind of zero sum economics we see emerging from Brexit and Trump.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I think he's suggesting you may have a different kind of bee...?

It goes zzub zzub zzub.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You were (or at least presented yourself as being) really quite equivocal about your leaving or remaining in the run up to the referendum but ever since June 24th you've been relentlessly negative about the EU, relentlessly hopeful about a future that currently looks at best uncertain, perhaps calamitous. Is this the price of pride, abandoning sense?
jk

In reply to RomTheBear:



Good, we agree.

In reply to jkarran:

>
No it's the price of being surprised by the emotional hysteria engendered by the vote to leave. I'd always assumed that, with the exception of a few extremists, most people could recognise that the EU is a deeply flawed institution and that the decision to stay or leave was therefore a complex one, with no simple answer. i respected that some people thought the upsides of staying outweighed the downsides.

It turns out that many remainers, if they had any sense of that complexity, have since abandoned it replaced it with a religiously dogmatic attachment to remaining and refusal to accept any of the downsides of staying or upsides of leaving.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You said before he wasn't objective ? make your mind up.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I agree but the mistake you're making is believing the referendum outcome had much if anything to do with reason. The general public are staggeringly and unashamedly ignorant, the fact we're even discussing this puts us in a little bubble of people who've taken some time to read, ask, listen and think about the issues.

Of the leave-leaning people I spoke to out campaigning I'd say 1/2 were politely dismissive, of the remainder 1/3 Instantly and generally incoherently angry: fist waving, hissing, shouting, ripping up leaflets or openly xenophobic/anti-muslim. 1/3 Had some fundamental misconception about what the EU was. 1/3 Had a reasoned argument, often very narrowly focused but they had at least made an effort.
jk

In reply to RomTheBear:


I have.

In reply to MG:

'President-elect Donald Trump has invited British Prime Minister Theresa May for a visit to the United States “as soon as possible,” according to a spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street' http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/president-elect-trump-invites-british...

'By going enthusiastically to meet him, May also allows Trump to portray himself as someone taken seriously by other leaders' https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-22/trump-poses-diplomat...

Trump sounds like the desperate one to me.

In reply to jkarran:

Do you really think that the vast bulk of remainers understood the mechanics of the EU or the arguments much beyond its stops wars Henry and Jemimah can do a year at uni in Sienna and we trade a lot? Let's face it, the vast majority, even of the educated electorate,have no more than a passing interest in or understanding of politics or economics.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, it is flawed, but objectively, rather less flawed than most western democracies, especially the UK, and a lot less flawed than a series of unnacountable, undemocratic bilateral treaties with no democratic legitimacy.

Anyway it doesn't matter as the UK is leaving the EU, I wouldn't be neccessarily against it, if the idea was to become economically more open to the rest of the world, keep freedom of movement and cooperation with our European allies and friends, and stood by human rights and basic decency.

But it seems to me we're headed in the totally opposite direction.

In reply to RomTheBear:
>
Great, we agree then!

Haven't you sorted out the Cyprus problem yet? I thought you'd almost cracked it the other day

In reply to John2:
I haven't met the man thankfully, but I think you totally misread his character. Trump will neither know nor care whether he is being taken seriously by other leaders, or indeed what anyone thinks of him; only thing he cares about is people fawning to do his bidding and massage his ego. If they don't, he discards them.

As I've said elsewhere, being in public office for the first time is the first time he has not been so much in control of the situation in his entire life. I expect there will be carpet chewing rages in the White House in the coming weeks and months as his plans go awry or get thwarted; it will be 'interesting' so see how it plays out.

In the meantime it would be good to not fall out too badly with the 500 million consumers who live 20 miles away.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I take it your changed your mind on the wisdom of Brexit then ? Because we're clearly not going in the direction you seem to agree with.

