Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Anti-EU Sentiment Thread

Discussion in 'Europe & Russia' started by BMD, May 21, 2016.

  1. Abingdonboy

    Abingdonboy Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    10,367
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    I don't agree, by the UK police defintion all such incidents (Raoul Moat and Cumbria included) would be classed as Marauding Terrorist and Firearms Attack' (MTFA).

    Totally different mate, that was a bombing where it took a while to even establish who had carried it out. In a MTFA it is immediately apparent who is responsible and where the threat is.
     
  2. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,274
    Likes Received:
    2,514
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Yes but someone in a city centre walking around with an AK is not the same as someone in hiding, or someone driving around in a car in the countryside.

    Yes and that was very much the case in Cumbria, the guy was literally driving around shooting people in a rural area who were on their own. In many cases there weren't even witnesses to report the incidents, Cumbria has a very low population density. He had already shot most of them before someone even called the police, whereas in somewhere like London of Paris, half the world knows after 30s of it starting.

    Raul Moat shot two people in two different areas, then went into hiding somewhere in the countryside. Some of the Paris attackers still haven't been caught and there's probably a number of open homicides in most Western countries where the perpetrators are still out there.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/isis-suspects-at-large-european-officials-say/
     
  3. Abingdonboy

    Abingdonboy Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    10,367
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    The entire point I was making was is that outside of London there is relatively little armed police presence (for understandable reasons). That is all.


    Well that is a bit of a misrepresentation of the facts, the suspect in question played a supporting role, he wasn't one of the actual attackers.
     
  4. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,274
    Likes Received:
    2,514
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Well explain this to me. 6 months after firing air rifles in public was banned (unbeknown to me), I in Leicestershire, in the countryside, managed to get stopped by armed police less than half an hour after I started firing an air rifle at some targets on a river bank. That was obviously a less than serious incident with zero casualties/damage, yet still the response speed was preposterous.

    Still, they know who they are and they haven't found them. And even after they identified the Boston marathan bomber it still took longer to find him than stop the Cumbria killer, even with them kicking in everyone's doors.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
  5. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,274
    Likes Received:
    2,514
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/...rt-killed.html

    Man killed after trying to grab Paris airport soldier's gun

    The attack further rattled France, which remains under a state of emergency after attacks over the past two years that have killed 235 people.

    French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said the attacker, whom he did not identify, assaulted three Air Force soldiers who were patrolling the airport. He said the soldier who was attacked managed to hold on to her rifle and the two soldiers she was with opened fire to protect her and the public.

    It happened around 8:30 a.m. Paris time in a public area of the airport's South Terminal, before passengers must show tickets or go through security.

    Interior Minister Bruno Le Roux said the attacker had stolen a woman's car earlier in the morning in a northern Paris suburb. Le Roux said police and intelligence services know who he is, though the Paris prosecutor's office said he did not appear in a French government database of people considered potential threats to national security.

    In the earlier incident, the Paris police office said, a man fired birdshot at officers during a traffic stop, wounding one in the face. He then fled and stole the woman's car after threatening her with a weapon. That car was later found near Orly.

    Officials said about 3,000 people were evacuated from Orly, where passengers told of gunshots and panic. Traffic was jammed near the airport and people wheeled suitcases down the road.
     
  6. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,552
    Likes Received:
    5,122
    Country Flag:
    France
    The EU is 60 – and it helped my generation fall in love with Europe
    [​IMG]
    Mark Rice-Oxley
    For so many of us, it was the fraternity the EU fostered – the campsites, the cafes, the chance to live in Berlin or Barcelona – that opened up a whole continent



    [​IMG]
    Thursday 23 March 2017 15.16 GMTLast modified on Thursday 23 March 201718.30 GMT

    Happy birthday, the EU. Really sorry we can’t be at the party. I gave you my present last summer, you’ll remember. An X on a ballot paper. So did lots of my peers (25- to 49-year-old men are estimated to have voted 55:45 in favour of remain). Sadly, it wasn’t enough.

    Still, there’s a good reason that lots of people in my generation think the EU is all right. We’re about as old as British membership. Our upbringing was tinged with an opening up to all things European. Not just Abba and Jeux Sans Frontières andJohan Cruyff. But exchange programmes and pen pals, InterRail and espadrilles, pizza and Chianti. Europeans, it turned out, were normal, cool, interesting and interested.

    This was a huge comfort to those of us who paid attention in history. The first things British children of the 1970s and 80s learned about Europe was how beastly everyone had been to each other over the past 1,000 years. Waterloo, Trafalgar, the Somme and Agincourt. Crécy, Austerlitz, D-day. War without end, and how all those tiny little nations were forged by self-obsessed emperors and tsars and kings and despots who slaughtered anyone and everyone who didn’t think like them.

    Against that backdrop, it was a relief to learn, in double German one day, that finally we’d found another way to deal with each other. It was called the Europäische Ekonomische Gemeinschaft. And if that was a mouthful, then at least it was a mouthful from a country that made excellent cakes. The EEC, as it was then, was an instrument for win-win cooperation, for solidarity, for cross-border fertilisation of many kinds, for the fellowship of nations. OK, it wasn’t sexy, but then neither is dying in a ditch. The chances of people like me being called up to fight the Germans for the third generation in a row seemed remote as long as the EEC was there.

    It got better. Europe was open! You could just, like, go there. If the 80s marked the real beginning of Brits vacationing in Europe, the 90s was the decade that we moved there en masse. We explored the continent in ways that our parents never could. Campsites and cafes, Camels and new ways of doing coffee. Hitchhiking and railway stations and sleeper trains that started in one country and ended up in a totally different one the next morning. “Is it Austria?” my bleary-eyed, hungover fellow traveller asked one morning in 1989. “Germany,” I replied. “Germany till half past 11.” Freedom of movement in the 1990s had very different connotations to the dark undertones it has today. If you felt like it – and could afford it – you could just jump on a train and go live in Berlin, or Bordeaux or Barcelona. Eurostar, budget flights and cheap car rental. No visas, no hassle. Pick up a job on a building site, in a bank, in a bar.

    Oh the irony: to us Europe meant an absence of petty rules and regulations, not an accretion of them. We got to know Spanish and Dutch, Finns and Italians. The telling thing was we had so much more in common with these young foreigners than with so many of our compatriots. Who knew – Germans are just like us really. We people are all the same really, give or take. It really felt like nationality didn’t matter, it was just a lousy trick of the past, an instrument for bad rulers to deflect criticism and give people something to cheer, however empty.

    And while Britons relished Europe, Britain itself became more European: the food we ate, the footballers we watched, the clothes we wore, the cars we drove, the CEOs we employed, the friends we made, the people we married. Supermarkets brought in French cheeses, Italian hams, sparkling wines and Belgian beers. Licensing laws were relaxed. There were suddenly cafes, with bold outdoor seating. Culturally, we remained pretty Anglo-Saxon (notwithstanding the music of Kraftwerk, the novels of Houellebecq and the films of Kieślowski andAlmodóvar). But socially we were more and more European.

    Supermarkets brought in French cheeses, Italian hams, sparkling wines and Belgian beers

    Where did it all go wrong? Looking back, it’s clear that this Europeanisation was perhaps only relevant to an outwardly focused, relatively privileged minority, to people interested in a world beyond the end of their street and able to afford to investigate it. The tide turned in the 2000s, though it’s still quite hard to pinpoint precisely why. Immigration? Economics? Euro-crises? Elitism? Complacency? Boredom? Or perhaps simply that those who talked down the EU were just better at doing so than those who talked it up.

    People say you can love Europe without loving the EU. That’s the wrong end of the telescope for my generation. It was the camaraderie and fraternity the EU fostered that helped us discover and fall in love with Europe. And that makes the divorce so much more bitter.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/23/eu-60-generation-europe-berlin-barcelona
     
  7. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,274
    Likes Received:
    2,514
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    https://us.yahoo.com/news/erdogan-sa...170227634.html
    Erdogan urges quick EU decision on membership bid


    Ankara (AFP) - Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Saturday it would be "easier" if the EU blocked Ankara's bid to join the bloc, suggesting he could even hold a referendum on the matter.
     
