Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Rods2 on 03 July 2018, 23:28:50
-
A review of a book that discusses this and raises this as an issue.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/07/03/book-review-collapse-europe-after-the-european-union/ (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/07/03/book-review-collapse-europe-after-the-european-union/)
I'm reading at the moment Flash Point by the eminent geostrategist George Friedman, who thinks it is not a matter of; if the EU will collapse, but when and Europe's history for the last 500 years has been one of many European nations at war with each other in its bloody history which has largely but not entirely been on pause since 1945.
Much will depend not only on the geopolitics of the member countries but whether NATO survives and if the US continues to offer Europe security guarantees (which might be withdrawn as quickly as this month by Trump to some European countries at July's NATO summit, where Trump has ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans to remove all 35,000 US forces from Germany and Poland has offered $$$bns for US bases there as a buffer against Russian expansionism). Then there is what role aggressive revisionist Russia plays, increasing global dominant aggressive Communist China, any US deterrence and how strong the European armed forces will be from the current largely pitiful levels, including the UK's when preserving European countries against each other and the other competing global powers. There is no doubt the 1945 rules based system which has provided the West's tremendous wealth and democracy is in decline and may well at short notice collapse.
History tells us that political and military vacuums encourages other expansionist powers to take advantage and fill the vacuum. The Middle East is currently an example of this with US withdrawal, Russian involvement and proxy wars between the competing regional powers of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel being played out in wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and terrorism from Palestine in Israel, along with Hezbollah, ISIS and Al Qaeda.
If people, politicians and geostrategist are increasingly thinking of this as a likely outcome, so must we and our politicians as it will inevitably affect us and that might be at a minimum through falling European and global trade to a full blown war between competing Europe states against each other or Europe being the centre of competing global actors. There is also the issue of demographics, where we don't breed enough to replace ourselves and mass migration and their long term effects on European society is one of it results, where we need the work forces to provide Europe's pensions, health and social security systems.
With all of these competing factors what is certain is that over the next 20-30 years, which will include most of us on OOF, is that Europe is going to change considerably and probably not for the better. It certainly looks likes all Europeans are going to living in increasingly interesting times.
-
Over the next 20-30 years, I will be dead. :)
It matters not if the EU collapses as long as NATO survives. My guess is that Trump is sabre rattling, in a way, in order to get the Europeans to start actually paying their way for the defence of their own countries.
They don't want to as they want to create an EU army which will eventually replace NATO and marginalise the U.S.
-
I've read George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 (twice) once in 1982 as a teenager, and once last year on Holiday.
This leads me to be an expert on Politics, and if the EU spilts then there will be some minor issues with Greece.
-
I've read George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 (twice) once in 1982 as a teenager, and once last year on Holiday.
This leads me to be an expert on Politics, and if the EU spilts then there will be some minor issues with Greece.
More about 'the dark side of human nature' than politics..........well observed and very true.
-
Over the next 20-30 years, I will be dead. :)
We were on holiday in Italy during Jan 2001 when the Euro replaced the Lira. My friend bet me the Euro wouldn't survive, and would be gone within 10 years. It's now been in use 17 years, and he still hasn't paid up, claiming it's doomed and will be gone soon (within 10 years?). Funny thing is he won't take double or quits. I expect the both the EU and the Euro to last me out.
-
A review of a book that discusses this and raises this as an issue.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/07/03/book-review-collapse-europe-after-the-european-union/ (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/07/03/book-review-collapse-europe-after-the-european-union/)
I'm reading at the moment Flash Point by the eminent geostrategist George Friedman, who thinks it is not a matter of; if the EU will collapse, but when and Europe's history for the last 500 years has been one of many European nations at war with each other in its bloody history which has largely but not entirely been on pause since 1945.
Exactly right, and if the EU collapses War is the very real possibility. That is why Winston Churchill famously stated after WW2:
"We cannot aim at anything less than the Union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that Union will be achieve" Zurich speech September 19, 1946
He stated this believing Great Britain would take the lead in Europe and together with the other States of Europe would work together to reduce the risk of conflict to the very minimum.
But as you state, with a vacuum being created in the power balance of Europe, a strong aggressive power (like Russia?) could step in as it takes advantage of the weakened situation, as Hitler recognised the weaknesses in the late 1930's of the major powers to be willing to "get involved" again in conflict after the dreadful costs of WWI. He took full advantage of this during 1938 and 1939 and then went forward from there boosted by the pitiful response from Great Britain and France, who were at that time at their weakest. Putin, or someone with similar visions, could well do the same.
As for International organisations, like the UN or NATO, taking decisive action to stop any deterioration towards war by issuing threats, forget it. International law is toothless; always has been, always will be, as it relies on the strength of usually just one supreme power, which currently is the USA. With the current political landscape in the USA being one of 'America First', and the incumbent President reviewing the costs of continually propping up the security of Europe, all we can expect in the event of war in Europe is a situation, as GB and Churchill witnessed in 1940; a isolationist USA who will not risk millions of young American lives and incur huge costs to run to the defence of a pitiful Europe that has done nothing to increase it's military spending to the level expected.
So, in short the EU will implode, as all 'empires' do, and all I hope is that Putin's Russia implodes before then.
On that subject, Russia, I will again quote Churchill:
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Radio broadcast 1st October 1939
Especially after witnessing Russia hosting the World Cup, and it's great PR achievement to hide the real, mixed up, truth of Putin's country, doesn't that quote still ring so true. ;)
-
Aaaaaaahhh . . . . . . .
Can't beat a bit of light reading on a Wednesday morning ::) ;)
-
I've read George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 (twice) once in 1982 as a teenager, and once last year on Holiday.
This leads me to be an expert on Politics, and if the EU spilts then there will be some minor issues with Greece.
More about 'the dark side of human nature' than politics..........well observed and very true.
Yes Opti, and my prompt to quote my favourite philosopher, Thomas Hobbs (1588-1679), a man with tremendous vision and foresight that we should do well to listen to:
This is THE Essence of Thomas Hobbes, and as Thomas Hobbes rightly summed up:
"Hereby it is manifest , that during the time men live without common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. For WARRE , consisteth not in Battell onely, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre; as it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foul weather , lyeth not in a showre or two of rain; but in an an inclination thereto of many dayes together: So the nature of War, consisteth not in actual fighting: but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE."
Hobbes, T. Leviathan pp. 185, 186 Penguin (1651)
Overall a warning from history you could say; May we all work together in the interests of mankind, and may the split of the EU not cast back into the deep shadows of that history. ;)
-
It must be fantastic being all seeing. Like those that firmly believe the mere existence of the EU has avoided wars in Europe. That should perhaps have read MORE wars in Europe. My basic Geography says that the Balkans are in Europe. Ukraine is in Europe.
The problem is imposing those visionary dogmas on ordinary countries. You can see the results over the so called migration crisis. Italy "not taking anymore". Spain taking 600 (yet returning weekly that amount from very basic camps.) and so on. Oh and referring to non conforming governments as populist because they don't toe the EU line. Democracy at its best.
Trade was the answer. Civilised trading promotes a sense of well being. You could call it a common market if the name hasn't been used already.
I agree the question is what of NATO? Russia has already well signalled its intentions in the Ukraine, Crimea. Biggest country on earth, large proportion enjoys permafrost but an economy smaller than Italy's . Trump has many faults but I think he is playing a blinder. Why should the USA cover the shortfall of hangers on. Bit like those folk that never get a round in at the pub but still go home happy. I said on here a few weeks back that the trade war will escalate to a security war. We can but hope that the many NATO miscreants ,including Germany, step up to the mark.
As an aside is it not truly pathetic that mankind hasn't put wars behind them and instead spent their energies fixing things. Everyone on earth, that wanted to, could be now be living in decent accommodation with the money spent on killing people.
-
The EU is nothing to do with prevention of war in Europe. NATO has done that. In fact it could be reasonably argued that the EU went half way down the road of starting WW3 not long ago by sponsoring and assisting the overthrow of Ukraines elected Govt.
When Churchill repeated the fashionable (at the time) mantra of Europe becoming one country, he was of course speaking from the perspective of the British not being included, as he also said "If we are faced with the choice of throwing in our lot with Europe or taking our chances in the wider world, then we must turn our eyes towards the sea" That may not quite be verbatim, but its close enough.
-
If we are faced with the choice of throwing in our lot with Europe or taking our chances in the wider world, then we must turn our eyes towards the sea" That may not quite be verbatim, but its close enough.
That 'quote' was said on the eve of D-Day, and was said to President De Gaulle in the context of him disagreeing with virtually everything De Gaulle wanted to happen during and as a result od D-DAy. There is no actual record of the outburst, but the generally accepted 'quote' is :
We are going to liberate Europe, but it is because the Americans are with us. So get this quite clear. Every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose. Every time I have to choose between you and Roosevelt, I will always choose Roosevelt
-
Just read in the Spanish press that Spain has said it wont increase its spending to 2% of GDP instead keeping it at 0.92%. Rationale is not what you spend but how you help out and respond to crisis. Spain actively contributes to NaTO missions.
-
The EU is nothing to do with prevention of war in Europe. NATO has done that. In fact it could be reasonably argued that the EU went half way down the road of starting WW3 not long ago by sponsoring and assisting the overthrow of Ukraines elected Govt.
When Churchill repeated the fashionable (at the time) mantra of Europe becoming one country, he was of course speaking from the perspective of the British not being included, as he also said "If we are faced with the choice of throwing in our lot with Europe or taking our chances in the wider world, then we must turn our eyes towards the sea" That may not quite be verbatim, but its close enough.
You mean the USA has done that as they are effectively NATO ;).
As for the EU going down the road to WWIII; well no, not all the time the USA is in the background / with military where it is needed, it will not happen; Putin is no fool and is not feeling suicidal, whilst playing his long game.
Poor diplomacy has started wars, like WW1 and WW2, so just imagine the damage 'Europe' could do as separate states, like France and Britain in 1914, if not under a central control with, once more, the USA pulling the strings.
A Europe full of disparate countries, without the EU, is going backwards and WILL become a very real issue. If the USA also go backwards, as eventually the fading 'empire' will, then heaven help anyone alive during those times.
Just think of my Hobbs quote and what you see around you in this World. Man is the same as he was 2,000 years ago, just now has advanced technology to do very real damage to himself and the World as a whole!
-
A Europe full of disparate countries, without the EU, is going backwards and WILL become a very real issue. If the USA also go backwards, as eventually the fading 'empire' will, then heaven help anyone alive during those times.
.. as will a Europe full of Nationalist, protectionist governments born out of frustration with the EU "political project". The happy medium is somewhere in-between.
-
Just read in the Spanish press that Spain has said it wont increase its spending to 2% of GDP instead keeping it at 0.92%. Rationale is not what you spend but how you help out and respond to crisis. Spain actively contributes to NaTO missions.
The US can't afford to fall out with Spain, and therefore will be spared most of the wrath being aimed at Germany and France. Why? It's strategically well placed, and the US bases at Rota and Moron are extensively used by US flights as staging points into/out of the middle east. Direct access between the Atlantic and the Med means there aren't too many diplomatic issues regarding over-flights either.
The French are forever rejecting over-flights, even where valid flight-plans have been filed and accepted. These are the only two (friendly/NATO) countries where you don't pass over at least one more to get from the Atlantic to the Med.
So whilst there may be some pressure behind the scenes to increase spending, I doubt much will be publically said about Spain by the US.
-
A Europe full of disparate countries, without the EU, is going backwards and WILL become a very real issue. If the USA also go backwards, as eventually the fading 'empire' will, then heaven help anyone alive during those times.
.. as will a Europe full of Nationalist, protectionist governments born out of frustration with the EU "political project". The happy medium is somewhere in-between.
Yes, very true! :y :y :y
A happy medium is what we must hope for ;)
-
Exactly. Free, independent, sovereign, democratic nations who are on friendly terms and cover one anothers backs when need be.
Apart from the French obviously. I wouldn't piss on the lot of them unless they were allergic to piss. ;D
-
Exactly. Free, independent, sovereign, democratic nations who are on friendly terms and cover one anothers backs when need be.
Apart from the French obviously. I wouldn't piss on the lot of them unless they were allergic to piss. ;D
;D ;D ;D And that is exactly the situation and perhaps future challenge; we as European nations have significant "history" and could / will become war like yet again given half the chance! ::) ::) ;)
-
I doubt it tbh. The world has changed a lot since WW2.Putins Russia could be a threat, but he wont last forever,and the situation is probably solvable by bringing them in from the cold, which is what should have happened at the end of the cold war.
-
I doubt it tbh. The world has changed a lot since WW2.Putins Russia could be a threat, but he wont last forever,and the situation is probably solvable by bringing them in from the cold, which is what should have happened at the end of the cold war.
But it is still populated by many people who haven't changed, being both power greedy and aggressive, with the rest possessing the capacity to yet again get diplomacy terribly wrong and bring us all to the brink of war.
You may have guessed that I have no faith in mankind, with history endlessly proving it is still as Hobbs described. :( :(
-
If the EU collapsed, what would be the aftermath?
I've kept a bit quiet on this, but the answer is clear.
Wales would emerge as the new global superpower. Consequently, Putin will tremble. Trump will behave. Kim Yong-Un will go back to kindergarden, Israel and Palestine will unite as a defence strategy, China will remove it's artificial islands, and ISIS will convert to Catholicism.
Job done :y
-
Lizzie. You should have put “ still populated by men who havent changed” 99% or more is down to men. Sadly it is in our nature to kill and take given rhe chance. It is only civilised society that stops it.
-
If the EU collapsed, what would be the aftermath?
I've kept a bit quiet on this, but the answer is clear.
Wales would emerge as the new global superpower. Consequently, Putin will tremble. Trump will behave. Kim Yong-Un will go back to kindergarden, Israel and Palestine will unite as a defence strategy, China will remove it's artificial islands, and ISIS will convert to Catholicism.
Job done :y
Sounds reasonable. :)
-
Brilliant :y
We could have Ivor the engine in charge of Transport.
Flossey the sheep in charge Agriculture and farming.
Tom Jones in charge of the arts.
Feel free to nominate anybody else ;D
-
Lizzie. You should have put “ still populated by men who havent changed” 99% or more is down to men. Sadly it is in our nature to kill and take given rhe chance. It is only civilised society that stops it.
;D ;D ;D I, as a woman, have got into trouble on the OOF before Varche for using the term "man" and blaming them for everything when it is a very masculine forum! :D :D But, sure, it is "men" who have consistently sent us into war as Hobbs observed and predicted hundreds of years ago. Civilised society partially controls the drive towards war, put has so far failed to eradicate it.
All the time greedy, self centred politicians or individuals are getting the diplomacy wrong, war will regrettably transpire. :( :( :(
-
From Joan of Arc to Margaret Thatcher, women have been just as guilty as men of going to war, when in a position to make the decision.
They have also been at least as ruthless.
-
From Joan of Arc to Margaret Thatcher, women have been just as guilty as men of going to war, when in a position to make the decision.
They have also been at least as ruthless.
Hell hath no fury... :D
-
From Joan of Arc to Margaret Thatcher, women have been just as guilty as men of going to war, when in a position to make the decision.
They have also been at least as ruthless.
You could also add Queen Boudicca to that very short list, but all three have one thing in common; they fought a war after men oppressed and started physical aggression against them or their country and it's people.
Men from ancient Rome to the Syrian War have been the aggressors, attacking others, in pursuit of political and financial gains, or/and because they were fxcking mad bastards. ;)
-
From Joan of Arc to Margaret Thatcher, women have been just as guilty as men of going to war, when in a position to make the decision.
They have also been at least as ruthless.
You could also add Queen Boudicca to that very short list, but all three have one thing in common; they fought a war after men oppressed and started physical aggression against them or their country and it's people.
Men from ancient Rome to the Syrian War have been the aggressors, attacking others, in pursuit of political and financial gains, or/and because they were fxcking mad bastards. ;)
I think testosterone and ego have a lot to do with it all as well ::)
. . . . .The lady warriors just had pmt . . . . . . (runs and hides)
-
From Joan of Arc to Margaret Thatcher, women have been just as guilty as men of going to war, when in a position to make the decision.
They have also been at least as ruthless.
You could also add Queen Boudicca to that very short list, but all three have one thing in common; they fought a war after men oppressed and started physical aggression against them or their country and it's people.
Men from ancient Rome to the Syrian War have been the aggressors, attacking others, in pursuit of political and financial gains, or/and because they were fxcking mad bastards. ;)
I think testosterone and ego have a lot to do with it all as well ::)
. . . . .The lady warriors just had pmt . . . . . . (runs and hides)
::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)