The UK Referendum on Membership of the European Union

[Valaran]

heh. Maybe, but I do remember how lopsided that UKIP poll on the UK politics thread became...

That was mostly all Americans rocking up to vote for the ones who most closely matched GOP rhetoric.

There was some of that, but we don't have the precise information on where it materialised from.

[Frank Zipper]

heh. Maybe, but I do remember how lopsided that UKIP poll on the UK politics thread became...

That was mostly all Americans rocking up to vote for the ones who most closely matched GOP rhetoric.

That was the main reason I wanted to start this thread, to do the poll in a way that separated out people from the UK, Europe, and the US and other countries.

[Imperializt Russia]

And the French have more active troops, though I think the UK has more reservists.

Also the power players were once GER+FRA+UK

Now, it's just GER+FRA with a heavy tilt to GER. The UK has squandered tons of its political capital since 2010.

More troops, more nukes, a slightly better equipment and, rather ironically, a navy a little bit better.
One would be fooling himself by thinking that the french army is superior "only in paper".

Anyway, the U.K have indeed grown more and more isolationist and so do France, tho not so much on an international plan (given our continuous interventions in our old colonies to protect our interests) than on an European one as people are growing more and more delusional of the E.U but stills view it as somekind of arranged marriage you never really wanted but are stuck in.

And I just wanted to precise to Doom, the U.K's economy isn't the second in the E.U with a lot of advance. There is something like 0.02 or so trillions of difference between it's GDP and France's one, and, given that a good lot of companies precisely threatened to leave the U.K for France if the Brexit happened; you can be sure that British economy will takes a serious blow if it does leave the E.U.

France having "more nukes" doesn't make France "better" or "more powerful" than the UK.
The UK has always tended to favour a lower state of readiness backed by substantial reserves, and at one time in the past, patriotic fervour, to make up the shortfall if a war was called. After all, we're an island. So one having more troops than the other doesn't make it "better" or "more powerful" either.
The equipment being "better" is not exactly a settled issue, it's different and there's a lot of nifty material there (and France now has access to that bizarre GIAT-Nexter-Rheinmetall merger).

I guess there's not a lot of contention since the French Navy is, ironically, more capable than the UK, that is, having a wider variety of capability. France has assault carriers and one fully-fledged aircraft carrier, whereas we only have assault carriers because... reasons.
Beneath the waves though, I'm not sure you'll find a submarine force to individually match the Royal Navy.

[Dooom35796821595]

More troops, more nukes, a slightly better equipment and, rather ironically, a navy a little bit better.
One would be fooling himself by thinking that the french army is superior "only in paper".

Anyway, the U.K have indeed grown more and more isolationist and so do France, tho not so much on an international plan (given our continuous interventions in our old colonies to protect our interests) than on an European one as people are growing more and more delusional of the E.U but stills view it as somekind of arranged marriage you never really wanted but are stuck in.

And I just wanted to precise to Doom, the U.K's economy isn't the second in the E.U with a lot of advance. There is something like 0.02 or so trillions of difference between it's GDP and France's one, and, given that a good lot of companies precisely threatened to leave the U.K for France if the Brexit happened; you can be sure that British economy will takes a serious blow if it does leave the E.U.

France having "more nukes" doesn't make France "better" or "more powerful" than the UK.
The UK has always tended to favour a lower state of readiness backed by substantial reserves, and at one time in the past, patriotic fervour, to make up the shortfall if a war was called. After all, we're an island. So one having more troops than the other doesn't make it "better" or "more powerful" either.
The equipment being "better" is not exactly a settled issue, it's different and there's a lot of nifty material there (and France now has access to that bizarre GIAT-Nexter-Rheinmetall merger).

I guess there's not a lot of contention since the French Navy is, ironically, more capable than the UK, that is, having a wider variety of capability. France has assault carriers and one fully-fledged aircraft carrier, whereas we only have assault carriers because... reasons.
Beneath the waves though, I'm not sure you'll find a submarine force to individually match the Royal Navy.

I always found that to be a weird argument that France having more nukes makes them better. Oh noes, they can make their enemies cities 12% more radioactive!

As for the navy, The type 45 destroyer is better then the French or American equivalent, and we do have the best subs. We will have 2 super-carriers at some point, although I am disappointed that they're not nuclear powered. We also need more frigates.

And of course the French need more numerous land forces since they aren't an island.

[Imperializt Russia]

List of places British carriers will ever go:

The UK.
The Med.
US naval bases.

The prestige would be nice, but we don't need a nuclear carrier.

[Napkiraly]

List of places British carriers will ever go:

The UK.
The Med.
US naval bases.

The prestige would be nice, but we don't need a nuclear carrier.

Hopefully one day to take back HK.

And I'm honest in that I want the UK to press the issue about HK. China is flagrantly breaking the conditions of the handover and as a result the Sino-British Joint Declaration should be null and void, thus returning legal authority back to the UK.

[Imperializt Russia]

List of places British carriers will ever go:

The UK.
The Med.
US naval bases.

The prestige would be nice, but we don't need a nuclear carrier.

Hopefully one day to take back HK.

And I'm honest in that I want the UK to press the issue about HK. China is flagrantly breaking the conditions of the handover and as a result the Sino-British Joint Declaration should be null and void, thus returning legal authority back to the UK.

What country was your everything made in, Nap?

[Dooom35796821595]

List of places British carriers will ever go:

The UK.
The Med.
US naval bases.

The prestige would be nice, but we don't need a nuclear carrier.

It would be easier if we had a national nuclear industry. There are also future power requirements to consider, like railguns, and...other stuff.

Also, we might have to deploy more forces to the Far East, Australia ect to counter Chinese expansion and support our allies. Not to mention the territories in the Pacific.

[Imperializt Russia]

"The Pacific" is very much served by "US naval bases".

[Napkiraly]

Hopefully one day to take back HK.

And I'm honest in that I want the UK to press the issue about HK. China is flagrantly breaking the conditions of the handover and as a result the Sino-British Joint Declaration should be null and void, thus returning legal authority back to the UK.

What country was your everything made in, Nap?

Coat: Italy
Jeans: Bangladesh
Shoes: Bangladesh
Socks: Philippines
Pants: Turkey
Shirt: Canada

Luggage: Canada
Books: UK, USA, Canada

[Socialist Czechia]

European Union was a promising political experiment.

Was.

So why not to accept the inevitable and stop pretending it can be saved? We can go back to EEC. Tourism and trade are still good, but these buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg do more harm than good.

[citation needed]

Harvard Business Review: "The European Union: A Failed Experiment"

Main point:

The prospects for effective EU integration are slim to none.

Few Europeans seem to believe such integration is actually possible — many recoil at any suggestion of a “United States of Europe.” Given the widespread ambivalence and lack of clarity on how a reformed EU would look, the prospects for a successful integration look bleak. That’s because even under the best of circumstances, achieving it would be an extremely difficult and long haul.

[The Ben Boys]

I loved how Obama said the UK should stay in the EU, it was deliciously hypocritical. The responses were generally like this:

Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith, who is also part of the Vote Leave campaign, also accused Mr Obama of double standards.
"I can imagine no circumstances under which he would lobby for the US Supreme Court to be bound by the judgements of a foreign court," he said.
"Nor can I imagine any circumstances in which he would accept that laws should be made for­- or taxes imposed on­ - the people of the United States without the approval of Congress."

There was also a few guys criticizing how the US didn't have an EU-type system (or a consistent one) for their own hemisphere.

[Marcurix]

I loved how Obama said the UK would stay in the EU, it was deliciously hypocritical. The responses were generally like this:

Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith, who is also part of the Vote Leave campaign, also accused Mr Obama of double standards.
"I can imagine no circumstances under which he would lobby for the US Supreme Court to be bound by the judgements of a foreign court," he said.
"Nor can I imagine any circumstances in which he would accept that laws should be made for­- or taxes imposed on­ - the people of the United States without the approval of Congress."

There was also a few guys criticizing how the US didn't have an EU-type system (or a consistent one) for their own hemisphere.

I think you mean should, not would. It also ignores the reality that the situation for the USA and UK are different, in so being that one is indisputably the world's largest economy with a sizeable population.

That aside, I love how the pro-out campaigners are all adamant we'll get all these separate free trade deal with all these other countries when the countries in question have generally responded with "you'd be better in the EU".

[The Ben Boys]

I loved how Obama said the UK would stay in the EU, it was deliciously hypocritical. The responses were generally like this:



There was also a few guys criticizing how the US didn't have an EU-type system (or a consistent one) for their own hemisphere.

I think you mean should, not would. It also ignores the reality that the situation for the USA and UK are different, in so being that one is indisputably the world's largest economy with a sizeable population.

That aside, I love how the pro-out campaigners are all adamant we'll get all these separate free trade deal with all these other countries when the countries in question have generally responded with "you'd be better in the EU".

I'm American and I don't know much about this, but I've heard the UK is consistently outvoted and disagrees with much of what the EU does. How much truth is in this?

[Valaran]

I loved how Obama said the UK should stay in the EU, it was deliciously hypocritical.

Didn't seem hypocritical to me - he voiced his honest opinion. The leading Brexiteers said some usual codswallop in response - in fact the UK regularly does the same to the US, like with our petition to ban Trump (plus actions against him by the Scottish govt.), and the Syria vote. In many ways we do this more stridently to the US than the US does back.

I'm American and I don't know much about this, but I've heard the UK is consistently outvoted and disagrees with much of what the EU does. How much truth is in this?

That's moslty out fault. We tend to ignore the continent until such votes come about, which means that links with like minded countries, (nordics; often poland; holland; baltics fricking Germany) atrophy. Its a diplomatic failure, as we seemed to have lost the ability to work out how to get countries with similar views to agree with us.

[Napkiraly]

I think you mean should, not would. It also ignores the reality that the situation for the USA and UK are different, in so being that one is indisputably the world's largest economy with a sizeable population.

That aside, I love how the pro-out campaigners are all adamant we'll get all these separate free trade deal with all these other countries when the countries in question have generally responded with "you'd be better in the EU".

I'm American and I don't know much about this, but I've heard the UK is consistently outvoted and disagrees with much of what the EU does. How much truth is in this?

Only because British diplomacy within the EU, especially under Cameron, is hilariously incompetent.

Britain should honestly be one of the most influential countries in the EU, being able to create stable voting blocs with Poland, Netherlands, Baltics, and Denmark. Lol nope. "We'll huff and puff, by jolly good crumpets". Alright, have fun not getting what you want.

Poland does a better job than the UK, which is funny because Poland's diplomacy in the EU early on is described in academic literature as being, more or less, "fecking atrocious".

[Vassenor]

I'm American and I don't know much about this, but I've heard the UK is consistently outvoted and disagrees with much of what the EU does. How much truth is in this?

Only because British diplomacy within the EU, especially under Cameron, is hilariously incompetent.

Britain should honestly be one of the most influential countries in the EU, being able to create stable voting blocs with Poland, Netherlands, Baltics, and Denmark. Lol nope. "We'll huff and puff, by jolly good crumpets". Alright, have fun not getting what you want.

Poland does a better job than the UK, which is funny because Poland's diplomacy in the EU early on is described in academic literature as being, more or less, "fecking atrocious".

It doesn't help that most of our MEPs don't even bother voting in the first place.

[Skeckoa]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama ... on-n560171

Word, so the article is basically a list of comments by conservative Brits critiquing Obama for taking sides in the upcoming EU vote in Britain. The main line of thinking is "Americans would NEVER support giving up authority to a foreign conglomerate, why would Obama wish the same for Britain?"

I think it's a good place for Brits and Amerixans to discuss because there is a lot of misunderstanding that goes both ways between the two, but this is an issue that although British, would have an effect on America.

Yhw London mayor's whole "half-Kenyan" comments rubbed me the wrong way because what he said of "residual feelings for the British Empire" I feel can be used as rationale for his refusal of the EU. It would be silly, but so is saying that Obama's Kenyan origin is the reason he wants Britain in the EU.

What do you think NSG? Is Obama in a position to advocate his opinion? Is the backlash warranted? Is it hypocritical of an Amerixan leader to promote regional international bodies on other continents?

[Valaran]

I am wondering whether that this should be part of the general brexit thread (the comments have already been brought up there).

I think those comments made (by those politicians) display at best, a cynical attempt at at discrediting a legitimate viewpoint, and at worst a shocking level of ignorance.

[Farnhamia]

I am wondering whether that this should be part of the general brexit thread (the comments have already been brought up there).

I think those comments made (by those politicians) display at best, a cynical attempt at at discrediting a legitimate viewpoint, and at worst a shocking level of ignorance.

