Phanerothyme Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Nope. I don't think I even mentioned NATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 NATO has nothing to do with the EU. Were you confusing the two? NATO was organised to keep the USA in Europe, and to stop it doing what it did after WW1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Nope. I don't think I even mentioned NATO. True; but you did post a deliberate act to make war much more difficult, by increasing interdependency and integratio, - which is largely a function of NATO (itself not a political quasi-nation construct or superstate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 If you really do believe that Germany and France would happily pay more money towards the EU at our expense we will have to disagree then. Also if you believe that being part of the largest exporter, the largest importer of goods and services, and the biggest trading partner to the United States, China and India isn't beneficial then again we'll have to disagree. Individual nation states trade with India, China, USA, Brazil etc. not the EU as a whole. Take this example. Note, it is President Sarkozy doing the handshake, not an EU beurocrat, because the deal is with France, not the EU. All of the states of the EU already trade individually with all those countries outside the EU, the only thing they have in common are the various import/export duties set by the EU. Take a look at these: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10783485 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10784317 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10784615 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10785734 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10790222 That's right, our very own Prime Minister on a trade mission to India, not an EU beurocrat on our behalf. The EU, without UK contributions, will simply have to cut their cloth. Perhaps they should look at how much they subsidise the agricultural sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 True; but you did post a deliberate act to make war much more difficult, by increasing interdependency and integratio, - which is largely a function of NATO (itself not a political quasi-nation construct or superstate). NATO isn't the organisation that sought to bring former enemy countries together in political union starting 10 years after the end of WWII. NATO is the embodiment of a mutual defence treaty against the perceived Soviet threat. I thought everyone knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I thought it was a deliberate act to make war much more difficult, by increasing interdependency and integration, and nothing to do with prosperity except as a by product of peaceful coexistence. Correct me if wrong, I think what you are referring to is the purpose of the original EU (can't remember what it was, EC, ECC or the like) which was to limit the production of thing like steel, so that European countries would simply not have the materials to go to war with each other. In effect to prevent an arms race in Europe as happened before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Correct me if wrong, I think what you are referring to is the purpose of the original EU (can't remember what it was, EC, ECC or the like) which was to limit the production of thing like steel, so that European countries would simply not have the materials to go to war with each other. I'd never heard that one, to be perfectly honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Correct me if wrong, I think what you are referring to is the purpose of the original EU (can't remember what it was, EC, ECC or the like) which was to limit the production of thing like steel, so that European countries would simply not have the materials to go to war with each other. In effect to prevent an arms race in Europe as happened before. "The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was founded in 1951 and established as a sovereign entity by the Treaty of April 18, 1951, by France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands to pool the steel and coal resources of its member-states. The purpose of the ECSC under the treaty was to aid the development of the economies of the member-states through the creation of a common market for coal and steel..." The ECSC was not designed to limit the production of coal and steel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 "Is it time for Britain to get out of the EU" Thats a strange question. Why should we? And why 'is it time', as if it has to happen sooner or later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Blimey ! If Britain leaves the EU and Scotland leaves the UK what's next? Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Notts all wanting independence? Another Yugoslavia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.