unbeliever Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) 2 points. 1. It's not a civil war. 2. It was not started by the EU. In my judgement the EU provoked it. I'm going to look up civil war in the dictionary as I've clearly misunderstood it. What's it called when a government is shelling its own people? Edited June 17, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 So your expert university professor is saying much the same as the UKIP MEP, who didn't have to visit the wizard of OZ.Is that your best? Colour me unimpressed. And, unsurprisingly, unconvinced. We'll see what happens after April 1 2017, unless we are out before. You may look booLish. We will indeed, and see who looks what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havanaclub Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) In my judgement the EU provoked it. I'm going to look up civil war in the dictionary as I've clearly misunderstood it. What's it called when a government is shelling its own people? How did they provoke it, by offering a trade deal? What's it called when Russian artillery moves from Russia into another country, firing from that territory, into the local population? War crimes and collateral damage happen on both sides, but the responsibility for those war crimes and civilian deaths rest on the shoulders of the aggressor. Edited June 17, 2015 by Havanaclub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 How did they provoke it, by offering a trade deal? What's it called when Russian artillery is moves from Russia into another country, firing from that territory, into the local population? War crimes and collateral damage happen on both sides, but the responsibility for those war crimes and civilian deaths rest on the shoulders of the aggressor. I'm certainly not defending the actions of Russia. Of course Russia has acted very wrongly and rightly been condemned for it. But we're not discussing a political union with Russia. If the EU had not gone out of its way to encourage western looking politicians in the Ukraine to build stronger ties to the EU, (and look toward future membership) and weaken ties with Russia, would the Russian population have been so provoked. It was no secret that the Ukraine was very divided on these matters. At the very least it's a massive diplomatic blunder by the EU which has cost a great many lives and destabilised the region. The Ukraine, despite its divisions, was reasonably stable before the Eu waded in. So much for the EU being a force for peace. P.S. The responsibility for war crimes must always be placed on those committing them. Anything else would be morally indefensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 In my judgement the EU provoked it. I'm going to look up civil war in the dictionary as I've clearly misunderstood it. What's it called when a government is shelling its own people? No the EU didn't provoke it............Putin provoked it by sending in proxies to annex Crimea,and then on to Donbass,where they took over civic buildings by force and declared independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 You're forgetting that the only objective analysis presented (linked here be me) makes it clear that there will be no such doom and gloom arising from Brexit. I am forgetting? You couldn't make this up. Peeing in a violin indeed, as I suspected. When you start considering the tempering "tough choices" mentioned in the objective analysis which you linked (and yes, as analyses go, I did find it reasonably objective indeed), I'll start paying you some more attention. In the meantime, as you continue to misrepresent the contents of this objective analysis and to wilfully ignore the logical effects of the "tough choices" which that analysis clearly posits as required to mitigate UK GDP loss, you're in danger of coming across delusional. On top of that, if one parliament makes bad decisions we, the people, can replace them. Wouldn't it be nice to have that back?How is the UK Parliament going to legislate about £0,50 an hour foreign competition for manufacturing and services labour, pray tell? With tariffs? These attract reciprocal effects, you know. And once the UK is out of the EU, it's not as if we'll have our "EU member state" big stick to wield for mitigating the extent of the reciprocity. Nobody credible is suggesting that we'd compete with developing countries for labour costs any more than we do now. That's not how it works. It's rather preposterous to suggest it. We'd keep our pay higher by keeping our skills higher and infrastructure better the way we always have.You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, in the real current world, us service private sector types are very happy to have the EU's non-tariff barriers in place. If you really do have a link to an independent expert analysis actually predicting serious economic problems, please post the link. I can't trawl through this entire site trying to find it.I'm not reposting it, it's there in post #367. Don't strain yourself with the couple of clicks needed to go get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 That's a very long way from the idea that they'd resist a free trade deal with an independent UK. That's not what any of the experts say. It is ridiculous to suggest that the EU wouldn't trade with an independent UK as they've already emphatically stated otherwise. The independent studies I can find suggest that Brexit would be neutral at worst. I asked this before, but I'll try again. I posted a link to the one of the expert studies I'm taking my facts from. Where's your link? If I don't get one, I'm going to assume that you're just making things up. Of course the EU would want to trade with an independent UK, but the bargaining position of each party will be based on their financial clout - so, who will get the best deal in that situation. Also, what stops the EU from saying to any of its trading partners "if you want to trade with us, you need to comply with the following directives... etc, etc. And these need not just be the sort of directives that covers the design to equipment, it can include all the environmental ones that you think we should steer clear of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I'm certainly not defending the actions of Russia. Of course Russia has acted very wrongly and rightly been condemned for it. But we're not discussing a political union with Russia. If the EU had not gone out of its way to encourage western looking politicians in the Ukraine to build stronger ties to the EU, (and look toward future membership) and weaken ties with Russia, would the Russian population have been so provoked. It was no secret that the Ukraine was very divided on these matters. At the very least it's a massive diplomatic blunder by the EU which has cost a great many lives and destabilised the region. The Ukraine, despite its divisions, was reasonably stable before the Eu waded in. So much for the EU being a force for peace. P.S. The responsibility for war crimes must always be placed on those committing them. Anything else would be morally indefensible. Yanukovich was ready to sign agreements with the EU before Putin stepped in to destabilise them and offer Yanukovich cheap gas to keep Ukraine within the sphere of Russian influence and dependent on Russia for gas. Ukrainians wanted out of Russian sphere of influence,they wanted less Russian values and more EU values,that was all the point of filling the centre of Kiev for weeks on end.Ukraine is an independent country,and quite at liberty to decide what agreements it has with other countries without Putin interfering..........Putin had for months previously put 'conditions' on Ukraine exports to Russia in order to disrupt them as punishment for Ukraine wanting to decide what it did as a sovereign country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 In my judgement the EU provoked it. I'm going to look up civil war in the dictionary as I've clearly misunderstood it. What's it called when a government is shelling its own people? Don't be daft. Seriously. Edit: Also, what is up with your signature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) I'm not reposting it, it's there in post #367. Don't strain yourself with the couple of clicks needed to go get it. Found it. Thanks. I'll have a read... Done. That was nice and brief. They've somehow managed to exclude all the positive factors included in the analysis I linked to. They've not mentioned them at all, even to dismiss them. How do you suppose that happened? It's essentially an analysis of the effect on trade with the EU. If that's the only factor in consideration, it's hardly surprising that it's come out more negative is it? ---------- Post added 17-06-2015 at 14:14 ---------- Yanukovich was ready to sign agreements with the EU before Putin stepped in to destabilise them and offer Yanukovich cheap gas to keep Ukraine within the sphere of Russian influence and dependent on Russia for gas. Ukrainians wanted out of Russian sphere of influence,they wanted less Russian values and more EU values,that was all the point of filling the centre of Kiev for weeks on end.Ukraine is an independent country,and quite at liberty to decide what agreements it has with other countries without Putin interfering..........Putin had for months previously put 'conditions' on Ukraine exports to Russia in order to disrupt them as punishment for Ukraine wanting to decide what it did as a sovereign country. The trouble is that only half the Ukranians wanted it. ---------- Post added 17-06-2015 at 14:14 ---------- Edit: Also, what is up with your signature? You don't like it? Edited June 17, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts