Zaf wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Zaf wrote:

UK exit was difficult due to the northern Ireland issue. Other countries don't have such problems. I could see Italy or Ireland leaving next which should be a much smoother process achievable within 12 months after a referendum.

I can't speak for Italy, but what on earth makes you think Ireland would leave?

They have strong economic ties with Britain. Common travel area and ethnic relationship. They never joined Schengen. Also they not happy with EU immigration policies. In the long term I see them aligning with UK in a sort free trade area like EFTA, NAFTA etc.

Ireland is basically a soft UK territory. In the UK, we don’t view Ireland as going abroad or as a foreign country due to our strong ties. You don’t even need a passport to cross from the ROI to the UK by air.

Zaf wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Zaf wrote:

UK exit was difficult due to the northern Ireland issue. Other countries don't have such problems. I could see Italy or Ireland leaving next which should be a much smoother process achievable within 12 months after a referendum.

I can't speak for Italy, but what on earth makes you think Ireland would leave?

They have strong economic ties with Britain. Common travel area and ethnic relationship. They never joined Schengen. Also they not happy with EU immigration policies. In the long term I see them aligning with UK in a sort free trade area like EFTA, NAFTA etc.

Yes to the first four, but not reasons enough for us to leave the EU. Brexit will cause us more problems than other EU countries for sure, but these are being thrashed out and nobody (apart from couple of nationalist parties with very little support) is suggesting we leave the EU. The most recent poll I can find is nearly two years old, but nothing of any significance has changed since then, so there is no reason to believe that anything has changed:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politic ... -1.3488112

Zaf wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

I can't speak for Italy, but what on earth makes you think Ireland would leave?

They have strong economic ties with Britain. Common travel area and ethnic relationship. They never joined Schengen. Also they not happy with EU immigration policies. In the long term I see them aligning with UK in a sort free trade area like EFTA, NAFTA etc.

Ireland is a massive investment destination for foreign multinationals (mostly US) because they provide a skilled, English-speaking, tax-friendly platform for EU access.

The UK can't make up for that loss.

JJJ wrote:

Zaf wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

I can't speak for Italy, but what on earth makes you think Ireland would leave?

They have strong economic ties with Britain. Common travel area and ethnic relationship. They never joined Schengen. Also they not happy with EU immigration policies. In the long term I see them aligning with UK in a sort free trade area like EFTA, NAFTA etc.

Ireland is a massive investment destination for foreign multinationals (mostly US) because they provide a skilled, English-speaking, tax-friendly platform for EU access.

The UK can't make up for that loss.

I expect tax laws will be ceded to the EU eventually.

If Scotland and NI joins EU the bridge NI Scotland might even become true and financed by EU exactly as Boris requests.....

JJJ wrote:

Ireland is a massive investment destination for foreign multinationals (mostly US) because they provide a skilled, English-speaking, tax-friendly platform for EU access.

How long is this going to last if those challenging the very foundation of EU's success so far (free trade, national sovereignty in economic policies) get their way?

Arion640 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Zaf wrote:

They have strong economic ties with Britain. Common travel area and ethnic relationship. They never joined Schengen. Also they not happy with EU immigration policies. In the long term I see them aligning with UK in a sort free trade area like EFTA, NAFTA etc.

Ireland is a massive investment destination for foreign multinationals (mostly US) because they provide a skilled, English-speaking, tax-friendly platform for EU access.

The UK can't make up for that loss.

I expect tax laws will be ceded to the EU eventually.

At about the same time Turkey joins.

L410Turbolet wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Ireland is a massive investment destination for foreign multinationals (mostly US) because they provide a skilled, English-speaking, tax-friendly platform for EU access.

How long is this going to last if those challenging the very foundation of EU's success so far (free trade, national sovereignty in economic policies) get their way?

It's going to take some massive changes to make a 450 million first world common market somehow not desirable to conduct business with.

olle wrote:

If Scotland and NI joins EU the bridge NI Scotland might even become true and financed by EU exactly as Boris requests.....

Good luck. Only the UK government could potentially afford to pay for that. Not the ROI and certainly not Scotland.

N14AZ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Nexit is trending on twitter. Support is growing and rightly so.

I didn’t follow the discussion as I should have. So my apologies but may I ask why you openly promote the disintegration of the EU? I don’t remember your nationality, was it British? Anyhow, why „rightly so“ if I may ask.

And, already received an answer from our friend from Brexitstan?

marcelh wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Nexit is trending on twitter. Support is growing and rightly so.

I didn’t follow the discussion as I should have. So my apologies but may I ask why you openly promote the disintegration of the EU? I don’t remember your nationality, was it British? Anyhow, why „rightly so“ if I may ask.

And, already received an answer from our friend from Brexitstan?

No, thank you for reminding me. But actually we don’t need an answer.

I believe in the idea of EU (how much of EU can be discussed, of course).
It’s my “homeland” so to speak.
I don’t like that someone else living outside the EU advertises the disintegration of my “homeland”, it’s as simple as that. It would be as if I post here “the support for Wales leaving UK is growing, rightly so”. It’s not my business and it would be simply unfriendly or could be even considered as a hostile act.

Arion640 wrote:

olle wrote:

If Scotland and NI joins EU the bridge NI Scotland might even become true and financed by EU exactly as Boris requests.....

Good luck. Only the UK government could potentially afford to pay for that. Not the ROI and certainly not Scotland.

The EU could easily fund it with the structural funds not wasted anymore in england/wales

N14AZ wrote:

marcelh wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

I didn’t follow the discussion as I should have. So my apologies but may I ask why you openly promote the disintegration of the EU? I don’t remember your nationality, was it British? Anyhow, why „rightly so“ if I may ask.

And, already received an answer from our friend from Brexitstan?

No, thank you for reminding me. But actually we don’t need an answer.

I believe in the idea of EU (how much of EU can be discussed, of course).
It’s my “homeland” so to speak.
I don’t like that someone else living outside the EU advertises the disintegration of my “homeland”, it’s as simple as that. It would be as if I post here “the support for Wales leaving UK is growing, rightly so”. It’s not my business and it would be simply unfriendly or could be even considered as a hostile act.

Indeed, a truly remarkable behaviour of Brexiteers is that they don't seem to content themselves with the idea that their own country leaves the EU; they absolutely want others to leave as well, or even better, the EU to be dissolved altogether: the hostility towards the concept itself, rather than the fact their country's part in it, is absolutely stunning.

It really gives away that to them this is not about them "taking back control", but rather about them "being in control": not of the UK that is (because they always were), but of others around Europe, but as Brexiteers have learnt the hard way: up against a united Europe, the UK are very much the junior party. Gone are their hopes they could once again become the undisputed leader as the strongest nation amongst the other independent dwarfs in Europe.

Anyway: let's get this put clearly once and for all, shall we?
The EU isn't going away anytime soon and the UK is definitely out, so a from now the EU is a foreign entity and a very important one too for the UK if I may add as it is their single most important trading partner for decades to come: as such it deserverves a minimum of respect.

Just as the UK doesn't go about promoting secessionist groups in the USA or Canada and treads very carefully not to infuriate the PRC over Tibet for instance, British politicians and the British press better start watching their words in relation to the EU too, as from now: you do not spit in the face of befriended (group of) nations, especially not if you want them to do you a big trading favour!

sabenapilot wrote:

Anyway: let's get this put clearly once and for all, shall we?
The EU isn't going away anytime soon and the UK is definitely out, so a from now the EU is a foreign entity and a very important one too for the UK if I may add as it is their single most important trading partner for decades to come: as such it deserverves a minimum of respect.

Just as the UK doesn't go about promoting secessionist groups in the USA or Canada and treads very carefully not to infuriate the PRC over Tibet for instance, British politicians and the British press better start watching their words in relation to the EU too, as from now: you do not spit in the face of befriended (group of) nations, especially not if you want them to do you a big trading favour!

Well spoken!

JJJ wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Ireland is a massive investment destination for foreign multinationals (mostly US) because they provide a skilled, English-speaking, tax-friendly platform for EU access.

How long is this going to last if those challenging the very foundation of EU's success so far (free trade, national sovereignty in economic policies) get their way?

It's going to take some massive changes to make a 450 million first world common market somehow not desirable to conduct business with.

You are answering question I did not ask. One more time: How long is Ireland going to be a business and tax-friendly destination should "reforms" aka "Europe that protects [French socialism]" be forced down everyone's throats?

sabenapilot wrote:

Gone are their hopes they could once again become the undisputed leader as the strongest nation amongst the other independent dwarfs in Europe.

Were these actually British ambitions? Ever? Are you sure you are not confusing these alleged ambitions with those of Paris and Berlin?

L410Turbolet wrote:

JJJ wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

How long is this going to last if those challenging the very foundation of EU's success so far (free trade, national sovereignty in economic policies) get their way?

It's going to take some massive changes to make a 450 million first world common market somehow not desirable to conduct business with.

You are answering question I did not ask. One more time: How long is Ireland going to be a business and tax-friendly destination should "reforms" aka "Europe that protects [French socialism]" be forced down everyone's throats?

The answer is "as long as it's best in the bunch".

Irish investment by and large is driven by US companies who want a EU base to conduct business in the EU.

EU citizenship...


Probably this would have solved some of the brexit problems..


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... son-France

Arion640 wrote:

A lot said Poland and other Eastern bloc countries wouldn’t join.

"A lot" being who? You're employing standard trumpian smoke-blowing here.

But they did.

The UK was actually the main driver for that, always pushing for the shallowest possible EU but expanded to maximum area, and UK politicians were also pushing for Turkey to join.

You didn't know that? Ah.

Without your own government pushing for it, the eastern countries would not have been dragged in as quickly and as superficially as they have been, and the current issues with the rule of law are part of the UK's legacy in that.

It will likely happen, not in the near term. Ukraine will certainly join, and probably Turkey too.

None of your earlier predictions have come true. Your bogeymen are flimsy paper cutouts and nothing more, in part because you have no clue about the actual EU, how it works and what's going on in it.

I actually see a good case for Ukraine to join, but only after major changes and under much closer scrutiny than the eastern european rush job at the UK's urging back then. Among many other things the border disputes with Russia would need to be resolved, and we're years from that as from meeting most of the other preconditions.

Turkey? As long as they're anywhere close to what they are now (authoritarian-minded and violently oppressing their own regional minorities) there is simply not a chance, despite what many UK politicians had been pushing for (Boris Johnson included, by the way!). And contrary to Ukraine, Turkey simply isn't a european country by its culture and tradition, even though it has a smallish continental european region.

That BoJo had been using the same thing he himself had been pushing for as a bogeyman to an ignorant or forgetful part UK public to get into power himself should be telling you some things about who you're supporting there, and how much your interests actually mean to him.

Don't worry about us, we'll continue going forward; Worry more about your own country which you've participated banging into reverse in the middle of the highway. Seeing you drunkenly swerving and bumping into the guard rails in the rear view mirror is not a pretty sight, and you should much rather soberly worry about what you're doing yourselves there instead.

L410Turbolet wrote:

JJJ wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

How long is this going to last if those challenging the very foundation of EU's success so far (free trade, national sovereignty in economic policies) get their way?

It's going to take some massive changes to make a 450 million first world common market somehow not desirable to conduct business with.

You are answering question I did not ask. One more time: How long is Ireland going to be a business and tax-friendly destination should "reforms" aka "Europe that protects [French socialism]" be forced down everyone's throats?

The French social net is paid for by French citizens in the form of high taxes. In contrast, there is little need to spend money privately for such things as health care and pension, so it evens out.

The French corporate tax is average and going down, like it is in many countries. France is pushing for rules at the OECD level, so above the EU even.

It's Ireland that is dumping with its low corporate tax (Luxembourg and the Netherlands are helping in other ways), there is no reason this will continue indefinitely, I didn't notice it was an urgent matter though. Just like for VAT I expect the EU to define a range for corporate tax, something like 15-25%.

Aesma wrote:

It's Ireland that is dumping with its low corporate tax (Luxembourg and the Netherlands are helping in other ways), there is no reason this will continue indefinitely, I didn't notice it was an urgent matter though. Just like for VAT I expect the EU to define a range for corporate tax, something like 15-25%.

Probably worth pointing out that it was the UK that often blocked initiatives to do something about Irish, Dutch and Luxembourg tax dumping. Without the UK, there is a good chance we will finally see some procress in that area.

New MEP has started to work:


https://www.politico.eu/article/newbie- ... nths-late/

Arion640 wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Good luck when Turkey finally joins. It WILL happen. Not in the near term but it is going to happen.

As long as there must be unanimous approval by existing nations, and several of those nations will throw it to a referendum, I don’t see Turkey joining.

Let’s be honest here, a lot of people in NL, DE and BE would sooner kick out a large amount of dual-nationality citizens (TK+NL/DE/BE) then accept Turkey. The Turkish people don’t have a good reputation, and don’t seem to be in a hurry to change that reputation either.

I think it will happen as soon as they get their house in order in Turkey. I think it will happen, perhaps in even 10 years time, same for Ukraine.

With Turkey aligning themselves with Russia there isn't a hope in hell they will be allowed to join, plus you can bet out of the existing EU member states the majority of the Eastern States will veto them. Ukraine is a massive basket case, I'd imagine the costs the the EU would have to bare to bring them up to standard would be massively higher than the money being spent in the existing Eastern EU countries, again I could see countries like Poland and Hungary hitting the veto button pretty hard.

Kiwirob wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

As long as there must be unanimous approval by existing nations, and several of those nations will throw it to a referendum, I don’t see Turkey joining.

Let’s be honest here, a lot of people in NL, DE and BE would sooner kick out a large amount of dual-nationality citizens (TK+NL/DE/BE) then accept Turkey. The Turkish people don’t have a good reputation, and don’t seem to be in a hurry to change that reputation either.

I think it will happen as soon as they get their house in order in Turkey. I think it will happen, perhaps in even 10 years time, same for Ukraine.

With Turkey aligning themselves with Russia there isn't a hope in hell they will be allowed to join, plus you can bet out of the existing EU member states the majority of the Eastern States will veto them. Ukraine is a massive basket case, I'd imagine the costs the the EU would have to bare to bring them up to standard would be massively higher than the money being spent in the existing Eastern EU countries, again I could see countries like Poland and Hungary hitting the veto button pretty hard.

Plus of course.... if they get their house in order, unlikely for the time being, and are aligned with the rest of the EU in all matters that matter...... what outside of rampant Xenophobia would make it so bad to join under those preconditions?

The process of joining the EU is more than just passing the required laws, but proving for quite a long time that you are living them....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I think it will happen as soon as they get their house in order in Turkey. I think it will happen, perhaps in even 10 years time, same for Ukraine.

With Turkey aligning themselves with Russia there isn't a hope in hell they will be allowed to join, plus you can bet out of the existing EU member states the majority of the Eastern States will veto them. Ukraine is a massive basket case, I'd imagine the costs the the EU would have to bare to bring them up to standard would be massively higher than the money being spent in the existing Eastern EU countries, again I could see countries like Poland and Hungary hitting the veto button pretty hard.

Plus of course.... if they get their house in order, unlikely for the time being, and are aligned with the rest of the EU in all matters that matter...... what outside of rampant Xenophobia would make it so bad to join under those preconditions?

The process of joining the EU is more than just passing the required laws, but proving for quite a long time that you are living them....

best regards
Thomas

I don't see either country being able to meet the EU standards for a very long time, if ever.

Kiwirob wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

With Turkey aligning themselves with Russia there isn't a hope in hell they will be allowed to join, plus you can bet out of the existing EU member states the majority of the Eastern States will veto them. Ukraine is a massive basket case, I'd imagine the costs the the EU would have to bare to bring them up to standard would be massively higher than the money being spent in the existing Eastern EU countries, again I could see countries like Poland and Hungary hitting the veto button pretty hard.

Plus of course.... if they get their house in order, unlikely for the time being, and are aligned with the rest of the EU in all matters that matter...... what outside of rampant Xenophobia would make it so bad to join under those preconditions?

The process of joining the EU is more than just passing the required laws, but proving for quite a long time that you are living them....

best regards
Thomas

I don't see either country being able to meet up the EU standards for a very long time, if ever.

Me neither... but if hell freezes over... why not... aside of "yuck, muslims" or whatever the "problem" with people from Ukraine is that is.

Best regards
Thomas

Kiwirob wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

With Turkey aligning themselves with Russia there isn't a hope in hell they will be allowed to join, plus you can bet out of the existing EU member states the majority of the Eastern States will veto them. Ukraine is a massive basket case, I'd imagine the costs the the EU would have to bare to bring them up to standard would be massively higher than the money being spent in the existing Eastern EU countries, again I could see countries like Poland and Hungary hitting the veto button pretty hard.

Plus of course.... if they get their house in order, unlikely for the time being, and are aligned with the rest of the EU in all matters that matter...... what outside of rampant Xenophobia would make it so bad to join under those preconditions?

The process of joining the EU is more than just passing the required laws, but proving for quite a long time that you are living them....

best regards
Thomas

I don't see either country being able to meet up the EU standards for a very long time, if ever.

I don't see it happening either. Turkey still occupies part of EU member Cyprus, so I guess that they will veto anything. Greece isn't to friendly with Turkey either. And that is besides all other problems with letting Turkey enter the internal market and freedom of movement for 80million and Turkey being led down the road to an autocratic regime.
Ukraine is another matter. They need to align everything with the EU, improve their whole state apparatus and implement all European values and as long as Russia occupies part of their country then no, they will not join.

tommy1808 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Plus of course.... if they get their house in order, unlikely for the time being, and are aligned with the rest of the EU in all matters that matter...... what outside of rampant Xenophobia would make it so bad to join under those preconditions?

