Conscription is the making of many but, to others, it can destroy them especially if you don't fit in with what is expected of you. I don't think it would of done me any good as a young man.

What I meant to say was that the EU has brought us closer together and over the past 60 yeas we have not fought another country in the EU. I know there has been the Balkan crisis, but would that of happened if Yugoslavia had been in the EU. No it wouldn't of.

All I'm trying to say is that we need to also consider the security being in EU gives us, that 'perhaps' we can take for granted?

cheers
Dave

IMO, I for one do not want all this

Wayne

The thinking of the other states seem much closer even if it is a case of Germany making the rules, France ignoring the rules, Italy promissing to eventually look at the rules and Spain not knowing the rules even exist. The history and hence attitude are different. They should probably want rid of us putting the brakes on their plans too.

You can make treaties with the EU even if no a member. Iceland and Norway joined Shengen as non members while The UK and Ireland stayed out.


Andy

Yes, it's easy to forget - particularly after 70 yrs of peace - how destructive of everything Euro rivalry was in the 70 yrs between 1870 and the 1940's. Many tens of millions killed, hundreds of millions wounded or their lives destroyed and world class economies demolished. Anything that prevents that happening again was, and is, in my opinion, worth trying. The American approach - unification at the end of a civil war gun barrel, wasn't really going to work in Europe after such a catastrophic period of conflict.

The only alternative people in the early 1950's could see was to intertwine the economies of two of the main players, France and Germany, to the extent that large scale future armed conflict between them would be impossible. The European Coal and Steel Community that half a dozen countries (not inc the UK) signed up to in 1951 was the first manifestation of that idea but the Schuman Declaration that brought it about also had other aims:


It would mark the birth of a united Europe.

It would make war between member states impossible.

It would encourage world peace.

It would transform Europe in a 'step by step' process (building through sectoral supranational communities) leading to the unification of Europe democratically, unifying two political blocks separated by the Iron Curtain.

It would create the world's first supranational institution.

It would create the world's first international anti-cartel agency.

It would create a common market across the Community.

It would, starting with the coal and steel sector, revitalise the whole European economy by similar community processes.

It would improve the world economy and the developing countries, such as those in Africa

(thanks to Wikipedia for the details)

OK there's nothing in there about much of the stuff we're squabbling over at the moment but it's easy to see how, step by step, we've ended up where we are. There's no denying it's achieved its major aim of preventing further Eurowars (although you could argue other factors would have done that anyway) but whether we (the UK) should just abandon it it all at this stage, possibly bringing the whole thing down around our ears as we go (although I think that's unlikely) is at the core of this.

If you start a process of unification - even for the best of motives, you can't really complain if it heads in that direction. Churchill offered the French unification between themselves and the UK when the Germans were invading in 1940. They declined but we could be living in unified "Frangland" or something at the moment had they taken up his offer.

..out, Out, OUT!!!

NATO is a political alliance
 

I would have to disagree.

The primary guarantor of European security post WW2 has been, and remains, NATO.

That is one of the reasons that the EU bureaucrats aim to raise a European armed force which, put simply, would provide a capability outside of the current US-led chain of command.
Compared with the EU, NATO runs a "very tight ship" and is professionally competent in what it does; that is not to say that NATO does not have issues but so does every organisation.

It was NATO that entered the Balkans in the 1990s once the blue berets had arrived at their own impasse, as the UN tends to do sooner or later.
Many people do not recognise that NATO is a political alliance with a military arm; it is that simple in geo-political terms.

One of the first things we were taught in economics was that whilst the rules of 'supply and demand' were normally king, exceptions had to be made with strategic industries and the example given was steel. If there's a war and you have no steel plants you are 'up the Suwannee without a paddle'. Same applies to shipyards—we are a maritime nation after all.

Oh so true, but you missed the bit about Britain not getting to the rules it wants and instead having to obey rules it didn't want.

I also have an ill feeling about the power wielded by Angela Merkel who appears to be a rule unto herself. She unilaterally decides to throw open the borders of Germany to what we now realise are predominantly young male economic migrants, and then a couple of months later is trying to force other countries to shoulder the burden. WTF.

An ill-fated attempt to stiffen their spine. Nice bit of history trivia and not well known. :thumbup1:

Churchill sacrificed the 51st Highland Division to try to keep the French going after Dunkirk and my father-in-law spent the next five years as a POW.

It must have been pretty much concurrently that the British fleet in the mediterranean sank the French fleet lying at anchor once there was a possibility that it would throw it's weight behind the Vichy government that ruled in part of France.
French troops in the french overseas colonies also needed to have their palms read with regard to where their loyalties should lie, once the Republic collapsed.

Countries do not have eternal friends, only interests.

My various readings of that period point toward the Prussians as lying at the heart of the issues that the united Germany has experienced.
Germany is a young nation in truth.

Some commentary from the continent says that Frau Merkel will not be in post by sometime later this year.

Nowadays, I see very little possibility of a major intra-Europe conflict; there are many reasons to think this, not least the full integration that has taken place of business and industry practices across Europe.
Then, there are the respective populations of the nations who simply would not sign up to kill each other, putting it bluntly.

I think it was said earlier; while it is useful to remember past history, the future may not be exactly the same; WW2 did not follow the pattern of WW1, even though the invading force in the west used the very same Schliffen plan that had been in place for WW1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan

You must have been on vacation Neo-nazi London protest - Recap as far-right demonstrate against the 'Jewification' of Britain hits capital - Mirror Online


Explainer: The Rise of Neo-Nazism in Europe : Discovery News

:offtopic: Anglo French relations in autumn 1940 were indeed bad. My Grandfather was part of the cavalry division in Palestine and actually charged the French on horseback. More 1855 than 1940. This as the highlight of a military career than included time in the citadel in Cairo. He said the Sean Connery film" the hill" was accurate enough, in a toned down so as not to make you throw up sort of way. The old boy said motorbikes and going abroad would get me killed doh


Back on topic I think this will divide the generations. Many who got to vote for the EEC feel cheated it wasn't just a trade deal. My generation feel cheated we didn't get to vote before. The youngsters don't care, they never knew life before the EU. The timing of the vote is critical, Jacques Delors would have got a 90% out vote, if they'd left it until 2025 the turn out would have been less than for the usual European stuff.

Andy

Shrek I probably was, but I'm guessing there were a hell of alot of people trying to get at them, if similar demos elsewhere are any indication.
Still voting out though :innocent:

I got told many times (late 60's /early 70's) that going abroad on a motorbike would get me killed. I wasn't sure whether I should have been looking out for leftover Nazis still hiding out in the mountains, Japanese style, or whether it was going to be the formless and lawless void that constituted everywhere other than half a dozen countries of the empire and (possibly) the USA. that would get me. I'm still not sure about the USA :rofl:

Re the "outs" being older and vici versa, I know it's not Mori but a straw poll I did last night at the over 60's keep fit club I instruct at had a majority in favour of staying in. OK it's only 10 or 15 people but even so there would seem to be some element of "age shall not weary them" when it comes to this stuff. Presumably post referendum they'll do some kind of breakdown as to how different groups voted and it'll be interesting to see if there was an age divide.

as close as it gets?
 

I mentioned before I do believe it is an age thing with older people more likely to want to leave the EU than the younger ones. Here is a link to a government PDFwhich attempts to profile age, social clas and education levels of those wanting to stay in and those wanting to leave. It is by no means comprehensive or conclusive as any poll in the run up to the general election in the UK this year proves. Enjoy.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...qCykQQ&cad=rja

From last year:
EU's 'Five Presidents' lay out eurozone vision, with timetable | EurActiv

To be done and dusted by 2025.