In reply to RomTheBear:


What about Cyprus?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't know, I know only the Greek Cypriot point of view because I don't interact with many Turkish Cypriots, most people I meet would be in favour of reunifying the island, especially the younger generations, but it's gonna take A LOT of give on both sides. You have to realise that pretty much everybody you meet in Cyprus have close relatives who have been displaced, lost their land and houses, or lost even lost friends and family as a result of the Turkish invasion, so unless they get some kind of compensation it's probably not going to fly.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, I don't suppose many did have a complete understanding of the EU and it's implications but then nor did I talk to many of them about their beliefs and understanding so there's not much I can say on the matter. Polling suggests they were better educated than leave voters for whatever that's worth, perhaps something, perhaps not much.
jk

In reply to RomTheBear:

>
Maybe we should make it a cause celebre for the Christian world against the Islamic imperialists?

In reply to Postmanpat:


A gobsmacking lack of awareness. Most of the arguments for staying are to exactly to do with the complexity of the situation, and the need for decades of distraction of unpicking arrangements and redrafting them to end up in a slightly worse position. The leavers are the ones spouting simplistic platitudes about trade, borders and freedom. They are also the ones remaining doggedly, wilfully blind to the fact we now have no major partners in the world we can trust, and refusing to change their position from hardline exit being the only option.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well, for once, religion is not really the problem here, never really has been as far as I understand.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

To the best of my knowledge, we intend to attempt to negotiate tariff-free trade with the EU. We will, however, also need to have a trade deal with the US. It is irrelevant how obnoxious or repugnant the president of that country is.

In reply to MG:

>
It's done. There is no point in lamenting that fact and glorifying a fictional nirvanha or an imaginary option of reverting to it.

In reply to John2:

Geopolitics and trade are interlinked. If we side with a newly ultra protectionist America that is intent on divising Europe and screwing China, chances are it's going to be more difficult to get a free trade deal with the EU, or China.
And I don't see many upsides of doing this, frankly, the UK has been really successful as a hub between Europe and the rest of the world. We have the prefect geographical position and businesses environment for that, especially as part of the single market. I'm not sure what there is to gain is turning our back on Europe to become some sort of vassal state of the US.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well it's not, actually. And there is every point in trying to minimise the potential damage by arguing for a more sensible approach.

In reply to MG:

>
Yes, there is.

In reply to John2:

Attempting is all well and good but we know full well we won't get it without accepting something like the Norwegian model. America is already a major trading partner. We're in a position of profound weakness and America has a lunatic at the helm, any deal we rush seal with America will serve party political interests, not national.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


No it isn't.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

'any deal we rush seal with America will be for party political interests, not national'

Are you claiming that it would be in our national interest not to conclude a trade deal with the US?

In reply to jkarran:


>
If it gets overturned then the problems will really start.

In reply to John2:


Well let's see what the deal looks like (if the USA is still united in 2-3 years) but quite possibly, yes if by the national interest you mean the interest of the vast majority of people in Britain, not just the already powerful and the big corporations.
jk

In reply to john arran:
"The election of Mr Trump has transformed Brexit from a risky decision into a straightforward disaster"

Seems to me that it is time for a radical change of direction. Economic indicators suggest that we were already heading for an economic downturn, brexit or no brexit. Coupled with the instability and unpredictability caused by Trump, surely this is the worst possible time to be pulling out of the EU. The government could offer something to leavers and remainers by putting forward this argument and putting it all on hold for now and hold another referendum in say about 5 years when things have settled down.

This would also allow the EU some time to get its own house in order. I think we can all agree that somethings need to change.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not if it's overturned by public will. Then we're back where we were, one bullet dodged but with a divided society and no way to heal the division which which is where we are already anyway.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Every time I wonder whether Donald Trump is the silliest man in the world I am confronted with the people who post on UKC.

In reply to jkarran:

I agree with this completely. Sadly, the opposition party doesn't, so the cautious approach stands very little chance of success.

In reply to jkarran:


And if it is overturned by a minority of the self regarding and entitled members of the out of touch liberal establishment?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Another cartoon characterisation that doesn't help.

In reply to lummox:


I'm absolutely fine with 4ppm in my drinking water day in and day out; and I'm also grateful for the up to 100ppm in the local swimming pool, so a few drops of 20ppm applied to reduce salmonella and viruses on an occasional chicken leg is 100% ok with me.

Why? Do you have a defensible objection?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You trivialise the middle-class dinner table analysis but aren't those three aspects pretty important?

Stopping wars in Europe and its immediate neighbours is not a small thing, nor should it be taken for granted. We shouldn't let even substantial issues like immigration and budgets (let alone trivial ones like details of regulation and standardisation) obscure the importance of the EU as a great philosophical and humanitarian achievement. One that we should be ashamed of not having embraced more constructively, let alone helping to dismantle.

Encouraging young people to travel and enrich their education internationally is not only civilising, it's key to enhancing our international competitiveness and countering our natural tendency to xenophobia and small-mindedness.

You think our ability to trade freely and invest internationally with, as Rob Exile Ward says, 500 million consumers living 20 miles away is unimportant? We've had a generation of Europeans who had started to forget international borders and to think, travel, trade and invest freely and without constantly having to hedge against the election cycles and short termism of national politics in individual states, confident in a continent-wide shared philosophy of free trade.

There is no possible way we can have a relationship like that with the US, and, valuable as trade with them is, it can only ever be a fraction of what we are risking by disturbing the very foundations of our post-war relationship with Europe.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Of all the things to worry about, that isn't one. There is no route other than a general election to overturn it. There are however many routes to maintaining sensible trade, movement, scientific, legal and other relationships with the EU, and not the jump into an abyss that leavers are planning. Events in US are emphasising what hardline brexiteers are really like, and you should put some distance between yourself and them, rather than continuing with the smug superiority.

In reply to MG:

>
And there we have it. Essentially the hardcore remainers, along with the liberal left, are using the Trump phenomenon to smear all brexiters and the logic behind brexit.

In reply to Postmanpat:

First I deliberately put in hardline brexiteers. Second, it is not a smear. Look at Gove and Farage's sycophancy towards Trump. The fact is there is a significant authoritarian,nationalist, anti-intellectual strand to brexit support.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Listen to yourself!
jk

In reply to jkarran:



You have to understand PMP is part of the downtrodden dispossed masses. Education, travel wealth professional standing are all mere dreams to him

In reply to Dave Garnett:


The idea that the EU is fundamental to preventing conflict in Europe was scoffed at during the referendum campaign. It seems obvious that this is largely due to western Europe having enjoyed harmonious internal relations for such a long time, the idea of major conflict within that area was pretty hard for most people nowadays to relate to. But the events unfolding across the pond must surely be a reminder of how quickly this could change if safeguards such as constitutions and the rule of law are no longer effective in keeping the peace. Unfortunately, by pulling out of the EU, the UK will lose many of these safeguards as we will no longer be bound to many of the agreements and laws that have helped maintain stability for so many decades.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


>
I'm not going to rehash the arguments that we all went through for months last year. In summary I don't believe that the EU is the reason for the absence of European wars since 1945, that young people will be unable to travel or study in Europe post brexit, or that trade will shrink.
The EU hasn't "forgotten international borders", It's simply moved them to the boundaries of the EU.

In reply to JJL:

I was being rather flippant but nevertheless, I'm glad to see you embracing your hormone fed bitch tits.

In reply to MG:


On the contrary, I'm a paid up member of the (non-horrible lefty) liberal middle class. It just doesn't mean that I have to agree with it's sense of smug superiority or despise those who are not.

In reply to John2:


My suggestion we should be skeptical of the possible outcome of our future negotiations from a position of profound self imposed weakness with an America currently hell bent on implosion makes me the silliest person in the world? Wow. Perhaps I am, I certainly can't follow your reasoning.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:

Don't do yourself down. I think you display smug superiority on here all the time.

In reply to jkarran:



Listen to yourselves! I genuinely find it astonishing.

Have you read the Andy Kilpatrick interview. This bit ring a bell?

"(Do you often read out of your comfort zone?)

I used to be a Labour supporter and was a classic liberal, read the Guardian and the Independent (I’d buy the Indi as it said ‘independent’ at the top, and so thought myself somehow intellectually sophisticated) and I bought the Socialist Worker. All my mates were professionals (doctors, teachers, academics), and nice liberal ‘fair trade’ people."

etc etc....

In reply to lummox:


Depends who I'm talking to.....

In reply to Postmanpat:

And there we have it. Essentially the hardcore brexiteers, refusing to admit the unintended consequences of their bad decisions.

Yes, of course, not all brexiteers are Trump fans (although, in all likelihood, many share the same type of views).

But brexit, whatever you think of it, was a god given gift for Trump, and it puts the UK - and the EU - in a very weak position to counter Trump.

I actually think the UK will get a very good deal with the US - as long as we pursue Trump objectives to undermine and divide our EU friends and allies on his behalf.


And unfortunately, with the populist forces and hatred against the EU and Europeans that were unleashed during the EU referendum campaign, i don't think there will be that much objection to that from the British electorate.
Now the remainers whine and cry, but eventually they'll side with the devil if it means they can get something out of it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Arguably the biggest threat to the the EU, and certainly to the Schengen ideal, is that it dismantled its internal national borders whilst not taking its external boundaries seriously enough.

In reply to MG:


Yes there is, but it doesn't mean that other strands should abandon the cause any more than mild remainers should abandon theirs because there is a strong strand of superstate anti-democrats in the EU.

In reply to Postmanpat:


at least you're a consistent tw*t

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Didn't realise that the population of Ballachulish had increased so dramatically since I was last there.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You do demean your arguments by throwing around clichéd characterisations of anyone who disagrees with you.

In reply to john arran:

Fundamental problem with that argument is that we are still an active member of NATO ( even the new USA govt has reconfirmed it's commitment). So it is questionable whether we wil lose any of those safeguards.

It can easily be argued that NATO is the source of stability.

In reply to pasbury:

It's a useful, possibly tongue in cheek, shorthand.

In reply to lummox:

Calm down dear...it's supposed to be the evil brexiters who sink to abuse.

In reply to lummox:


1. I'm completely ok with the science on GM too
2. Hormones is a different issue
3. Was there any particular need to be offensive? If you don't want a discussion and would prefer just to chuck insults, then let's just agree that you're a prick and move on and I'll save the science for the smarter end of the thread

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well I read the i, you hit that nail on the head, well done. My close friends are mostly young ish, highly educated (surprise surprise) and I'd guess broadly liberal leaning, my wider social circle like most people's is more varied. I presume you're implying if I were only as widely read as you, my social circle as broad and deep I'd have surely gravitated toward your conclusions, your world view? Perhaps I will in time.

Who is Andy Kilpatrick?
jk

In reply to JJL:

I thought the European objection was based on the significantly poorer US hygiene standards throughout the lifespan of the chicken, from "farm to fork", and the fact the chlorine wash was used as an imperfect method of removing bacteria from contaminated meat due to poor hygiene standards. I think the phrase was "an easy fix to clean up dirty meat".

Add to the above the growth hormone injected cattle, the non-labeled GM foods and the open arms of the NFU..........

In reply to JJL:

1. As a layman, with limited understanding of GMOs, I'm largely comfortable with them.
2. Again, as a layman, the prospect of bitch tit growing beef from the U.S. alarms me.
3. I don't know if you are sensitive about bitch tits but my intention wasn't to insult you.

In reply to jkarran:
>
No, my point was what comes next in that part of the interview (see below). My point wasn't the line about about reading,hence I put that in brackets. My other point is that we all, including or especially the educated liberals, tend to live in echo chambers confirming the rightness of our own views. It doesn't mean that they are right or that people who don't share them are wrong, let alone bad.


>
Are you serious? https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=9081

Here's an excerpt "After this event I sort of found the left I had followed had no real answers that made sense if you looked at the realities of life and human nature, that something was deeply wrong with everyone like me, that we were disarming ourselves and lived in some false reality."

In reply to galpinos:


Indeed. But that's not the objection being bandied about - which is uninformed hysteria about the risks of chlorine (which we also use to wash meat - it's in the tap water at 4ppm).

And before we get all outraged by US poultry production we should probably ask ourselves where the hell all the UK chickens are? Where are they? We eat millions every week. There ought to be fields and fields of them. But we don't see them. The answer is they are in boxes indoors - and that is at least as important a food sourcing issue as whether 4ppm or 20ppm chlorine is used as a wash.

In reply to lummox:



"embrace your homone fed bitch tits" is what you said. hard ot see how it's not

In reply to JJL:


Maybe we just need to help inform people why it's an issue then?


I agree with the above but that is no reason to wind back sensible legislation already in place, we can leave that legislation there AND look at UK poultry production standards.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No it's not, you are doing precisely what you accuse, for example, remain supporters of doing in characterising leavers as stupid or uninformed.

In reply to pasbury:


Except that I didn't single out remainers. I added them to the ignorant leavers. I concluded, "Let's face it, the vast majority, even of the educated electorate,have no more than a passing interest in or understanding of politics or economics."

In reply to Postmanpat:



Kirk, not kil Patrick


You're not making much sense. "The left don't speak to many so let's go for nationalistic, xenophobic vassal statehood" doesn't really convince me.

In reply to neilh:



I presume you're referring to the agreement that NATO will come to the aid of any attacked NATO member state. But the situation most likely following a hypothetical break-up of the EU is that the nations involved would both be NATO members, and it may not be completely clear (in this evolving world of spin) which is the aggressor. In which case I'm not sure how useful NATO would be in acting after the fact compared to the self-interested role of the EU in actively working to prevent any such situation between member states from evolving and deteriorating to that point in the first place.

In reply to john arran:

You are ignoring Russia as being the likely source of instability. That is a far stronger bet than say Germany invading Poland.

In reply to neilh:


Not sure how enthusiastic Trump is about NATO, my reading of the love-in with Theresa was that he pointedly didn't say anything while she said he supported it 100%. I suspect he had his tiny fingers crossed behind his enormous arse.

In reply to MG:

>
Ah yes. Kilpatrick was my ex boss!

>
I don't follow your grammar.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

>
So it's really just a question of scale, not principle.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I was paraphrasing your apparent position.

In reply to neilh:

I'm not ignoring it, it just isn't relevant to the point being made. The threat of attack by non-NATO state, and the safeguards against it, would remain pretty much unchanged. However, I could easily imagine rapid escalation of tensions if, without an EU, one European country went into Trump-mode and its neighbour felt threatened and felt that it needed to take action, non-militarily at first, of course. The hypothetical details aren't important; what is important is that individual nation states with different ideologies would be able to get to the point of conflict far more easily if they weren't both part of an EU.

In reply to MG:


Still don't understand the grammar but anyway I don't recognise the paraphrase.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm not such an impractical idealist as to think we can abolish all borders in the foreseeable future but we can start by thinking regionally rather than narrowly and nationally within Europe. Even that is too much for many people, obviously.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


It appears to have practical difficulties that were not envisioned in terms of security and migration.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You think this is news to me? We all live in bubbles but exposure to life and ideas outside of those bubbles doesn't change us all in the same way, we won't all walk the same path you or Kirkpatrick have to the same conclusions. You appear to assume anyone educated who has not concluded the same as you has simply not had access to the same data, that their liberal ideals, their qualms about unfettered capitalism are weakness built on a naive unwillingness to see, built on ignorance. That might be true but I don't see compelling evidence for it. Perhaps you and Kirkpatrick see further and clearer than me because you're smarter, that too is possible.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


It shouldn't be a question of principle, nor scale
It should be simply a case of being pragmatic. Having open borders with countries that accept to reciprocate and have similar standards of living and have a very similar culture and standards totally makes sense, as it is the case within the EU, or for example, between Scotland and England.

In reply to RomTheBear:


>
Once again, we almost agree

In reply to jkarran:
We are probably all wrong to varying degrees.

What I was getting at above that PMP didn't follow is a) what is fundamentally wrong with liberal democracy, rule of law and cooperating states and b) how does nativism, splitting apart etc help people who leave feel left behind by a). I understand people feel left out by society but fail to see the attraction of the nationalist right. Is the attachment to a) so loose that after 70 years of stability, and health and wealth never before seen that the moment it fails to give ever increasing benefits it is abandoned?