I think it should be merged. So let it be written, so let it be done!

[The Archregimancy]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama-pens-op-ed-calling-britain-stay-european-union-n560171

Word, so the article is basically a list of comments by conservative Brits critiquing Obama for taking sides in the upcoming EU vote in Britain. The main line of thinking is "Americans would NEVER support giving up authority to a foreign conglomerate, why would Obama wish the same for Britain?"

The Mayor of London is being cynically disingenuous. Or at least I assume that he is, since the Manhattan-born Boris Johnson - who only recently gave up his US citizenship for tax reasons - is presumably familiar enough with the history of the country of his birth to know better. He's quoted as writing:

For the United States to tell us in the U.K. that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do.

It is incoherent. It is inconsistent, and yes it is downright hypocritical. The Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU, for themselves or for their neighbors in their own hemisphere. Why should they think it right for us?

Given that Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Texas, and (more debateably) Hawaii all pooled their sovereignty to form part of what became a larger continent-wide federation, I would rather think that the United States is a fine example of how neighbours in a particular hemisphere might band together for the greater good, even the US might not be a specific model for the European Union.

There are differences between the two situations, of course, and only a minority of US states were previously sovereign entities; but it's arguably a better starting point for comparison than pretending that 'Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU', when so many anti-EU campaigners spend so much time complaining that they don't want the EU to become a 'United States of Europe'. Clearly some people on Boris' side are aware of the analogy.

So who, precisely, is being 'incoherent' and 'hypocritical' here?

[Ad Nihilo]

The one thing that won't get into the thick skulls of Brexiters is the thing that Obama nailed.

Outside of the EU, Britain would not be a priority for anyone to do trade deals with. Sure, trade deals with the UK would be nice. But trade negotiations always take upwards of 3 years, and really everyone has other shit going on.

The other thing is that what we are voting on is not just whether to be part of the EU single market. We are also voting on our inclusion in all the Trade Agreements the EU has going on. All of those would have to be renegotiated all over again as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... agreements

Forget governing the country. We'd likely spend the next 10 years doing nothing but negotiating trade deals we will have lost.

[Valaran]

And not to mention we'd have a reduced bargaining position, and be negotiating from a position of weakness in almost every case.

[Kainesia]

I am an 18 year old first time voter. And I am about the only person I know in my age group that is voting to leave.

[Kainesia]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama-pens-op-ed-calling-britain-stay-european-union-n560171

Word, so the article is basically a list of comments by conservative Brits critiquing Obama for taking sides in the upcoming EU vote in Britain. The main line of thinking is "Americans would NEVER support giving up authority to a foreign conglomerate, why would Obama wish the same for Britain?"

The Mayor of London is being cynically disingenuous. Or at least I assume that he is, since the Manhattan-born Boris Johnson - who only recently gave up his US citizenship for tax reasons - is presumably familiar enough with the history of the country of his birth to know better. He's quoted as writing:

For the United States to tell us in the U.K. that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do.

It is incoherent. It is inconsistent, and yes it is downright hypocritical. The Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU, for themselves or for their neighbors in their own hemisphere. Why should they think it right for us?

Given that Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Texas, and (more debateably) Hawaii all pooled their sovereignty to form part of what became a larger continent-wide federation, I would rather think that the United States is a fine example of how neighbours in a particular hemisphere might band together for the greater good, even the US might not be a specific model for the European Union.

There are differences between the two situations, of course, and only a minority of US states were previously sovereign entities; but it's arguably a better starting point for comparison than pretending that 'Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU', when so many anti-EU campaigners spend so much time complaining that they don't want the EU to become a 'United States of Europe'. Clearly some people on Boris' side are aware of the analogy.

So who, precisely, is being 'incoherent' and 'hypocritical' here?

What is being meant is that the U.S congress would never enter into an agreement where they surrendered political and legal power to Ottowa and had to pay a net loss of money to keep the Mexican economy afloat. That's what's happened to us. Sure, you could say your point that the U.S is an example of how a union of nations can work, but the states have not really seen themselves as independent nationstates since the civil war. Brexit campaigners are talking about how the U.S would react to a union with Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina etc. and was forced to give up powers on immigration, business regulation and so on. Can you imagine the republican uproar? Donald Trump's head would become so hot that the alien parasite living on it will need to find a new host.