Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

Much much more on link - LSE

It seems that those who actually survived the war don't vote the same as the one that weren't born until after

I like the data.

Hate the repeating of the peace in Europe line.

Kind of glosses over the E.European uprisings since the 50's, the Greek Military Junta, Rise of ETA and IRA, Baltics and Georgian wars of independence, That whole Balkan thing, Turks invading Cyprus/Greek Islands, French invasion of Corsica and the countless conflicts fought by European countries overseas since the coal deal in '50, but yeah apart from THAT what have the Romans..........etc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I like the data.

Hate the repeating of the peace in Europe line.

Kind of glosses over the E.European uprisings since the 50's, the Greek Military Junta, Rise of ETA and IRA, Baltics and Georgian wars of independence, That whole Balkan thing, Turks invading Cyprus/Greek Islands, French invasion of Corsica and the countless conflicts fought by European countries overseas since the coal deal in '50, but yeah apart from THAT what have the Romans..........etc

I'm not sure if you're serious.

The history of Europe for the last, ooh... 1500 years? is one of constant war between the powers of the region. In the last 100 odd years that history has the continent try very, very hard to destroy itself. In the aftermath of the second attempt the European Coal and Steel Community was established, which gradually became the EU as it is now, and lo and behold the members haven't warred with each other since, because all of them benefit from doing business with each other.

What it doesn't mean is the entire continent has gone hippy. Have they had conflict outside of the EU? Yes. Has Europe generally seen conflict? Yes, but I'm not sure what the EU is supposed to do to prevent war with nations that aren't even under its purview. Have the members have internal conflicts? Yes (and in all likelihood they would have had these anyway). But they have broke the habit that has existed since before the concept of a modern day state existed - the members haven't tried to wipe each other of the map.

That's the salient point. And to ignore it or pooh-pooh it because the continent in its entirety isn't completely peace free is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I like the data.

Hate the repeating of the peace in Europe line.

Kind of glosses over the E.European uprisings since the 50's, the Greek Military Junta, Rise of ETA and IRA, Baltics and Georgian wars of independence, That whole Balkan thing, Turks invading Cyprus/Greek Islands, French invasion of Corsica and the countless conflicts fought by European countries overseas since the coal deal in '50, but yeah apart from THAT what have the Romans..........etc

We've stopped France and Germany kicking shit out of each other by giving them the rest of europe to play with.

Once we're out of the EU they'll be far more supportive of the idea of Scots independence than they were last time.

Similarly, Catalonia will struggle for independence whilst the EU edges towards homogenisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...

Quote

I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories’ narrow political concerns. According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is “committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party”. And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: “The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that.”

It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning’s cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.

This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: “In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood.”

Times behind paywall

Colour me shocked. Completely despicable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I'm not sure if you're serious.

The history of Europe for the last, ooh... 1500 years? is one of constant war between the powers of the region. In the last 100 odd years that history has the continent try very, very hard to destroy itself. In the aftermath of the second attempt the European Coal and Steel Community was established, which gradually became the EU as it is now, and lo and behold the members haven't warred with each other since, because all of them benefit from doing business with each other.

What it doesn't mean is the entire continent has gone hippy. Have they had conflict outside of the EU? Yes. Has Europe generally seen conflict? Yes, but I'm not sure what the EU is supposed to do to prevent war with nations that aren't even under its purview. Have the members have internal conflicts? Yes (and in all likelihood they would have had these anyway). But they have broke the habit that has existed since before the concept of a modern day state existed - the members haven't tried to wipe each other of the map.

That's the salient point. And to ignore it or pooh-pooh it because the continent in its entirety isn't completely peace free is ridiculous.

Yeah, I am. Was just making a point about what I perceive to be the bastardisation of language. I don't think there's anything ridiculous about people using the correct words to describe what they mean. "Peace between EU member states" for instance I wouldn't rile against. The phrase "Stopping a major land war on the European continent between the larger/dominant powers" also wouldn't annoy me.

"Peace in Europe" is a different thing that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â