Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are you still in the EU? Shit, this thing's dragging as hell. You should crash out now.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Telmar View Post

      Well you have to admit the cascade of alliances prior to WWI were rather a contributing factor to the extension of what could have been a local conflict rather than something that kept the peace.

      As for trade between blocs, I don´t have any numbers but I have a hunch that amounts of inter European trade were much smaller than in the present period, and although that has no influence on the ranking of trade partners, it does marginalize the share of international cooperation. I am pretty sure that a big chunk of trade up to WWII is done within the colonies.

      In this sense, the EU, by trade, is a stabilizing factor. But of course not the only one. NATO counts evidently, but individualities also played their role: de Gaulle did´nt need no NATO or EU to engage a broad action to create friendly ties with Germany.
      Indeed you have hit nail in the head there was also much less financial ties with trade partners and not much of international dislocation of means of production and other assets. SU and its satelite states have mostly stuck to pre ww2 trade model due to domination of state owned enterprises.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Telmar View Post

        ....

        As for trade between blocs, I don´t have any numbers but I have a hunch that amounts of inter European trade were much smaller than in the present period, and although that has no influence on the ranking of trade partners, it does marginalize the share of international cooperation. I am pretty sure that a big chunk of trade up to WWII is done within the colonies.

        ....
        It took until the 1990's for European trade to reach the level of interconnectedness that it had in 1913. As I mentioned previously the biggest trading partner of France in 1914 was Germany. Germany's biggest trading partner was the UK. For another example, Germany's biggest trading partner by far on 20 June 1941 was the USSR. That didn't stop them from acting like idiots a day later.

        I'll repeat, politicians are fuck-wits who would happily throw away trade connections at a moments notice if it gained them a little more political traction. Trade just isn't a strong enough force to keep nations from fighting each other when compared to political expediency.

        Originally posted by Asheren View Post

        Indeed you have hit nail in the head there was also much less financial ties with trade partners and not much of international dislocation of means of production and other assets. ....
        Wrong on every count. 1914's financial ties weren't matched until the late 1990's. Europe's cultural suicide pact of 1914 was that damaging.

        Comment


        • "Financial ties" by what criteria though? Besides, financial ties are only symptoms of a national economy's wellbeing.

          By that I mean:

          According to destatis, today every second job in Germany depends on export either directly or indirectly. In 1913, it'd been only every sixteenth.

          In 1913, Germany exported goods worth € 52 billion in today's currency (~ 31% of GDP); in 2017, Germany's exports amounted to 1279 billion (~ 69.62%).

          In 1913, foreign banks and governments owned approx. 9% of Germany's debts, in 2016, it was almost exactly 60%.

          In 1913, Germany's economy could survive a few years of conflict with its trade partners.

          I daresay it would be crippled in no time today.

          All in all, trade does make the world a safer place.

          Comment


          • Pre 1914 a number of learned economists (in Germany, the UK and France) had written books that were taken very seriously that war between the major powers was unthinkable because of how interlocked their economies were and that they'd be financially crippled within months of the outbreak of such a war. It was expected that business interests would work hard to avoid a conflict for that very reason. The Socialists expected that every nation involved would suffer a 'Workers General Strike' to prevent the war.

            It turned out that no, you can in fact run such a war for a couple of years before you really start to cripple your nation. That Socialist Unity vanished within seconds of nationalist appeals. And that economic reasons just really don't have the appeal sufficient to prevent war.



            Comment


            • Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
              It turned out that no, you can in fact run such a war for a couple of years before you really start to cripple your nation.
              Particularly if you have a source of food and armaments willing to let you run up insane amounts of debt.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Corrupt View Post

                Particularly if you have a source of food and armaments willing to let you run up insane amounts of debt.

                That is entirely different story but with large states you have very limited possiblity of such and in modern linked economy the benefactor can be hit himself hard enough economicaly to reconsider his support. Look at Ukrainian war. Russia had to cut scope of its support to separatists purely on economic backlash without any serious military backing from the west to Kiev goverment. There was never any credible threat of NATO or any other player intervention. Moscov could heave easily conquer entire Eastern Ukraine bit by bit if it wanted.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Asheren View Post


                  That is entirely different story but with large states you have very limited possiblity of such and in modern linked economy the benefactor can be hit himself hard enough economicaly to reconsider his support. Look at Ukrainian war. Russia had to cut scope of its support to separatists purely on economic backlash without any serious military backing from the west to Kiev goverment. There was never any credible threat of NATO or any other player intervention. Moscov could heave easily conquer entire Eastern Ukraine bit by bit if it wanted.
                  What evidence do you have that this occurred? By all the constant whining coming from Kiev, one would think that the exact opposite has happened

                  Which supports the fact that Moscow didn't want to conquer Eastern Ukraine in the first place. This is in addition to the inconvenient little fact that it was Moscow that brought Ukraine to heel and sign both of the Minsk agreements, not the other way around....in fact, a quick analysis shows that in all likelihood Ukraine is not even interested in implementing Minsk 2.

                  Basically, National security >> bunch of transient numbers, and always will be. In that regard, the historical example provided by kiwi a few posts back is rather apt.

                  Comment


                  • It's all coming to a head and the plan is falling together nicely

                    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-44113864

                    Holyrood refuses consent for Westminster Brexit bill


                    The Scottish Parliament has refused to give its consent to the UK's main piece of Brexit legislation.
                    The Scottish and UK governments are at odds over the EU Withdrawal Bill and what it could mean for devolved powers.
                    Labour, Green and Lib Dem MSPs united to back SNP members in rejecting the Westminster bill, saying it would restrict Holyrood's powers.
                    The Scottish Conservatives voted against, and have blamed the SNP for the failure to find an agreement.
                    MSPs voted by 93 to 30 that Holyrood "does not consent to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill".
                    Westminster ultimately has the power to introduce the legislation without the consent of Holyrood - but it would be politically difficult, and has never been done before.
                    Speaking after the vote, Scotland's Brexit secretary, Mike Russell, urged the UK government to respect the will of the Scottish Parliament and find an acceptable solution.
                    He said: "The Scottish Parliament has now said overwhelmingly that this attempt to undermine devolution is unacceptable.
                    "The UK government cannot ignore the reality of devolution or try to drown out what this parliament says. They cannot pretend that no motion has been passed."
                    Both the Scottish and UK governments insist that the door is still open to finding a deal, although both sides also admit they remain some distance apart.



                    etc etc

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ak16 View Post

                      What evidence do you have that this occurred? By all the constant whining coming from Kiev, one would think that the exact opposite has happened

                      Which supports the fact that Moscow didn't want to conquer Eastern Ukraine in the first place. This is in addition to the inconvenient little fact that it was Moscow that brought Ukraine to heel and sign both of the Minsk agreements, not the other way around....in fact, a quick analysis shows that in all likelihood Ukraine is not even interested in implementing Minsk 2.

                      Basically, National security >> bunch of transient numbers, and always will be. In that regard, the historical example provided by kiwi a few posts back is rather apt.
                      yes yes no polite people, mh370 shot down itself and peoples of mauriopol blew themself up durring non existing attempt to advance on the city to frame poor poor innocent russia.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Corrupt View Post

                        Particularly if you have a source of food and armaments willing to let you run up insane amounts of debt.
                        And even if you don't vis a vis Imperial Germany which took until 1917 to really destroy it's economy.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post

                          And even if you don't vis a vis Imperial Germany which took until 1917 to really destroy it's economy.
                          their was only 1 winner of WW1 and it was neither the British Empire or France... America was the winner it had become the number 1 power, the British, french and German economies were on their knee s the Germans had to pay for a war it never started but in reality tried to stop

                          WW1 was the beginning of the end of the British Empire and Brexit will end Britain for good

                          Comment


                          • LOL. While I don't ascribe blame for starting the war to Imperial Germany (Austria-Hungary and Serbia take equal blame in that) they most certainly were not trying to stop it. They were very aware that since there was going to be a war, better to have it in 1914 when they still thought they could defeat both France and Russia than in 5 years time when they were aware that Russian military growth would make that impossible.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tizer View Post
                              their was only 1 winner of WW1 and it was neither the British Empire or France... America was the winner it had become the number 1 power, the British, french and German economies were on their knee s the Germans had to pay for a war it never started but in reality tried to stop

                              WW1 was the beginning of the end of the British Empire and Brexit will end Britain for good
                              If you are strictly talking economy then yes America was emboldened after WW1. I hope though that you don’t mean they ‘won the war’ like they did in Western Europe and the Pacific during WW2 because the British Empire and the French one fought errr bravely enough. See the casualties for either. The Russians too of course.

                              Brexit will end Britain for good? I don't have the economy knowledge to make this assertion nor to contradict it. Actually, very few do much less internet posters on a forum. For some its a blessing and for others its what you describe.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                                LOL. While I don't ascribe blame for starting the war to Imperial Germany (Austria-Hungary and Serbia take equal blame in that) they most certainly were not trying to stop it. They were very aware that since there was going to be a war, better to have it in 1914 when they still thought they could defeat both France and Russia than in 5 years time when they were aware that Russian military growth would make that impossible.
                                they told Austria not to attack Serbia but instead hit them with a
                                ultimatum instead because the Germans knew the Russians & French had a treaty to defend each other and that Russia would amass massive amount of troops along the German border as troop movements depended on railways and their timetables ... Germany feared a war on two fronts so when the Russians started moving troops to the German borders Germany decided to attack France via the low countries as Germany believed they could take Paris by the time the Russians arrived in force

                                Originally posted by JakeScully View Post

                                If you are strictly talking economy then yes America was emboldened after WW1. I hope though that you don’t mean they ‘won the war’ like they did in Western Europe and the Pacific during WW2 because the British Empire and the French one fought errr bravely enough. See the casualties for either. The Russians too of course.

                                Brexit will end Britain for good? I don't have the economy knowledge to make this assertion nor to contradict it. Actually, very few do much less internet posters on a forum. For some its a blessing and for others its what you describe.
                                no i mean they were the winners economically .... when i mean Brexit will end the UK i mean Scotland leaving the UK and the possibility of troubles in Northern Ireland ... England needs to go back to being England and not obsess about Britain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X