do you think the EU will collapse?

[Theodarzna]

As a last resort, yes.

I await the day to see when that happens, I suspect you won't, after all everyone is an ultra-brave badass on the internet.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt David Lammy's opinion on anything is common, even he seems astounded at his own stupidity.

The Borderlands between Lammy's idiotic statement and what Djalil said are grey and fuzzy. After all, why is it that when I point out that the EU has no founding war, the instant response is "But WW2! WW1!" when as a point of fact that wasn't why either war was fought and we all know it but psychologically it seems people always want that to BE the founding wars.

Is there a lot of difference between Lammy's dumb ass position and Djalil's reflexive answer about WW1 and WW2? If anything I can draw a straight line from what Djalil said to what Lammy's said and wonder how many now simply assume that is how it went down.

[Deleted]

Via careful historical revisionism perhaps, but I did say, and concur with @Kuntantee, "EU identity is created in prosperity and convenience. It will be forgotten when the very convenience and prosperity that created it ceases to exist. There is a reason why national identities persist; they are forged in hardship." The political and intellectual elite decided to quietly create a new State, exactly how it solves any problems that created warfare is unknown since ultimately if it worked it would just mean Europe vs. Non-Europe, but still that isn't something that will endure IMHO. In fact with Brexit it has already shown it doesn't have the people's loyalty. Thus, as crisis' get worse, and leadership makes increasingly odd calls, I suspect the EU will simply tare itself apart.

I look at the EU as State attempting to buy peoples loyalty, the United States has the advantage of a populace that are loyal because of blood and sacrifice. Since 1776 all wars that fought and all who fought, fought for the United States, people are willing to die for this project over here. Would you pick up a gun for the EU?

There is no revisionism. That is actually what happened.

The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), formed by the Inner Six countries in 1951 and 1958, respectively.

Let's see what this ECSC was:

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was an international organisation serving to unify certain Continental European countries after World War II. It was formally established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, which was signed by Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The ECSC was the first international organisation to be based on the principles of supranationalism,[2] and would ultimately lead the way to the founding of the European Union.

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"[3] which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step. The Treaty would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states which served to neutralise competition between European nations over natural resources, particularly in the Ruhr.

So as we can see, the EU was born out of war. That comment from Kuntantee is wrong. Somewhat stereotypical even. "Rich Europeans what would THEY know".
The EU was created at a time of deep struggle, AIMING at prosperity and convenience. Something they largely achieved.
Brexit is nothing remarkable. Stop making a major issue out of it. Brexit is a populist vote achieved through a very aggressive campaign in a political and economical unstable scenario. It really isn't a "voice of the oppressed " or anything. It's a populist vote that will have its consequences.
You see this "blinding patriotism" of the US as a beneficial thing. Look at the state their country is in. They have the most resources, the best geographical location, an incredible pool of talented people and yet look at their political scenario, look at their rampart corporativism and last but not least look at their failure in creating a state that actually PROTECTS its people.

Would I pick a gun for the EU? I feel we have reached a level of education that makes you think about such a delicate question without blind patriotism at play.
To me, that's much more of a success than anything else.

[Mayhem]

I await the day to see when that happens, I suspect you won't, after all everyone is an ultra-brave badass on the internet.

Why gee thanks. I will remember to let you know.

[Deleted]

I await the day to see when that happens, I suspect you won't, after all everyone is an ultra-brave badass on the internet.

- - - Updated - - -



The Borderlands between Lammy's idiotic statement and what Djalil said are grey and fuzzy. After all, why is it that when I point out that the EU has no founding war, the instant response is "But WW2! WW1!" when as a point of fact that wasn't why either war was fought and we all know it but psychologically it seems people always want that to BE the founding wars.

Is there a lot of difference between Lammy's dumb ass position and Djalil's reflexive answer about WW1 and WW2? If anything I can draw a straight line from what Djalil said to what Lammy's said and wonder how many now simply assume that is how it went down.

Look Theodarzna, with all due respect but you totally misunderstood my post so please stop building on that comparison cause that statement was never said by me.
I showed you in the post above how history actually went.
EU was born a few years post ww2 as a way to make sure it wouldn't happen again.
That's history, not opinions.

[Jingoism]

Would be interesting to see as incompetent governments couldn't use it as a scapegoat for their own policies.

HUrr gubermints r dum, lets make an even bigger version to make rules for all of them instead. Now that's some next level idiocy, thanks Genn!

[Theodarzna]

Look Theodarzna, with all due respect but you totally misunderstood my post so please stop building on that comparison cause that statement was never said by me.
I showed you in the post above how history actually went.
EU was born a few years post ww2 as a way to make sure it wouldn't happen again.
That's history, not opinions.

I'm not misunderstanding you I am just questioning why you brought up an irrelevant point. If you saying what you said wasn't meant to answer my question, then why did you say it? Why bring up an irrelevant point?

If I am asking for a gold coin, why hand me a ceramic cup with a picture of a gold coin on it over and over again and then why I point out that what you are giving me isn't what I asked for you act flabbergasted as I don't understand. The only reason you give that answer is because you think either It is an acceptable answer or you misunderstood my point.

[Deleted]

Why gee thanks. I will remember to let you know.

yeah put your cod skills to use lmao, you would prolly just shake cos your shit scared and drop the gun like most people would, stop trying to act all G.I.JOE online

[Caelia]

C'mon... 50% unemployment rate? Jesus, at least do some reserch 1st, the worst case was Greece, and they barely went over 27% (which is still a nightmare). As for my country, Portugal, we dinged 18% during the baillout, last month finally dropped 11% ans is currently around 10% (which is still a nightmare)

FurryTheFox did say for the YOUNG, and while it's not 50%, the youth unemployment rate for Portugal was at 40.6% in 2013, and is currently at 27.2%, Spain was well over 50% 2013-2014 and didn't go below 50% until 2015 and is currently at 45.8%.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/port...mployment-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spai...mployment-rate

[Independent voter]

Look Theodarzna, with all due respect but you totally misunderstood my post so please stop building on that comparison cause that statement was never said by me.
I showed you in the post above how history actually went.
EU was born a few years post ww2 as a way to make sure it wouldn't happen again.
That's history, not opinions.

No, EU was founded for economic reasons.

It was self evident that more wars like WWII and WWI were never going to happen again.

I'm surprised you didn't know this.

[Theodarzna]

Would I pick a gun for the EU? I feel we have reached a level of education that makes you think about such a delicate question without blind patriotism at play.
To me, that's much more of a success than anything else.

A country that nobody will sacrifice for is not a country. To quote Kuntantee....

EU identity is created in prosperity and convenience. It will be forgotten when the very convenience and prosperity that created it ceases to exist. There is a reason why national identities persist; they are forged in hardship.

The Syrian refugee crisis, which was enough for Brits to say "goodbye" to EU (which seeks to establish a European identity), is the primary indicator that such an identity is quite weak, and if fully committed, will shatter in the next hardship. This is not surprising, as Europe is composed of individual states, regardless of some European's naive perception that it is already a superstate.

The best strategy for EU is to keep it as a trade union, but I don't even believe that will cut it. The alliances created in convenience are doomed to shatter in hardship.

[Deleted]

I'm not misunderstanding you I am just questioning why you brought up an irrelevant point. If you saying what you said wasn't meant to answer my question, then why did you say it? Why bring up an irrelevant point?

If I am asking for a gold coin, why hand me a ceramic cup with a picture of a gold coin on it over and over again and then why I point out that what you are giving me isn't what I asked for you act flabbergasted as I don't understand. The only reason you give that answer is because you think either It is an acceptable answer or you misunderstood my point.

I don't understand this idea of yours that there is no defining moment in the creation of a United europe.
There clearly is. And it's one to be proud too to be honest since it didn't require another war. We had two already. Those great people worked a way to make sure we didn't have a third one.

You don't recognise that as a defining moment well that's your problem.

- - - Updated - - -

A country that nobody will sacrifice for is not a country. To quote Kuntantee....

What a silly claim. It's not related to anything I said.
Plus I already dealt IN DEPTH with Kuntantee's point in the very post you quoted.

[Kalis]

Via careful historical revisionism perhaps, but I did say, and concur with @Kuntantee, "EU identity is created in prosperity and convenience. It will be forgotten when the very convenience and prosperity that created it ceases to exist. There is a reason why national identities persist; they are forged in hardship." The political and intellectual elite decided to quietly create a new State, exactly how it solves any problems that created warfare is unknown since ultimately if it worked it would just mean Europe vs. Non-Europe, but still that isn't something that will endure IMHO. In fact with Brexit it has already shown it doesn't have the people's loyalty. Thus, as crisis' get worse, and leadership makes increasingly odd calls, I suspect the EU will simply tare itself apart.

I look at the EU as State attempting to buy peoples loyalty, the United States has the advantage of a populace that are loyal because of blood and sacrifice. Since 1776 all wars that fought and all who fought, fought for the United States, people are willing to die for this project over here. Would you pick up a gun for the EU?

The EU was never supposed to stop warfare itself, it was to stop warfare between European nations, primarily Germany and France. And it used economic integration to achieve that, using the very logical idea that two countries which depend on each other economically will not go to war with each other, as they would destroy themselves in the process.

There is no such thing as a European identity, in spite of what some central Europeans here claim - if you go from Greece to Germany to France to Poland, each will have very different ideas of what the EU is about and what it means to be European. Ask them to give three words that sum up Europe and you will get different words in every place, many of them unprintable.

In comparison, travel the US and you just get variations on a theme as to what the US stands for, they will all be American values that have been drummed into them since childhood. Ask them to give three words that sum up America and you can bet that freedom, liberty, justice, guns, etc. will pop up regularly.

The Borderlands between Lammy's idiotic statement and what Djalil said are grey and fuzzy. After all, why is it that when I point out that the EU has no founding war, the instant response is "But WW2! WW1!" when as a point of fact that wasn't why either war was fought and we all know it but psychologically it seems people always want that to BE the founding wars.

Is there a lot of difference between Lammy's dumb ass position and Djalil's reflexive answer about WW1 and WW2? If anything I can draw a straight line from what Djalil said to what Lammy's said and wonder how many now simply assume that is how it went down.

They were the founding wars of the EU. B was a direct result of A, even though A was not fought to create B.

You are trying too hard to tie it in with how some other nations were founded, but look at another example, the UK was founded due to Scotland nearly bankrupting itself in Central America, that does not mean that Scotland tried to bankrupt itself to form the United Kingdom. Yet the foundation of the UK was Scotland's inability to handle money, which is incidentally why none of them have ever spent any money since.

[Deleted]

No, EU was founded for economic reasons.

It was self evident that more wars like WWII and WWI were never going to happen again.

I'm surprised you didn't know this.

Why do you talk about issues you haven't looked into? The reason for the creation of a United europe is right in that quote above in my reply to Theodarzna.
Stop being lazy.

[Kalis]

No, EU was founded for economic reasons.

It was self evident that more wars like WWII and WWI were never going to happen again.

I'm surprised you didn't know this.

Hubcap, do you deliberately try to be wrong on as many subjects as possible, or is it a special power you have?

[Deleted]

The EU was never supposed to stop warfare itself, it was to stop warfare between European nations, primarily Germany and France. And it used economic integration to achieve that, using the very logical idea that two countries which depend on each other economically will not go to war with each other, as they would destroy themselves in the process.

There is no such thing as a European identity, in spite of what some central Europeans here claim - if you go from Greece to Germany to France to Poland, each will have very different ideas of what the EU is about and what it means to be European. Ask them to give three words that sum up Europe and you will get different words in every place, many of them unprintable.

In comparison, travel the US and you just get variations on a theme as to what the US stands for, they will all be American values that have been drummed into them since childhood. Ask them to give three words that sum up America and you can bet that freedom, liberty, justice, guns, etc. will pop up regularly.



They were the founding wars of the EU. B was a direct result of A, even though A was not fought to create B.

You are trying too hard to tie it in with how some other nations were founded, but look at another example, the UK was founded due to Scotland nearly bankrupting itself in Central America, that does not mean that Scotland tried to bankrupt itself to form the United Kingdom. Yet the foundation of the UK was Scotland's inability to handle money, which is incidentally why none of them have ever spent any money since.

I guess the difference is that while the US was created brand new with a whole set of newcomers, the EU is trying to link cultures that while very similar in the grand scale of things, are each their own.

[Tico]

I don't necessarily think EU will collapse. For sure it is facing big challenges, but I think it is not bad as EU institutions need a bit restructuring and maybe people's general attitudes also need some reorganization. Later, a better EU can evolve from that.

[Acidbaron]

Hubcap, do you deliberately try to be wrong on as many subjects as possible, or is it a special power you have?

He's not wrong on this. economic stability initially started by the marshal plan to counter the USSR influence that later lead to an economic union is the main reason we are no longer having wars, that and nukes.

[Kalis]

He's not wrong on this. economic stability initially started by the marshal plan to counter the USSR influence that later lead to an economic union is the main reason we are no longer having wars, that and nukes.

The predecessor to the EU was intentionally started in order to stop European wars, they declared it as such at the time as their intent.

[Deleted]

He's not wrong on this. economic stability initially started by the marshal plan to counter the USSR influence that later lead to an economic union is the main reason we are no longer having wars, that and nukes.

He absolutely is and the words of one of the founder of the EU project clearly make a different point.

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"[3] which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step

[Theodarzna]

I don't understand this idea of yours that there is no defining moment in the creation of a United europe.
There clearly is. And it's one to be proud too to be honest since it didn't require another war. We had two already. Those great people worked a way to make sure we didn't have a third one.

You don't recognise that as a defining moment well that's your problem.

What a silly claim. It's not related to anything I said.
Plus I already dealt IN DEPTH with Kuntantee's point in the very post you quoted.

I recognize its relevance, but it isn't an answer to my question and your insistence that is sort of draws me to the parallels with David Lammy.

You are moving the goalpost and claiming I ask a question that I did not ask.