  8. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,274
    Likes Received:
    2,514
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Incorrect, the EU is only 25. It was the EEC before that, which was a different arrangement entirely. The EU in its current form, post Lisbon treaty is only 7 years old and the last country to join was only 3 years ago. The Lisbon Treaty was a re-wording of the EU Constitution which the people of France and the Netherlands rejected by referendum. So basically it was done against the will of French and Dutch people, can't see any reason to celebrate that. The Treaty was also rejected by Ireland at first.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

    Negotiations to modify EU institutions began in 2001, resulting first in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which would have repealed the existing European treaties and replaced them with a "constitution". Although ratified by a majority of member states, this was abandoned after being rejected by 54.67% of French voters on 29 May 2005[7][8] and then by 61.54% of Dutch voters on 1 June 2005.[9] After a "period of reflection", member states agreed instead to maintain the existing treaties, but to amend them, salvaging a number of the reforms that had been envisaged in the constitution. An amending "reform" treaty was drawn up and signed in Lisbon in 2007. It was originally intended to have been ratified by all member states by the end of 2008. This timetable failed, primarily due to the initial rejection of the Treaty in June 2008 by the Irish electorate, a decision which was reversed in a second referendum in October 2009 after Ireland secured a number of concessions related to the treaty.

    In the June meeting, the name 'Reform Treaty' also emerged, finally clarifying that the Constitutional approach was abandoned. Technically it was agreed that the Reform Treaty would amend both the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) to include most provisions of the European Constitution, however not to combine them into one document. It was also agreed to rename the treaty establishing the European Community, which is the main functional agreement including most of the substantive provisions of European primary law, to "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union". In addition it was agreed, that unlike the European Constitution where a charter was part of the document, there would only be a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to make that text legally binding.[14] After the council, Poland indicated they wished to re-open some areas. During June, Poland's Prime Minister had controversially stated that Poland would have a substantially larger population were it not for World War II.[15] Another issue was that Dutch prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende succeeded in obtaining a greater role for national parliaments in the EU decision-making process, as he declared this to be non-negotiable for Dutch agreement.[16]

    Everyone got conned basically.
     
  9. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,274
    Likes Received:
    2,514
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  10. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    9,438
    Likes Received:
    4,313
    I thought somebody would explain something, but it was just rhetorical BS.
     
  11. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,274
    Likes Received:
    2,514
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    It does at 2:25 on the financial side.
     
  12. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    9,438
    Likes Received:
    4,313
    350M a week? That's peanuts in exchange for single market access.
     
  13. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,362
    Likes Received:
    12,417
    Country Flag:
    India
    Brexit have high hopes on their former "jewel In the Crown" and think that we will rush in as their former slaves to do biz with them. Let them live in their drunk stupor?
     
  14. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,274
    Likes Received:
    2,514
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    It's not though. Open Europe estimates a worst case 2.2% drop in GDP. That's ~£40bn. Only 25% of GDP is collected as revenue, that's £10bn/year or £192m/week. Now this doesn't include the cost of regulation to businesses who aren't even exporting to the EU, nor does it include the cost of uncontrolled immigration to public service.

    http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/

    What if...? The consequences, challenges and opportunities facing Britain outside the EU
    According to Open Europe's comprehensive Brexit report, UK GDP could be 2.2% lower in 2030 if Britain leaves the EU and fails to strike a deal with the EU or reverts into protectionism. In a best case scenario, under which the UK manages to enter into liberal trade arrangements with the EU and the rest of the world, whilst pursuing large-scale deregulation at home, Britain could be better off by 1.6% of GDP in 2030. However, a far more realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030, in scenarios where Britain mixes policy approaches.

    Intelligence RSS Feed
    Brexit II report is now available. This reports looks at recommendations for liberal policies in the fields of trade, immigration and regulation, which we believe are required in the event of a Brexit in order to offset the costs and maximise the economic benefits.
    23 March 2015

    What if there were a Brexit?
    In this study, Open Europe primarily examines the economic impact of Britain leaving the EU. However, given that Brexit comes down to a finely balanced calculation, unquantifiable considerations such as lost sovereignty and democratic accountability may be what in the end determines whether Britain remains a member.

    Open Europe’s study draws on detailed economic modelling, showing that the economic impact of Brexit is not as clear cut in either direction as most previous analyses have suggested. Instead it will depend on a number of tough decisions in the UK and Europe. This includes whether the EU itself will embrace reform and British politicians and voters are willing to accept ambitious deregulation and new levels of competition through expansion of free trade.

    Please note that our Brexit II report is now available.

    -2.2%

    Worst case scenario: Impact of Brexit on UK GDP
    In a worst case scenario, where the UK fails to strike a trade deal with the rest of the EU and does not pursue a free trade agenda, Open Europe estimates that UK GDP would be 2.2% lower in 2030 than if the UK had remained inside the EU.Source: Open Europe
    +1.6%

    Best case scenario: Impact of Brexit on UK GDP
    In a best case scenario, where the UK strikes a FTA with the EU, pursues very ambitious deregulation of its economy and opens up almost fully to trade with the rest of the world, Open Europe estimates that UK GDP would be 1.6% higher in 2030 than if it had stayed within the EU.Source: Open Europe
    The numbers
    Based on economic modelling of the trade impacts of Brexit and analysis of the most significant pieces of EU regulation, if Britain left the EU on 1 January 2018, we estimate that in 2030:

    • In a worst case scenario, where the UK fails to strike a trade deal with the rest of the EU and does not pursue a free trade agenda, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would be 2.2% lower than if the UK had remained inside the EU.
    • In a best case scenario, where the UK strikes a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, pursues very ambitious deregulation of its economy and opens up almost fully to trade with the rest of the world, UK GDP would be 1.6% higher than if it had stayed within the EU.
    [​IMG]

    • However, these are outliers. The more realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 – where the UK strikes a comprehensive trade deal with the EU but does nothing else; and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030 – where it pursues free trade with the rest of the world and deregulation, in addition to an EU FTA.
    [​IMG]

    The tough choices facing Britain outside
    In none of our scenarios would the cost of leaving the single market and the EU customs union be off-set by merely striking a new trade deal with the EU. Britain will only prosper outside the EU if it is prepared to use its new found freedom to undertake active steps towards trade liberalisation and deregulation. It faces a series of difficult choices:

    • Beyond the border: Opening up the UK economy to trade with the rest of the world – including the USA, India, China and Indonesia – is essential to economic growth post-Brexit. However, this would mean exposing UK firms and workers to whole new levels of competition from low-cost countries, and would therefore be politically very sensitive.
    • On the border: In order to be competitive outside the EU, Britain would need to keep a liberal policy for labour migration. However, of those voters who want to leave the EU, a majority rank limiting free movement and immigration as their main motivation, meaning the UK may move in the opposite direction.
    • Behind the border: EU rules have largely been incorporated into UK law, and would remain in force until the UK Parliament decided to amend or scrap them. Outside the EU, we estimate that a very liberally inclined UK government could in theory cut the cost of the most burdensome EU regulations by an amount equivalent to between 0.7% and 1.3% of GDP. However, on current evidence, Britain is likely to keep many of these EU rules, for example on climate change where it has gone further than the EU standard.
     
  15. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    9,438
    Likes Received:
    4,313
    If you don't accept immigration, then wages will increase to such a level that Britain will end up relying on cheaper exports at the expense of British jobs. Companies will simply move out and export to Britain. FTA with EU would mean EU companies having a field day in British markets because British companies won't be able to compete. FTA with India or China would mean, you will be eaten by our gigantic economies as well.

    Even this study says that Britain has to continue accepting immigration.

    Also this study solidifies the position that there are no major benefits to Brexit. It is simply a risky venture and that the hope is to get a 1.6% profit out of it after 15 years in best case. So all Brexit is is a xenophobic move to keep the Polish out while it will eventually backfire and open up the borders to India and China anyway.
     

Share This Page