The process of joining the EU is more than just passing the required laws, but proving for quite a long time that you are living them....

best regards
Thomas

I don't see either country being able to meet up the EU standards for a very long time, if ever.

Me neither... but if hell freezes over... why not... aside of "yuck, muslims" or whatever the "problem" with people from Ukraine is that is.

Best regards
Thomas

Yuck muslims is what will keep Turkey out and Ukraine is simply a huge mess, it will be a money sink hole.

If the EU really want more members who will easily integrate without costing the EU anything they should be making sweet talk with Iceland and Norway.

The biggest fan of Turkey joining EU was uk as I remember..

Sorry it was the pm of uk not boris,)

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics ... ership-bid

tommy1808 wrote:

The process of joining the EU is more than just passing the required laws, but proving for quite a long time that you are living them....

And recent history in Poland and Hungary tells us that long time isn't long enough, and should be extended to ensure that adherence to EU ideals doesn't exist only in good times, but when socio-economic conditions make is tempting to find scapegoats or run roughshod over norms of independent judiciary. Seeing the results of the 2017 referendum, I'd argue that transition period for Turkey needs to last a generation or two.

There can and should be some alignment between member countries and candidates during the transition period, however full EU membership should in the future be based on demonstrated long-term commitments to EU ideals. If the period is too short, changes made by candidate countries may be only strategic in nature.

You may have missed the fact that will no other country should be invited until the actual rules are changed.

Olddog wrote:

You may have missed the fact that will no other country should be invited until the actual rules are changed.

Says who?

olle wrote:

Sorry it was the pm of uk not boris,)

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics ... ership-bid

Actually, Boris was a big proponent of getting Turkey into the EU, just before he discovered that it would be more useful to him to use exactly that as a big, horrifying bogeyman to advance his own career:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/bo ... son-turkey

And of course that the UK would always have a veto on Turkey's accession was another inconvenient fact, so he just lied that "the EU" could just do that against the UK's will, as usual!

Boris family is from Turkey? Was that part of the reason why he talked so warmly about Turkey joining EU,?

By the way it seems like Turkey will stay closer to EU then UK next year.

Aesma wrote:

The French social net is paid for by French citizens in the form of high taxes. In contrast, there is little need to spend money privately for such things as health care and pension, so it evens out.

As it is in most EU countries. Your point?

The French corporate tax is average and going down, like it is in many countries. France is pushing for rules at the OECD level, so above the EU even.

Aesma wrote:

It's Ireland that is dumping with its low corporate tax (Luxembourg and the Netherlands are helping in other ways), there is no reason this will continue indefinitely,

Come on, "dumping" is a cheap label used for everything France is not competitive in. The EU should bugger off from member states' tax systems. Let voters in each member state decide themselves about THEIR country's taxes.

Arion640 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

A lot said Poland and other Eastern bloc countries wouldn’t join. But they did. It will likely happen, not in the near term. Ukraine will certainly join, and probably Turkey too.

Ukraine will not join as long as Russia is occupying Ukraine.

Ukraine might not have a choice to further rival Russian enlargement. The EU are also trying to compete with Russia, so all the more reason. It will happen.

Here a moderate western view:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Of all people, it was written by Henry Kissinger in 2014!!! Translate that diplomatic newspaper language in clear language and it means:
It's stupid of the West to interfere with Ukraine. It's Russian sphere of influence. And no, I don't mean in the sense of former satellite states.

Sokes wrote:

it was written by Henry Kissinger in 2014!!! Translate that diplomatic newspaper language in clear language and it means:
It's stupid of the West to interfere with Ukraine. It's Russian sphere of influence.

Not sure, why do you find it so surprising? Kissinger is well known for thinking the Vienna Congress of 1815 and the world order [in Europe] it installed was the best thing since sliced bread. He wrote a whole book about it.

"Balance of power" is the ultimate goal, screw everything else , if it requires throwing midlle and small sized countries and their legitimate rights under the bus, so be it.

I suspect the recent overtures towards Russia by France and Russia are part of a sinister Franco-German master plan aimed at replicating the Concert of Powers, destruction of NATO, by implication the EU as we know it and creating a "security architecture" where all the shots are called in Paris, Berlin and Moscow. Everoyone else is relegated to shut Up And be "just markets" or a price France and Germany will be willing to pay to appease Russia.

"Macron believes Russia is essential for Europe’s security. Without engaging its big neighbor, Europe will not be safe. This is why Europe must create some kind of security architecture that includes Russia.

This is something the Kremlin—and Germany—has long advocated only to be rebuffed by most EU and NATO countries. They simply perceive those calls as attempts by Moscow to create such a construction at the expense of the transatlantic alliance. Seeking to divide NATO and weaken Europe’s ties with the United States has been the Kremlin’s consistent policy."

https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/81102

"France pushing for dialogue with Moscow without self-discipline or preconditions means accommodating illegitimate Russian interests. Even if Macron is indifferent to that, he may not realize that in a world where great powers carve up spheres of influence once more, France stands to lose."

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/com ... n-mistaken

L410Turbolet wrote:

Not sure, why do you find it so surprising? Kissinger is well known for thinking the Vienna Congress of 1815 and the world order [in Europe] it installed was the best thing since sliced bread. He wrote a whole book about it.

"Balance of power" is the ultimate goal, screw everything else , if it requires throwing midlle and small sized countries and their legitimate rights under the bus, so be it.
...
https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/81102
...
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/com ... n-mistaken

Interesting. You have the title of the book?
During the cold war capitalism was 200 years and socialism hardly 50 years old. Achieving a balance of power and waiting for more experience looks like a wise thing to do. As always in world politics, that doesn't help the small countries who become victims in whatever struggle is going on.

I said "Kissinger of all people" because he was the classical cold warrior. The West won. So why would he still stick to old doctrine?

From your name I expect you are Czech.
I disagree with the second part of your post. Both your sources are think tanks. What to expect beside brainwash? Especially the Carnegie article I disliked. Was it Russia that started the trouble in Syria?
Russia and Iran are some players in world politics for the US. For us at least Russia is a people in the neighborhood. Our energy security depends on Russian gas. It's possible to break this dependence, but why should we do this? We depend on Russian gas, Russia depends on the income of it. We are both interested in good relations.
Russia may be weak at the moment. Who is to say they will be weak in 50 years?

Ukraine had an pro-Russian elected president. Protests developed which led to a situation in which snipers shot from roofs on both protesters as well as police forces. I can't proof that, but it looks like an engineered regime change to me.
Considering that Russia's access to the Mediterranean sea depends on the port of Sevastopol, Russia didn't have an alternative to occupation. The population is Russian anyway.


Why would the West incorporate Ukraine into NATO?
"After Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo in 1815, the major victorious powers (Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia) agreed at the Congress of Vienna on uniting the former Belgium Austriacum and the former Seven United Provinces, creating the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, which was to serve as a buffer state against any future French invasions. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... etherlands

What about Austria during the Cold War? Having committed to independence, it was economically fully integrated into the West. Indeed Austrian shops/ restaurants mostly accepted if one needed to pay in German currency. Was it a problem that it wasn't NATO?
The comparison has one mistake. Austria didn't have a large proportion of Russian speaking people.

The situation is complicated. Please see just two minutes of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=357s

I believe the West should be satisfied if Ukraine is a buffer state as Austria used to be.
Would pro Western Ukrainians as well as Russian speaking Ukrainians be satisfied with an EU free trade agreement?
In exchange for Russia to agree to such an arrangement Europe should slightly increase energy dependency on Russian gas. That's moreover great for integration of fluctuating renewable energies. Moreover NATO has to stop military manoeuvres in the Baltic states. I would actually prefer the Austrian model for Baltic states.

I believe Macron agrees with my view and therefore reaches a hand towards Russia, even if the polemic picture in the article is meant to show him as a grumpy fellow.

The EU's problem is not whether people in the core countries are more pro or anti-EU, the problem is the EU doesn't seem ready to mark a red line when it comes to autocratic encroachment in their eastern states. The Eastern Europeans also want it both was like the UK did: they want to make their own rules even if they clash with EU values completely, but they want all the recipient money for projects.

At least the UK in the end left. What I find so distasteful of some Brexiteers is that now that they are free from Brussels they still seem to want to undermine the EU by fomenting sentiments in member states. Quite the small, petty minds.

The eastern expension of EU and NATO in the 1990s until today was pushed as 1 a modern marshal plan 2 eastern countries worry over re occupation from just Russia.

Russia seems to just remember the 1944 1945 offensives to clear both russia and eastern europe from nazi occupation but forgets 1939 to 1941 and post 1945 to 1991 agressions and occupations.

Baltics, poland, finns etc remembers.

Sadly with Ukraine and georgia they were proven correct.

In 1990 poland gdp was lower then russia and Ukraine. Since then it has been growing by around 400%.

If Russia shall complain it has 2 options. Continue with todays agressive politics in for example ukraine or join Europe in a push for moving away from oil dependence.

Derico wrote:

The EU's problem is not whether people in the core countries are more pro or anti-EU, the problem is the EU doesn't seem ready to mark a red line when it comes to autocratic encroachment in their eastern states. The Eastern Europeans also want it both was like the UK did: they want to make their own rules even if they clash with EU values completely, but they want all the recipient money for projects.

At least the UK in the end left. What I find so distasteful of some Brexiteers is that now that they are free from Brussels they still seem to want to undermine the EU by fomenting sentiments in member states. Quite the small, petty minds.

This is one of the reason why the current budget negotiations will become complicated.

It is much more then money involved in the negotiations then money like governance andprincipals to use money away from agreculture areas.

For sweden we talk 1.6 billion euros maxin additional payments, but we now have a chance to make hungery and poland to respect EU policies about law and governance. This budget crisis after brexit is the opportunity of a generation to make eastern europe understand that EU enlargement was not only a economically marshal plan but also something more that many citizens and political parties in poland hungary etc has understood.

Let us use this crisis well!

olle wrote:

In 1990 poland gdp was lower then russia and Ukraine. Since then it has been growing by around 400%.

Strong point. Or shall I say you found the weak point of my earlier argument?
Suppose an Ukrainian civilian says: "We can't control corruption by ourself. We need to be part of a larger group which watches us."
That group is not Russia.

Still the fact remains that Ukraine has many ethnic Russians or Russian speaking people and that Russia considers Ukraine as strategical critical. One has to find a way of economic approachment to the West without offending the Russians.

The Austrian model would have been fine. I doubt it's still possible.

Do demonstrators have the right to overthrow a democratic elected government?

Arion640 wrote:

Ireland is basically a soft UK territory. In the UK, we don’t view Ireland as going abroad or as a foreign country due to our strong ties. You don’t even need a passport to cross from the ROI to the UK by air.

Nearly choked reading that.
Anyways, we're delighted you continue to visit us, be just fyi, we are a foreign country.

Oh the joys of reading the fantasy world Brexiteers live in

Toulouse wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Ireland is basically a soft UK territory. In the UK, we don’t view Ireland as going abroad or as a foreign country due to our strong ties. You don’t even need a passport to cross from the ROI to the UK by air.

Nearly choked reading that.
Anyways, we're delighted you continue to visit us, be just fyi, we are a foreign country.

Oh the joys of reading the fantasy world Brexiteers live in

It’s true. We view you as a sort of extension to the UK, especially with our common travel area.

Conversation with my uncle:

Me: Are you going abroad this year?

Him: no, only over to Ireland.

And he didn’t even vote for brexit.

Toulouse wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Ireland is basically a soft UK territory. In the UK, we don’t view Ireland as going abroad or as a foreign country due to our strong ties. You don’t even need a passport to cross from the ROI to the UK by air.

Nearly choked reading that.
Anyways, we're delighted you continue to visit us, be just fyi, we are a foreign country.

Oh the joys of reading the fantasy world Brexiteers live in

Imagine the faces if Northern Ireland decides they had enough and join the RoI......

best regards
Thomas

Sokes wrote:

olle wrote:

In 1990 poland gdp was lower then russia and Ukraine. Since then it has been growing by around 400%.

Strong point. Or shall I say you found the weak point of my earlier argument?
Suppose an Ukrainian civilian says: "We can't control corruption by ourself. We need to be part of a larger group which watches us."
That group is not Russia.

Still the fact remains that Ukraine has many ethnic Russians or Russian speaking people and that Russia considers Ukraine as strategical critical. One has to find a way of economic approachment to the West without offending the Russians.

The Austrian model would have been fine. I doubt it's still possible.

Do demonstrators have the right to overthrow a democratic elected government?

Soviet and before that Russia had a policy to add russian population to baltic states , ukraine etc and partly send the local populations to siberia has created the current situation in for example baltic state. It is actually EU that both push for civil rights for the russian population that was moved there in 1950s by Stalin, and for the baltic states as protection against Russia.

This in combination with increasing economy gives batltic people and russian people a chance to live together.

Russia has a problem because they do not accept that Poles, Ukrainan and baltic people consider them as occupying force. They during long time did not even accept the independence of Finland, Poland, Baltrics and now Ukraine.

Russia attacked Finland for example in 1919, 1939 and kept Finland in practical occupied 1945 to mid 1950s, and that is the really reason why sweden became neutral after ww II to make Russia leave Finland.

To say that EU and Nato entered the Russian area of influence is therefore very simple. The countries in the area does in many case wanted to be protected from Russia and occupation. If Russia had acted better in the region things could have been more in favour to Russia but now it is not

Arion640 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

It is the net contributers that are most likely to question continued membership.

Italy are probably the next net contributor to get annoyed. France and Germany don’t care as they do what they want anyway.

Good luck when Turkey finally joins. It WILL happen. Not in the near term but it is going to happen.

I very much doubt it.
Turkey is slowly sinking into dictatorship and is not in the right direction to enter. Plus, EU countries just don't want that.

olle wrote:

Sokes wrote:

olle wrote:

In 1990 poland gdp was lower then russia and Ukraine. Since then it has been growing by around 400%.

Strong point. Or shall I say you found the weak point of my earlier argument?
Suppose an Ukrainian civilian says: "We can't control corruption by ourself. We need to be part of a larger group which watches us."
That group is not Russia.

Still the fact remains that Ukraine has many ethnic Russians or Russian speaking people and that Russia considers Ukraine as strategical critical. One has to find a way of economic approachment to the West without offending the Russians.

The Austrian model would have been fine. I doubt it's still possible.

Do demonstrators have the right to overthrow a democratic elected government?

Soviet and before that Russia had a policy to add russian population to baltic states , ukraine etc and partly send the local populations to siberia has created the current situation in for example baltic state. It is actually EU that both push for civil rights for the russian population that was moved there in 1950s by Stalin, and for the baltic states as protection against Russia.

This in combination with increasing economy gives batltic people and russian people a chance to live together.

Russia has a problem because they do not accept that Poles, Ukrainan and baltic people consider them as occupying force. They during long time did not even accept the independence of Finland, Poland, Baltrics and now Ukraine.

Russia attacked Finland for example in 1919, 1939 and kept Finland in practical occupied 1945 to mid 1950s, and that is the really reason why sweden became neutral after ww II to make Russia leave Finland.

To say that EU and Nato entered the Russian area of influence is therefore very simple. The countries in the area does in many case wanted to be protected from Russia and occupation. If Russia had acted better in the region things could have been more in favour to Russia but now it is not

I agree that Baltic self determination is an argument I can't dispute. But still I'm not satisfied. And my emotional involvement would be with Germany or India. Baltic states or Ukraine for me is purely of academic interest.
When a great power decreases as strongly in significance as Russia did, the people there will still have their grandiose delusions. That's just human. Therefore I believe one should treat Russia with empathy.
You wrote that Baltic people were sent to Sibiria. I assume you speak of class enemies, or do you have random population in mind?

Russia was a feudal society. Any attempt to change the political system without human rights violation would have ended like the Congress of Vienna, the restauration of monarchical powers. With the difference that a change in mentality had already taken place in Europe by 1814, but not in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna
I agree Stalin was a paranoid devil. But Lenin is somebody I can understand, and I'm a fan of Milton Friedman. Things went wrong. But the enemies of yesterday can be the friends of tomorrow and the other way round. I believe it's wrong to conclude the future because of former hostilities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY&t=101s

My question remains: Do demonstrators have the right to overthrow an elected government? I still disagree with you concerning Ukraine.

I have seen numbers that until 1992 around 1.5 million people from poland and baltics had died in gulag.

Stalin had as policy to replace protesting groups in baltics with russian population.

Many baltic citizen experiencing soviet occupation used whatever floating boat possible in 1944, 1945 and escaped to sweden to avoid the red army.

I do not consider that you have the right to bring down a democratic elected government. That includes chile in 1973, Iran 1953, Praha 1968, hungary 1956 or invading georgia, ukraine etc.





Who was sent to gulag?

1. Members of non-communist parties, including heretical communists;
2. Members of patriotic and religious organizations;
3. Former police and prison officials;
4. Former officers of tsarist and other armies;
5. Former officers of the Lithuanian and Polish armies;
6. Former volunteers who had joined anti-Soviet armies in 1918-1919;
7. Citizens of foreign states, representatives and employees of foreign firms, and employees of foreign embassies.
8. Those who corresponded with foreign countries or consulates of foreign countries as well as philatelists and those who know the Esperanto language;
9. Former high level officials;
10. Red Cross employees and émigrés from Poland;
11. Clergymen of all religions;
12. Bankers, members of aristocratic families and rich farmers.




http://vilnews.com/2010-12-1941-1953-30 ... in-siberia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ ... %80%931946)

http://www.balticartcenter.com/projects/balticboat/