Britain leaving the E.U.

Times do change, and become more puzzling. The E.U. has decided to spend our money on grants and relocation expenses to send another wave of people looking for jobs from Europe into the UK.
http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/75222/job-rush-fears
Does this work the other way round? can I get a grant and travel expenses to go looking for a job in the Canary Islands this winter? Sweeping up in Lanzarotte would do nicely.

Do you seriously think they 'need' sweeper-uppers in Lanzarotte? Isn't that Spanish? A part of Spain? With humongous unemployment and people leaving in droves. What planet are you on - Distopia?

If asked the British would, at the present juncture, vote for leaving the E.U. I would advocate for a different tack. IF you want to play the game you need to be ON the team - or start your OWN team. Take the example of the Man U supporters who decided that the costs of supporting Man U had become extortionate and formed their own 'new' team and supporters group. IF such satisfies then all is well. But do they 'really' get as much enjoyment being away from something they have loved and supported most of their lives - or - is their apparent satisfaction a 'front' and having committed themselves there is no 'going back'?

I don't have a crystal ball - just an ordinary one - like everyone else. But I do know that in the future years (all else being equal) there will be huge influence and power structures both west and east of this tiny island. I see that in order to have 'influence' Europe (and that would also include some of the Russian Federation) will need to speak with 'one' voice. It will need to have 'one' democratic structure in which to operate (without veto's') and 'one' defense/offense' capability to safeguard its own security. Without that it, and I mean the whole continent, will whither and die and become like so many 'disunited African nations of the present day' just a collection of distant voices. The decision, should you wish to take it (or be given the opportunity) is yours.

Atlas wrote:I don't have a crystal ball - just an ordinary one - like everyone else. But I do know that in the future years (all else being equal) there will be huge influence and power structures both west and east of this tiny island. I see that in order to have 'influence' Europe (and that would also include some of the Russian Federation) will need to speak with 'one' voice. It will need to have 'one' democratic structure in which to operate (without veto's') and 'one' defense/offense' capability to safeguard its own security. Without that it, and I mean the whole continent, will whither and die and become like so many 'disunited African nations of the present day' just a collection of distant voices. The decision, should you wish to take it (or be given the opportunity) is yours.

The future arrives, with or without a crystal ball. As Europe looks to re-arranging itself, the Islamic offensive in north Africa, in Mali at the moment, has dragged the French in, followed today by the British. Will there eventually be a 'Euro Army'?

There already is - it's called NATO which granted relies heavily on the USA as part of the alliance. As regards a wholly 'European' Army without western Atlantic reliances the answer is again yes but I expect that to evolve from the NATO Alliances rather than as a separate entity which will work in concert whenever the need arises. There's nothing complicated regarding some European nations and their individual aspirations. They see alliances bound up in a political framework that has the input of 'all' as the safest way to go forward as a 'whole' rather than the destructive fragmentations of the 19th and 20th centuries political structures. It's a sound principal in that together we stand divided we fall when put against the possibility of a Far Eastern bloc in concert or a Middle Eastern bloc in concert (notwithstanding the Americas or Australasia). To those who would be in 'control' i.e. the politicians, it is also a great gravy-train on which to be a passenger.

Yes, that seems a reasonable view of what goes on. As the bigger picture of the defence of Europe emerges, France says it expects to be bombing in Mali for only a few weeks.

The French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said "The president is totally determined that we must eradicate these terrorists who threaten the security of Mali, our own country and Europe."

It might take a bit longer than a few weeks?

Again it falls to the previous colonial power to pull the infant nations chestnuts out of the fire. Some would say interference. Others would say self preservation. Given Mali is mainly desert with little (so far) mineral wealth and no oil perhaps this time the voices of the looney-leftists will come up with some other smokesceen on which to sate their vectives. Weak nations have the right to ask for help from stronger nations to ensure their human rights and freedoms. All it takes for villians to prosper is for good men to do nothing. I applaud the French government for their actions and wish them well. Hopefully it will only take a few weeks and fewer killed and less destruction as a consequence. But it may not. We shall have to wait and see. The more help the French are given, the sooner the 'problem' may be eradicated.

The French and allies seem to be putting plenty of troops and organisation into Mali. Bombing the Islamists out of there will predictably widen the conflict into other countries in north africa, but, that would probably be on the agenda sooner or later anyway.

Military operation to free hostages at a desert gas plant is now over, the Algerian state news agency reports. Four foreigners were reportedly freed but up to 34 hostages and 14 kidnappers died in the operation against Islamic militants.

A nasty business, but appears to have been resolved quickly, leaving the way open for military operations to continue, probably with greater intensity? Will it be over in weeks; or become a fairly big war in north africa?

P.S. What exactly has happened in Algeria is not so clear. The former head of French intelligence, Alain Juillet, said "The Algerians have a principle: when they mount an operation, they don't talk about it. From experience, it takes a minimum of 15 days to a month before we start getting a small idea of what really happened."

The 'secret wars' in north africa have been going on for decades, characterised by secrecy and misinformation, so that will probably continue. The Tuareg are the enduring people of the desert there, and after being betrayed by Islamist groups, are now siding with the French, which is useful. If Tuareg are killed by poorly aimed bombing, that could change. All this is connected with what has gone on in Somalia and Sudan in the past, but we know little of that either.

P.S. I have no more idea of what is going on in north africa than anyone else who browses the news, the connection with 'should we be in europe' is, tenuously, to do with the long term defence of europe. I just wondered if anyone else is taking an interest or might have a view on it. At least it's somewhere warm to think about during this winter weather.

It's been obvious over the last ten years or so that the Insane Islamics ( or those who have twisted the religion of Islam to suit their own agenda's) have been ferreting out new areas in places where their is little law and order and where the indigenous populations are poor, ignorant and defenseless to build up their resources and recruitments in order to continue their headlong flights of obscenities and power structures. Nigeria and Mali are the two latest. Algeria has had the problem for many years but until this latest obscenity was little reported - although all the West's intelligence services have been monitoring the situations for decades.
Will it all end soon. NO. Will we end up having to prop up a number of African nations police and military forces in order for them to deal with things. YES. For how long? Try 20 years or more - and maybe even longer.
Why? Because it was always better to wreck someone else's country with bombs and bullets than our own.
It's not rocket science. - - - Just man.

Atlas wrote: Try 20 years or more - and maybe even longer.
Why? Because it was always better to wreck someone else's country with bombs and bullets than our own.
It's not rocket science. - - - Just man.

Speaking about man, David Attenborough says: "We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now."

I agree with him Cyfrifia, what does the future hold for future generations? I don't deny that I have concerns for the future way of life for my grandchildren.....

It seems common sense that population cannot increase and increase without causing irreversible damage to the natural world, putting strain on basic resources like water, air and food.
I agree with Mr. Attenborough that it's better to discuss things when the problem is apparent, rather than wait till it's happened, then try to sort it out.

It wont get sorted out. Understand your species. It takes a collective approach to make a 'real' different. When was man ever on 'one' mind or 'collective'. The rich will draw further back behind their 'walls' until such times as the pressure becomes too great. Eventually they will be overrun and the mob will take what little is left. Soon thereafter they will turn in on each other to survive - but they will number trillions. It's all unsustainable. The only hope will be nature reducing, by the million, those without resource before the tipping point is reached.
Another scenario will be the rich taking off in search of another blue planet to ruin. Such may be the extension of homo sapien rule if at all possible. Sad isn't it.

And to return to the thread and original point. We have our illustrious leaders vision of leading us forth to Utopia over the next 7 years wherein at some point we 'may' be allowed to vent our frustration with a referendum on 'should we go or should we stay'. Whoops - another pig just flown over, sorry about that.
I do however applaud the effort to stir the pot. Time somebody did. Billions are wasted and vicariously usurped by one method or another through the EU. Thousands litter the gravy-train doing very nicely thank you whilst the rest, those who just want to live a decent life, pick up the tab. Something must be done or I say - Get the hell out. We have enough trouble controlling our own parasites.

If Europe is failing, as some people say,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22469443
Should the UK get out, like rats deserting a sinking ship?

The British public might reasonably want to, as they never volunteered for it, but were press ganged into the voyage. It might be more difficult for politicians, as they organised the trip.

First and foremost the U.K. is hardly a passenger rat. At 2.5 billion pounds a year that's some 'fare'. Income derived from the voyage measures approx 1.5 billion. That leaves us a billion a year out of pocket to 'be nice' to the smaller nations who are not so fortunate. That's the finance out of the way. Now for the freedom of action of the individual - we never voted nor were we given a say in whether or not we wanted to be part of a Federated Europe with 'all' that such entails. Therefore we are not leaving the club we joined but a metamorphosed version that has evolved outside and way beyond our original wishes. Our choice - if it ever comes - will be based upon somebody elses version of an EU which was and never has been the British publics version. Your analogy is way off beam and should read - embattled members not rats.

The analogy may be 'way off beam', but if the UK does escape from 'belonging' to Europe, it's an analogy we can expect to hear.

Our mistake was, and still is, not being wholehearted enough in our support so we have not been part of the main axis of power. If we had joined at inception, rather than twenty odd years down line, do you think it would have developed the way it did?

The political relationship between the UK and the EU has never been an easy one. If the UK had joined earlier, it might have left earlier, as it's difficult to see how things could have been arranged to suit both the UK and the main players in the EU.

The UK supported the idea of a united Europe, as Europe, especially in the east was so unstable after WW2, but how the UK could fit into it has always been problematic.

We ended up with a membership that has done very little for us, and made a mess of a lot of things that mattered to the UK. There is a lot of misinformation about how the UK 'benefits' or otherwise from being in the EU.

I am not totally convinced either direction, should we stay or should we go, that depends on a lot of information that isn't easily available, but we should shake ourselves out of the mindset of being subservient to the EU.

Hinch wrote: far too many risks in pulling out.

Does that mean 'belonging' to the EU is a one way ticket, once you join, you can never escape?

First and foremost, if history serves me well, we were 'refused' entry into the Common Market on at least two occasions - black-balled by the French. Therefore 'joining late' wasn't down to just our reticence but at the vagaries of johnnie foreigner. Secondly we, the UK, didn't initiate the political changes that some of the others wanted, nor were we, the British public, asked if we wished to continue with our membership as those changes took place. In most 'clubs' one's membership is renewed at regular intervals as a 'life' membership can be grossly expensive. I didn't opt for a European Government to regulate my life and would never have done so under any circumstances (knowing what I know of our European neighbours). Therefore I don't just want but I demand the opportunity to be asked as I am just as important a member of this so called 'club' as everyone else. And the more and the longer these governments of ours prevaricate and the more inclined I am to rip up my members card and tell them to put it were the sun don't shine. Totally p***** off with the whole thing. Disgruntled from Rochdale.

De Gaulle didn't like the British or the Americans, he didn't want Britain in Europe, and kept them out for quite a few years. Why on earth the British government didn't take the hint is a puzzle.

Eventually, back in the 60s, after repeatedly begging to be allowed to join the EU, the British government accepted a deal designed to cripple trade between Britain and the USA, and make Britain dependent on Europe. That's why we accepted metric measurements, to the extent that we did, and ended up with a mixture of measurements that still confuses.

During and after WW2, France was very divided. The French were quite annoyed when the British sank the French fleet. De Gaulle was nobody particularly important in France until the British used him for propaganda radio broadcasts.

The arguments for the UK joining Europe at the time didn't make much sense for Britain, apart from contributing towards the stability of Europe. Anyway, events have moved on, the world has changed, Britain has been Europeanised, a sort of levelling process that has us in exactly the same boat as places like Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and other countries we know very little about really.

Any future government (read political party) that doesn't guarantee me (as an individual) a vote in a referendum, without strings - no re-negotiations or flaccid promises -, following the next general election can sing for my vote. I wonder just how many 'others' have such a mind-set and are as fed up with all this crap.
Time I was asked 'DO I WANT TO BE GOVERNED FROM SOMEWHERE IN INNER BELGIUM BY A BUNCH OF GRABBING PARASITES '?