Go It Alone United Kingdom!

[actaeon277]

My charming personality hasn't quite alienated everyone :P Or they at least tolerate me because I am an ocean away

Dang.
I never thought of that.

Apparently I need to move.

 

[Twangbanger]

Hey you nerds...the Penguins scored (for the bare handful of you who have a clue...)

 

[MCgrease08]

Hey you nerds...the Penguins scored (for the bare handful of you who have a clue...)

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/412594-2016-stanley-cup-playoffs.html

 

[KG1]

See what mrj did to your thread Kirk?

 

[Woobie]

With the way things are going in Sweden, for instance, I can't say I blame the UK for wanting to make a move toward reclaiming some sovereignty. By keeping their currency, they aren't as married to the system as everyone else anyway. I'm all for shifting power toward lower levels of government and away from higher levels.

So my take, if they do this:
National security improves.
Economy suffers if they fail to maintain a free trade relationship with the EU, otherwise it is neutral.
Politically they lose a little influence, but probably not a bunch.

Thats how I see it, but I'm no expert, so I'll wait and see like everyone else.

 

[actaeon277]

Kinda funny how they're worried about over-regulation.

 

[jamil]

Sure, you're part of the bare handful. Just look at this thread and look at INGO's numbers.

Wow. INGO must really suck. I'm so shocked that people of your high intelect would bother to bless us with your presence. Perhaps gawker would be more suitable.

 

[Alamo]

Europe didn't have an internal war for 70 years after WWII because:

a) there were only two countries with economies and militaries capable enough to fight a war, and it probably helped that neither one was European.

b) even after some European countries achieved a level of economic reconstruction that permitted the fielding of a serious military capability, they were happy to largely cede their military sovereignty to a big brother who could be criticized and condescended to in public about their war-like/cowboy attitudes and lack of political acumen and nuance (plays will with left wing press) while privately thanking God and big brother that they didn't really have to be responsible for anything.

In the long term -- shoot in the short term -- the EU is a disaster for Europe, and the Brits would be better off in the long run. If they go, it could very well be the straw that breaks the EU camel's back. There were more than one European country dragged into the EU against its popular will via political shenanigans of its leaders, and many of the populations are getting restive about the EU's disastrous policies, with the immigration policy giving energy to the discontent.

But I think it is probably too late for Britain, and they will probably elect to miss this opportunity. The goal of the Left in Britain has long been to destroy Britain, and I think they have succeeded. There may be some islands there with that name in the future, but it will be unrecognizable as any thing British as we have known it.

The same in America. Britain is farther just farther along the path that many in America want to take.

 

[Ericpwp]

 

[Sylvain]

Europe didn't have an internal war for 70 years after WWII because:

a) there were only two countries with economies and militaries capable enough to fight a war, and it probably helped that neither one was European.

b) even after some European countries achieved a level of economic reconstruction that permitted the fielding of a serious military capability, they were happy to largely cede their military sovereignty to a big brother who could be criticized and condescended to in public about their war-like/cowboy attitudes and lack of political acumen and nuance (plays will with left wing press) while privately thanking God and big brother that they didn't really have to be responsible for anything.

In the long term -- shoot in the short term -- the EU is a disaster for Europe, and the Brits would be better off in the long run. If they go, it could very well be the straw that breaks the EU camel's back. There were more than one European country dragged into the EU against its popular will via political shenanigans of its leaders, and many of the populations are getting restive about the EU's disastrous policies, with the immigration policy giving energy to the discontent.

But I think it is probably too late for Britain, and they will probably elect to miss this opportunity. The goal of the Left in Britain has long been to destroy Britain, and I think they have succeeded. There may be some islands there with that name in the future, but it will be unrecognizable as any thing British as we have known it.

The same in America. Britain is farther just farther along the path that many in America want to take.

You forgot that both the UK and France are now nuclear powers ... I'm sure it helps keeping other countries in check (both from inside and outside Europe).

 

[T.Lex]

So, since interest in this is, frankly, higher than I thought, there's a somewhat interesting wrinkle to this. (At the risk of running afoul of the angst directed at mrj, I didn't start a thread about this because I just didn't think people would be interested.)

Russia.

With a resurgent Russia, wouldn't you think Europe would be relatively united? Yes, the Muslim immigration issue is tricky, but not really an existential threat in a military way. Doesn't it seem to make more sense for a united-we-stand-divided-we-fall mentality?

I think it is plausible, to a certain extent, that Russia has been pulling strings politically to keep parts of Europe deadlocked on issues that need to move forward to keep the Union intact. The rise of right-wing nationalists, gas and oil leverage to keep the EU divided on certain new members, etc. It is easy to paint them as the familiar bogeyman, and I'm not saying Russia actively worked to get the referendum on the Brexit. Rather, I"m just saying Russia has a great deal to gain from a divided Europe and Putin is more than capable of acting covertly to help achieve it.

 

[Woobie]

So, since interest in this is, frankly, higher than I thought, there's a somewhat interesting wrinkle to this. (At the risk of running afoul of the angst directed at mrj, I didn't start a thread about this because I just didn't think people would be interested.)

Russia.

With a resurgent Russia, wouldn't you think Europe would be relatively united? Yes, the Muslim immigration issue is tricky, but not really an existential threat in a military way. Doesn't it seem to make more sense for a united-we-stand-divided-we-fall mentality?

I think it is plausible, to a certain extent, that Russia has been pulling strings politically to keep parts of Europe deadlocked on issues that need to move forward to keep the Union intact. The rise of right-wing nationalists, gas and oil leverage to keep the EU divided on certain new members, etc. It is easy to paint them as the familiar bogeyman, and I'm not saying Russia actively worked to get the referendum on the Brexit. Rather, I"m just saying Russia has a great deal to gain from a divided Europe and Putin is more than capable of acting covertly to help achieve it.

I thought about that, but Russia has more to worry about in NATO than the EU, and the UK isn't looking at leaving that.

 

[rob63]

I guess I could study this myself, but I would rather watch reruns of the women's college softball world series and this seems a reasonable place to ask this. How do the leaders of the EU attain their positions of power? Elections, appointments, random lots?

 

[T.Lex]

How do the leaders of the EU attain their positions of power? Elections, appointments, random lots?

It is a combination of direct elections and appointments. And employment.

As you read this, just remember that - you asked!

Legislative branch
Bi-cameral (2 houses, like our legislative branch):
European Parlaiment - direct election of ~751 representatives, allocation set by treaties but related to population, but not in a mathematical way; roughly similar to our House of Representatives, but the checks and balances are significantly different.
European Council - 1 per constituent state, and have 10 different configurations depending on what the issue is. So, if dealing with national security, there is a Foreign Affairs Council made up of the foreign ministers of each country. These people, generally, would be elected within their country of origin, then join an executive government (remember - most, if not all, of the countries are on a parlaimentary system) to their ministerial post. To make this more confusing, there is a Secretariat that handles the administrative aspects of the Council, and I believe these are employees of the Council.

Executive Branch
European Commission - each constituent country gets 1 commissioner. The Council and Parlaiment elect a "President" of the Commission. The commissioners themselves are nominated by their home countries, and I believe each country gets to figure out how to do that, whether direct election or appointment by the national executive or legislative. The main thing is that the commissioners are supposed to act in the best interest of the EU as a whole, not necessarily just for their country of origin. Once membership is sorted out, the President assigns subject matters (security, agriculture, etc.) to each other commissioner that becomes a cabinet.

Judicial branch:
Oy vey. There is one. I'm not really sure how effective it is.

 

[T.Lex]

By the way:
EU referendum: Would Brexit make Putin happy? - BBC News

And what has Russian President Vladimir Putin said about Brexit?
Absolutely nothing. The Kremlin has been keeping silent on the matter.
That has not prevented Russia from being sucked into the Brexit debate. Prime Minister David Cameron said recently that Mr Putin "might be happy" if Britain left the EU.
UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was even more direct. "The only country, if the truth is told, that would like us to leave the EU is Russia," he said. "And that should probably tell us all that we need to know."

 

[Expat]

Sure, you're part of the bare handful. Just look at this thread and look at INGO's numbers.

Maybe we are all intimidated by your intellectual abilities.

 

[HoughMade]

Maybe we are all intimidated by your intellectual abilities.

I know I am.

 

[Expat]

I know I am.

You weren't included in the list of the elites, so....

 

[EvilElmo]

With a resurgent Russia, wouldn't you think Europe would be relatively united? Yes, the Muslim immigration issue is tricky, but not really an existential threat in a military way.

I disagree with this assertion. I believe the Muslim immigration issue is, at it's core, an existential threat to Europe (anyone who's unfamiliar with it - google the term "hijrah"). Just take a look at the threads covering the unrest that the host countries are now suffering as a result. It takes more time than a military conquest, sure, but it's European nations being conquered all the same. To that end, anything the individual nations of Europe can do to regain control of their own borders and immigration policy is going to help them in the long run far more than any free trade agreement inside a large EU edifice whose pillar nations are being slowed eaten away.

To Woobie's point, just because the EU may break up doesn't mean NATO is going anywhere, and NATO is the real issue for Russia, not the EU.

 

[indiucky]

You're right, not sure what I was thinking.

NATO...That's what I figured you meant....