Fynne, trade with the rest of the world ‘mostly’ arrives in containers, where they are offloaded by the hundreds and checked very efficiently. Once they are loaded onto lorries they are in the UK. Via the single market those lorries then have frictionless access to the EU. After Brexit things will be different. Why the swearing??
haha … because you’re all trying to create problems that currently don’t exist to support your argument
… the world won’t stop turning on march 29th
Dismissal of America’s support following ww11 is insulting and denial
F, I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.
Maybe you are trying to minimise genuine problems in order to support your own opinions. It is interesting that some of the greatest Brexiter minds (not saying a lot!) haven’t been able to come up with a credible solution to the problen of the Irish border. Perhaps you are cleverer than them?
? Have you heard of the Cuban missile crisis ???
Having troops stationed in Poland wouldn’t have counted for much at the time.
Missiles in the UK were brought on line … distance and frontline troops would have been meaningless in the event of all out war
America’s presence in Europe was a deterrent.
… times have changed and these situations are easily trivialized but they were reality
F, we are just trying to explain to you how the world actually works. There is no working model using technology that can resolve all the problems created by the NI border. If you can find one then ‘for frack sake’ go tell TM and you will get a knighthood…maybe even a Lordship.
I don’t agree … personally I believe that people are suggesting it’s a bigger problem to support “their opinions” … the volume of trade through Ireland should not be an issue when you consider somewhere like Dover?
F, I’m still not sure you know what you’re talking about. You seem to be referring to the past (Cuban missile crisis) which is OK if you’re a historian but the current threat to Nato & Europe has changed quite a bit.
But this doesn’t really have much to do with Brexit anyway.
Maybe we have lost the thread of this discussion a bit. The initial point was that the creation of the Common Market >EU had been a force for peace in Europe after several centuries of warfare. The threat that the EU was designed to protect against was of war between European nations and not primarily to protect aganist Russia.
All this about intercontinental nuclear weapons is not relevant since it would not be possible to use them to enforce peaceful co-existence between France and Germany and Britain given the density of populations involved.
Peace in Europe has always been my reason for supporting the EU.
Frog in a tree
There is one perfect way to maintain the GFA and protect the economies of both sides of the border…easy membership of the customs union!
My original response was to JW , but yes it does include Brexit… merkel and macron are both guilty of trivializing Americas role in nato
Their talk of an eu army IS insulting to a country that put their troops into ending wars they didn’t need to
Err I’m not sure at what point the “EU” took on that role …
I thought it was called the EEC originally ???
Correct me if I’m wrong please
Now what year did the UK join the EEC …
I think you missed reading the sentence before the one you quoted which was
I did say “Common Market >EU” in the previous sentence. It is a matter of record that the motivation for creating it was to promote peace in Europe.
And EEC stands for what exactly?
As a timeline of events some should remember
… nato was formed in 1949
… the Cuban missile crisis (which would have been ww111) was 1962
… the UK never joined the “European economic community” till 1973
… the original ec&s (European coal and steel) 1952 had little to do with motivating peace in Europe?
Wars in Korea 1950 - 53 supported by China
… Vietnam 55 -75 supported by Russia and China
Fynne, you are beginning to get silly. Yes, we know the date when the UK joined the European Community and we know that the EEC was formed well before this in 1957. The EEC grew out of the European Coal and Steel Community which was explicitly created in order to prevent further war between France and Germany as described by Wiki. As I said, this has always been my primary reason for supporting the EU.
“The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was an organization of six European countries created after World War II to regulate their industrial production under a centralised authority. It was formally established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, signed by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The ECSC was the first international organisation to be based on the principles of supranationalism, and started the process of formal integration which ultimately led to 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” 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.”
Frog in a tree
I take personal exception to anyone who belittles the role USA played in maintaining peace across Europe as part of NATO… whilst at the same time many European countries fail to maintain even the minimum level of commitment. With that sentiment I wholly agree with trump!
The ecsc , I agree was formed to reduce friction between France, Germany and Italy (mainly) was to encourage closer economic union.
The UK never joined till some 20 years later (1973)
when it was still called the EEC
The central word being “economic” ?
Personal exception? You are not a US citizen.
You are bending history to support your political views.
I have not belittled the role of the US in NATO and I would also agree that some European nations have been backward in contributing their fair share.
It is true as you say that the UK joined the EC for primarily economic reasons. That does not change the motivation behind European policy supporting these political changes that aimed to reduce the risk of war. The UK was always semi-detached from this aspect of Europe, hence the famous “non” from General De Gaulle.
As for The Groper, since you mention him, he is the single best argument in favour of an EU army.
Frog in a tree
In the decade after after WWII, the US indeed played a large role in ensuring Soviet forces went no further in Europe. Europe had largely been trashed and large military buildups are a dangerous thing. Their reasons for doing that weren’t all about unselfishly supporting Allies nonetheless.
Since then, Europe is just a staging ground for US forces in their quest to remain the largest superpower. Their irresponsible military actions around the world are usually ineffective, often unwelcome and frequently uninvited.
They caused the issues with Georgia that could easily have escalated into wider conflict.
They are not in Europe to protect European countries, they are there for their own reasons of projecting influence.
The sooner they leave and stick to protecting US interests in the US, the safer Europe will be.