The difference, quite obviously, being that countries have chosen to join the EU. And even since Brexit (when some from the Leave campaign revelled in the idea of the EU collapsing), many countries still want to join. Such as Ukraine and Bosnia & Herzegovina.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Brexit matters
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
Indeed. And I'd like a joint bank account with Elon Musk!
Not exactly sure what you mean by this comment, but presumably you think it is wishful thinking that those countries will join the EU? Those countries need to make a lot of changes before it happens, but it’s not impossible.
Anyway, my point was that countries choose to join the EU. The EU arn’t going around invading places.
I should think the meaning of the comment is : poor country would like to join club of richer countries who will give them access to a lot of money to modernise etc.
Not sure anybody has suggested that the EU has invaded anywhere. Yes, countries choose to join, but once joined if they become unhappy and unable to change things, the wanting to leave has the effect not dissimilar to independence from a colonial power. Triggering Article 50 seemed like starting the fourth chimurenga
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
You know exactly what I was referring to. You’ve said again that leaving the EU is like trying to get independence from a colonial power. It is nothing of the sort. Anyway, which other country in the EU is seriously considering leaving? The answer is none, even the countries which have some aspect of euroscepticism.Not sure anybody has suggested that the EU has invaded anywhere. Yes, countries choose to join, but once joined if they become unhappy and unable to change things, the wanting to leave has the effect not dissimilar to independence from a colonial power. Triggering Article 50 seemed like starting the fourth chimurenga
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
It's not a bad thing - from their point of view. I'd say it would be rather a good wheeze for me to have a joint account with Elon Musk so that I could buy a holiday villa and a new Ferrari - or perhaps just fix my leaky roof. I'm not so sure he'd be quite as keen on the idea, though.
Leaving the EU is nothing like gaining independence from a colonial power. It's looked on with far more disgust than that.
Not whether it is a bad or good thing - just unsurprising or any particular recommendation. Not many net contributing countries queuing to join though.
Yet. Perhaps waiting to see how the UK fares?
You might even be prepared to live under Elon Musks rules and directives for that....
A very bizarre comparison. It is a good thing from existing EU member’s point of view too, depending on how you look at it. It can bring more stability to a region, which a neighbouring country would rather like, especially if they can trade etc with them more easily.
That’s quite a bold statement, to put it politely. You think the EU is looked on with far more disgust than a colonial power? Are you actually serious? Colonial powers invaded countries, enslaved native people, stole treasures and resources. And you think the EU is worse than that?
I just shows how deep the anti-EU cult in this country is with opinions like that.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If they are ‘net contributing’ to the EU, surely that means they’re already in the EU
.How long will that be then? Jacob Rees Mogg said it could be 50 years until we see the full benefits of Brexit. Some leavers said Brexit would cause a chain reaction of other countries leaving. There’s no evidence of that yet.
Last edited:
It’s really quite a lot different and if you think they’re similar you probably need to re-evaluate what you think empire is.
Waiting for what exactly, given that it is already evident how the UK is faring?
The UK will survive - in some form - it's only a question of if the gain will be worth the pain or not.
Has any real gain actually materialised, let alone any gain which might be worth the plainly evident pain?
I say no. Others may disagree. I believe there have been several posts in this thread asking for people to enlighten us as to the gains, but none have been presented as yet.
Hopefully, the UK doesn't survive in its current form! Brexit has shown that it is not a Union in any sense of the word, indeed all this talk of colonialism and how hard it is to leave an empire reminds me somewhat of the situation Scotland faces. One of the people in line to be PM want's to ignore our democratically elected government and resorts to playground insults, the other wants to summon our decision makers down to London to explain themselves on matters which are absolutely nothing to do with Westminster! Neither want to try and rectify the fact a large chunk of the Scottish electorate is so unhappy with the way the UK is today that they want out. Instead of trying to come up with solutions to try and appease people, and at least pretend it's a union, we get told we have to go along with it regardless of if it's actually what we wanted or not, or is indeed any good for us, and even when we (continually) vote for a government who wants to hold a perfectly legal, democratic referendum, we can't have one because...well...apparently it's undemocratic to ask people what they want...according to the unelected PM.
If the EU treated the UK this way I'd have seen the case for Brexit, but as it didn't, I still don't!
Especially as Downing Street has pressured each government department multiple times to find some Brexit related advantages they could then sell to the public. And yet still ... Nothing
I'm sure they'll be asked again once the new PM takes charge
And when they find none, again, the new PM will still insist there are many benefits and wil start reeling off things we could have done anyway without Brexit or try and spin one of the many losses as a benefit which sadly so many wil lap up and use to justify it all.