In reply to RomTheBear:
Do you really think that the UK has a similar standard of living and culture compared to Bulgaria, Romania, etc?

In reply to baron:


Once Gove gets his bonfire of regulation...give it time.

In reply to baron:


Have you ever been?
jk

In reply to baron:

What's a standard of culture?

In reply to MG:
Didn't you pay attention in school?
Or are you today's grammar nazi?
You know what I meant.
Now stop clogging up my bandwidth and let Rom give us the answer.

In reply to baron: ?


I've no idea what you meant. Are you saying you think we are culturally superior?

In reply to MG:
Not superior but different.

In reply to baron:

I was in Romania fairly recently in fact.
Culturally : same shit as everywhere else in Europe. In fact, most of Europe is very similar culturally, which should not come to the surprise of anybody who paid attention to A level history classes.

As for standard of living, well, the difference between Romania and the UK is barely wider than the difference of standard of living between regions of the UK, and the gap is closing.

In reply to baron:

OK, so we may have some cultural differences, but neither is better - what is your point?

In reply to john arran:

So can you be a bit more specific about which countries you think would go down that route. The biggest threat at the moment is Russia having a pop at Estonia etc.

In reply to baron:

I would say the differences are not nearly as wide as you think, and certainly not much wider than differences within the UK.
Unsuprisigly, EU nationals have integrated remarkably well in the UK, a lot better, arguably, that many non-eu immigrants communities who came to the uk long before.

In reply to jkarran:

People can have the same information and interpret it differently. Many on both sides simply don't have the information and that often explains their views. (No doubt a professor of politics or economics would regard us all on here as ignorant.) But of coourse there are plenty of informed "metropolitan lefties" out there and on here.

What those, like Cohen, Phillips or Andrews ( or Kirkpatrick?) remark on when they break away from their liberal cocoon is the peer group pressure and moral condemnation by their former friends. For psychological reasons it therefore becomes very hard to challenge the consensus or make the break. I've lost count of the number of times I have heard brexiters (or Tories) being condemned as ignorant or nasty. Easier for people to keep quiet and go with their peer group.

That, by the way doesn't make, brexiters or Conservatives uniquely independent, brave or clever. It may just mean they exist in a different (but often less condemnatory) peer group.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>. It may just mean they exist in a different (but often less condemnatory)

You are trolling? "Enemies of the people"? Bootrock? Your posts on this thread about the smug elites!?

In reply to MG:


>
It's a straw man in terms of the comments it emanated from. The issue was not, as I remember, about whether many peoples' reasons for voting to leave are illogical. IT was about the attitude of the liberal left to the vote and to overturning it (from memory!)

In reply to neilh:


I already suggested that the particular countries involved isn't important, as going down that route would quickly lose the point I was making. Nobody - or almost nobody - was predicting the kind of constitutional crisis the US is shaping up to be in very soon if Trump keeps going the way he is now, so just because countries seem to get on ok right now is no guarantee they'd stay that way given the enormous divisions in society we're seeing opening up at frightening speed.

And you've already made your Russia point and I've already responded to it, so I don't see any point in doing so again.

In reply to wynaptomos:




What an eminently sensible idea.

However, there are a couple of things that you have neglected to mention.

1) Farage and the Daily Mail mob would be frothing at the mouth, saying that it was tantamount to treason and calling for civil unrest..

2) For the EU to get it's house in order, I think it has to ditch the failed euro project and I'm afraid to say, it will never do that. See the Mark Blyth links on my "Watershed" thread:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=657456&v=1#x8486968

In reply to andyfallsoff:
It was a reply to Rom who was attempting to make the case for close cooperation between countries because they were very similar. I was pointing out that many EU countries are quite different.

In reply to john arran:

I would like to see some meat on the bone about your point of view and for you to suggest the countries in Europe which may go down your route.Just interested.

The USA issue has been brewing for some time, it has not come out of the blue( unless people have been totally ignoring over the last few years what has been going on there).

Yes I do keep harping on about Russia, good old Putin must be rubbing his hands in glee...it's not good.Next plan- turf Merkel out- and he has a free hand.

In reply to neilh:


Hungary, for instance? Even Poland.

In reply to baron:

Do countries have to be similar to cooperate?

In reply to andyfallsoff:
No.
But failing to recognise and acknowledge those differences can lead to a discontent within countries, some of whom might then become so disaffected that they express a wish for less cooperation.

In reply to neilh:


I can't speak for John but it's quite conceivable that in two years time we will have got nowhere finding common ground with the EU and the UK will be entering a tax slashing trade war with one or more of Europe's big economies, a situation that will impoverish one or both parties and could easily escalate. That almost certainly wouldn't be happening were we remaining within the EU. If the EU fragments further the scope for similar conflict grows.
jk

In reply to baron:


Funny, I've always been far more struck by the similarities than the differences. Perhaps we come from and have been to very different places, perhaps it's just how we each see the world.
jk

In reply to neilh:
A great book on the geopolitics of the region: http://amzn.to/2dk9TZe

Putin wants a warm water port to project naval power - hence the takeover of the Crimean peninsular. Historically, the Russians have pumped lots of people in to Ukraine - people still loyal to Russia. Putin is currently funding and arming these rebels.

With the US withdrawing from global political interventions, and with Putin funding Trump (and Le Pen and Wilders etc....), expect him to be allowed to proceed unperturbed within the next four years:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38807778

In reply to jkarran:

So based on recent history it looks like another war with Germany...is that what people are saying?

i can understand the comments if Yugolavia was still togethter. And as for Greece/Turkey - well things have moved on, and besides we are talking one country which is outside the EU, so its not the same.. But I am wondering what other hotspots for a miltiary conflict within the EU people envisage.

Please enlighten me, I am really struggling on this.

In reply to Shani:

We agree.

In reply to baron:

Funny that, having lived and worked in 5 different EU countries since I was a teenager, my personal feeling is that they all think they are so different, but really, they aren't.
There are differences, but they're not as big as you think, and more importantly, differences almost as wide already exist within the UK itself.

In reply to neilh:


Another war between the UK and Germany? I wouldn't expect that.

In reply to neilh:

If the UK and the US engage in a trade war with the EU, and make an unholy alliance with Putin to push Europe to its limits, with degrading economic environment due to ill advised economic policies and protectionism, I certainly wouldn't rule out escalation and full scale armed conflict. It happened multiple times before.

Most people seem to think it's unlikely, well I think it would be very naive to discount that possibility.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think that is a possible scenario, but still (at the moment) unlikely.

More likely would seem to be proxy-conflicts - Putin engages in some aggression in one of the Balkan states; and different factions aid the differing sides (e.g. EU nations assist whichever country is the subject of the Russian aggression, and the US assists Russia. The UK is stuck in the middle).

In reply to neilh:

I deliberately didn't take your bait because the inference I took from it is, at best, unhelpful to the discussion, but you're obviously keen to labour the point, so I'll explain further.

Just because nobody is predicting or envisaging a serious international dispute between EU nations at present doesn't mean one couldn't develop, and as I said upthread recent events have shown that things can move extremely quickly at the moment given the degree to which emotions are being whipped up by all sorts of political and media groups. Nobody was predicting 3 years ago that millions of Americans would be fearful for their constitution within a month of a new president taking office. Who's to say that something similar, or worse, couldn't happen in any European country, not least the UK. And how might that be viewed by their neighbours?

Not only that, but the discussion is also a hypothetical one based on countries no longer being part of the EU and benefiting from the harmonising and moderating influence that brings. So to judge the state of EU countries' stability and inter-relations if not in the EU, based on their current stability and inter-relations while in the EU, seems like it's wilfully ignoring what could well be very real potential for inter-nation strife if the EU was no longer in place.

In reply to RomTheBear:
There are undoubtedly differences, both economic and cultural, between areas of the UK and as human beings we do share certain things with the people of other countries.
However, there remain many differences, many of them major, within the EU and to state otherwise is to ignore the history of those countries. Some would be OK with this while others are quite rightly very proud of their heritage and do not wish to become assimilated into a greater europe. We should be celebrating our diversity not playing it down.

http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/GB/RO

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/290

I haven't checked the veracity of these websites so I could be wrong.

In reply to john arran:
" Who's to say that something similar, or worse, couldn't happen in any European country"

it did happen, in Europe, in the 90s, in the Balkans, a bit over 25 years ago.

In reply to neilh:
fisheries. shots were fired. Captain Kirk. In the 70s

In reply to baron:



It's not ignoring the history of those countries, on the contrary, British history is an integral part of the history of Europe. Unfortunately it is taught in Britain with an Anglo-centric perspective, which is a shame.

The diversity of Europeans culture is indeed to be celebrated, but I don't really see that as an obstacle at all to having a common democratic platform to resolve those differences through consensus and compromise, something that has very obviously cruelly lacked in the past.
Isn't the EU's motto "union in diversity" ?

The reality is that European countries have very strong national identities, built on powerful national myths and political rewriting of history, a problem particularly acute in Great Britain, where these old habits have never been overturned by national defeats and political collapse.
But the cultural differences are actually not that wide, certainly not much wider that the differences within the countries themselves. There is more in common between an Irish person and a Polish person than there is between an Englander and a Scot.

I'll suggest "Europe: a history" by Norman Davies. A fascinating read. Eye opening really.

In reply to baron:


You could check it with a holiday in Romania. Trust me, straight up advice without sarcasm or agenda: as an outdoors enthusiast you'd absolutely love it, the place is fabulous and friendly and really not that unfamiliar.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

You mean the place isn't overrun by gypsies and there isn't an orphanage full of neglected toddlers on every corner?

Well I never.

In reply to baron:


You have heard that France and Germany are still different places? As long as they are still involved in the EU I don't think the British had anything to worry about.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I always like to remember that our country is named after an area of Germany....

Cheers
Mark

In reply to JMarkW:

There's a Scotland in Germany ?

In reply to Doug:

You got me there Doug.

Part of our United Kingdom......

Cheers
Mark

In reply to RomTheBear:

>[...] There is more in common between an Irish person and a Polish person than there is between an Englander and a Scot.


Could you give me an example of some things that I wouldn't have in common with a Scot, that a Pole would have in common with an Irish citizen?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

bit trivial but assuming you are English, maybe religion? - Poles & Irish most likely to be catholic, English to be Anglican & Scots to be Church of Scotland

In reply to RomTheBear:

I will take up your reading recommendation at some time. Apart from the religious issue between Ireland and Poland and the odd invasion by neighbours, I am at a loss to come up with anything else common between Ireland and Poland.Can you expand?

In reply to Doug:

I spend a lot of time in Ireland as I have extended Irish family. I've a lot of friends over there. The overlaps in English and Irish culture are vast and deeply interconnected.

Of course this is to be expected as we are neighbouring countries and borders are never as hard lines on a map suggest. They're porous and cultural boundaries are always blurry.

The branding that marketeers and politicians put on what it means to be <insert national stereotype here> are consistently bollocks.

In reply to Doug:

I did think of that, but that was about the only thing I could think of.

It's quite likely the Irishman follows a premier league side, or that the Scot reads the Independent. The Englishman and the Scot are both just as likely to watch the 6 O'Clock news on the BBC. English, Scots, Welsh and Irish have a long shared history, we've fought against each other and for each other, and there's still tension amongst a proportion of the population. We have a common language (for the English, just the one) None of which really applies to Poland (apart from WW2 when the free Polish were on our side).

In reply to neilh:

As you said, both countries have a large, devoted catholic population, not only that but it's the same strand of Catholicism. Both went through the same struggle for independence through the 19th century, to the point that the polish struggle became a cause celebre for Irish nationalists, a position that was at odds with the rest of Western Europe.
There are many similarities between the Irish and Polish experience, that you don't find between England and Ireland. In their outlook and character and social structures, the Poles and the Irish are very similar, it's almost uncanny. This is often noted as an example by european historiographers.

Don't get me wrong all European countries are different, but in many regards those differences are often as wide within the countries themselves.
Even politically, it's easy to see that for example Scotland and Ireland have more in common in their attitude to Europe than between Scotland and England.