adrock1976
Established Member
Not sure anybody has suggested that the EU has invaded anywhere. Yes, countries choose to join, but once joined if they become unhappy and unable to change things, the wanting to leave has the effect not dissimilar to independence from a colonial power. Triggering Article 50 seemed like starting the fourth chimurenga
The EU in itself may not have invaded, but most of the Western Europe members have previously invaded, took over, colonised, and in some instances carved up the land by drawing straight lines on the map. Below is the notable ones - the list is not exhaustive:
Great Britain - Ireland, North America, parts of Africa, parts of Asia, Caribbean, South Pacific, Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Australia
France - Parts of Africa (including the Congo Brazzaville), South Pacific, Polynesia, Quebec in present day Canada
Denmark - Faroe Isles, Greenland
Belgium - they even had a go themselves in taking over the Congo (Leopoldsville), which eventually became Zaire before reverting to DR Congo
Netherlands - Parts of Caribbean islands, West Indies
Italy - the Venetian Empire took over Slovenia, Roman Empire worked northwards into Great Britain as far north as the Antonine Wall
Spain - Much of Central and South America, California, parts of North Africa, Cuba
Portugal - Brazil, Mozambique, Angola, the Goa region in India
Austria and Hungary - Slovenia, parts of the Balkans, parts of Czechoslovakia and Poland
Germany - parts of Western and Eastern Europe mainland. Hitler attempted to push his luck by trying to take over Russia and oust Stalin
As can be seen above, most of Western Europe has done a fair amount of invading and taking over in terms of imperialism and empire building.
Hardly relevant given that none of those were done in the name of the EU, and the EU didn't even exist at the relevant times.
I don't think you are reading that properly. Leaving the EU is ..... looked on with more disgust than (gaining independence from a colonial power) By the other EU members, presumably?
If I had the time to waste I'd examine some of the others but the claim that Italy is responsible for the Venetian Empire is entirely fallacious. The Republic of Venice existed from about 700 to 1800 AD. It collapsed over 60 years before the state of Italy was even created in 1861. As for the Roman Empire well, that predated the Venetians by at least another 200 years. Blaming "Italy" for all that is just lazy.
adrock1976
Established Member
I was already aware of that, but both Rome and Venice are in present day Italy, hence how I had gave it a brief mention.
The previous post was in response to someone who had mentioned the EU having not invaded, but before the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo back in 1914, most of the Western Europe nations had built empires through the means of imperialism and invading.
A rebrand or change of control doesn't absolve a country of its past. If it did, let us rebrand as Orlandia. We want our Danegeld back, with interest!
Seriously though, 'blaming' this generation for the actions of previous generations does not solve anything. We are where we are.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I agree with that. I'd also point out that, until relatively recent times, invading other groups in order to do 'empire building' was almost universally considered a normal thing to do. Pretty much every country (and before nation states were common, warlord/kingdom/ethnic group/etc.) that was strong enough would do so. I would say almost no country today has a clean historical record on this, other than those countries that didn't exist until recently, or that were historically always too weak/too isolated to invade anyone else. In the 19th century, European countries became much better at empire building, and therefore did so on a much bigger scale than almost anything that had happened before, but it wasn't fundamentally different from what had always been going on - just, bigger. And the places that European countries colonised often weren't exactly peaceful before we colonised them: To take one example, look at how the Aztecs treated the groups around them! And as I understand it, Africa pre-colonisation saw frequent wars and conquests between different groups. Of course that didn't make it right for 'us' to invade, colonise, and in many cases treat the local inhabitants appallingly: By any reasonable moral values today, that was absolutely wrong. But it does put the lie to the constant narrative that there was somehow something uniquely bad about the UK for which we need to keep somehow paying penance.
Nobody (well, very few people) say that there was anything unique about the UK's imperial past. However, the fact that "everyone else did it" doesn't absolve our guilt for specific atrocities committed in the name of Empire, nor does it relieve us of moral obligations towards those who we ruled/oppressed.
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
The EU may run into a little difficulty invading another country since it does not have a defence or foreign policy to which all its members subscribe (certainly not one which would take its members to war) and it does not control any armed forces of significance. But give it time.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Principally by the remaining members (some more than others) but a few "outsiders" as well.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Ah the imminent EU army, I suppose Turkey will be in that as they were about to join in 2016…oh what 6 years on and they aren’t. How strange
Doppelganger
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 411
Exactly. All these idiotic predictions, that anyone with a brain knew were just jackanory, yet we are still expected to entertain those notions...
Is the
I thought the EU "Army" was more along the lines of UN peacekeepers or NATO personnel, to provide support in places like, for example, the Green buffer Zone across Cyprus, or Kosovo? In places where the EU already has some kind of presence, this would be a more supportive role with military capabilities if needed, not a force used to invade other countries or whatever crackpot idea the hard right came up with.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Prior to the UK leaving, I think I'm right in saying every EU nation had been under authoritarian rule of the left or right, or invaded or been invaded by another EU nation pretty much within living memory. Ireland no longer holds that dubious accolade since the UK left, and the 1920s is probably slipping out of living memory anyway.
But I suggest the key thing point here is that none of those actions took place after the nations in question joined the EU. That's surely a good thing not an excuse to bash the EU for being warmongering.
But I suggest the key thing point here is that none of those actions took place after the nations in question joined the EU. That's surely a good thing not an excuse to bash the EU for being warmongering.
Do you mean 'after the UK leaving', as I don't think the UK (or Sweden or Finland) had been under authoritarian rule of the left or right, or invaded or been invaded by another EU nation pretty much within living memory. I don't think Malta is strictly in this category either, although possibly the colonial administration falls under 'authoritarian rule'?
Last edited: