Can we talk about European Union and its history?

>Leave voter """"arguments""""

My post wasn't an argument. I just told you that if you see only black and white, it isn't because the world is black and white. It is because you are a blind.

Also I'm not british.

Have fun being America's or Russia's bitch then. We can be an economic superpower without the headaches that being a military superpower brings. Basically a bigger version of Germany.

This isnt historical
Where the fuck are the mods?

>be me
>be remainer
>100% blairite labourist
>I'm leftist and shit
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BREXITERS MUH STOCK EXCHANGE MUH CURRENCY MUH 1% AND THEIR MONEY
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE CORBYN HE'S LITERALLY COMMUNIST BTW. I'M ON THE LEFT FROM CORBYN THAT'S WHY HE HATES ME

"Economic superpower" isn't a real thing. You have barely no influence when things actually matter. The EU is the largest economy in the world yet the EU has only domestic influence.

>My post wasn't an argument. I just told you that if you see only black and white, it isn't because the world is black and white. It is because you are a blind.

>forgetting the downgrade
The nightmare hasn't even begun

This pic must be a falseflag

Well we don't really have many choices then.

Yeah, the freedom to not be able to eat food with high lead content

>This pic must be a falseflag
Why?

No one can look this retarded on purpose

You don't get out much, do you?

this is such clear bait, here's your (you)

>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago.

Keep your brexit threads in pol

this map is misleading because everything below 77 is one color. If this map included sub saharan africa it would be the same color as the southern USA

how is it bait?
you are aware taht 48% of Brits were for remain, right?

EU exists since 1957

Through the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU has developed a role in external relations and defence. The union maintains permanent diplomatic missions throughout the world and represents itself at the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the G8, and the G-20. Because of its global influence, the European Union has been described as a current or as a potential superpower.[24]

Brexit happened last month, which is why I suggested to keep it out of here, since it's not history.

I don't intend to talk about Brexit, but about the European project in general

>I don't intend to talk about Brexit
I understand, but the thread turned into remain/leave shit-flinging. I'm pointing it out so we can get back on track.

Thanks for your considerations

Don't be sad, friend from outre-manche.
Your country sacrificed its economy and probably its unity to rid us Europeans of English politicians. The reasons for it might be disgusting, but all in all it was a beautiful act.

The alternative would have been Cameron parading in Brussels and single handedly burying all projects of political union. That would have been really disgusting.

>I'm pointing it out so we can get back on track.
Speaking of getting back on track. The main purpose of the European project was the following. Since France and Germany (in their various forms) have always been at war with each other in one way or another. Having an economical union would see that they are interdependent of each other and will make cooperation beneficial. So far it has done it's job marvelously.

>don't be sad

I'm not lol; my nature is one of flippancy

>my nature is one of flippancy

I find it fucking funny how much the fucking English have fucked up with Brexit.

They've essentially destroyed their economy beyond recovery, destroyed their place on the world stage, and even destroyed their union (Scotland demands a referendum, Northern Ireland demands a referendum, London demands a referendum, and Wales is on the verge of seeing how corrupt westminster has become)

As a Scot I can't fucking wait for England to crumble; we'll escape from their yoke and become enriched by being both a independent nation and a respected leader in the EU.

I see... So maybe now we can finally get back on the historical track that was France and England being always at war with each other.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French–German_enmity

Don't know what is bigger, the petty French English squabbling, or the ones that led to WW1 and WW2

nice bait

>everyone who isn't a /pol/ sheep is bait

Get of the fucking internet for once

was about time
before that we only had Miss UK for that job..

Not takin the bait m8. No one can be that retarded.

pure ad hominem

just run back to /pol/

>They've essentially destroyed their economy beyond recovery
>destroyed their place on the world stage
>we'll escape from their yoke and become enriched by being both a independent nation and a respected leader in the EU.

>not bait

pick one

If France had maintained its demographic and economic lead over the 19th century, WW1-2 would have opposed England and its german ally to France.

Haven't you fucking seen what's happened to the pound? It's hit a 31 fucking year low.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

Wiki has some pretty good info on this. As stated by some in this thread, the purpose of the EU was to prevent conflict between nations, individual nations becoming larger and taking over land from other nations and prevent the occurrence of super nations (like what germany was trying to be during WW2.).

"After World War II, European integration was seen as an antidote to the extreme nationalism which had devastated the continent."

There's also an older movement that existed before the EU that sought mostly similar goals.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paneuropean_Union

>They've essentially destroyed their economy beyond recovery
>destroyed their place on the world stage
He's right though, it did screw itself over. It's gonna take a few years to recover.

So was the UK's economy permanently fucked when the pound reached 1.05 against the dollar in 1985?

Currencies, specifically reserve currencies, reflect the stability of the country which governs it. When things are unstable, people sell off that country's reserve currency and buy something they think is more secure, hence everyone bailing on Euros and Sterling to buy the Yen. Once the Brexit process is sorted out and things return to normal, the pound will go back up as people reinvest. The current losses are paper losses. 15% of the UK's economic infrastructure did not magically burst into flames when the Brexit vote count came through.

It'll take a little while to recover but they'll be stronger for it in the long run.

The thing about them destroying their place on the world stage in nonsense, anyone can see that the EU is a federalizing project and an independent country will always have more influence than a province/state, which is what the UK would inevitably become if it remained in the EU for another 30, 40 years.

>The thing about them destroying their place on the world stage in nonsense, anyone can see that the EU is a federalizing project and an independent country will always have more influence than a province/state, which is what the UK would inevitably become if it remained in the EU for another 30, 40 years.
Not really sure how one leads to another...

>It'll take a little while to recover but they'll be stronger for it in the long run.
How? They just lost access to the single biggest market in the world
How exactly will this make them stronger in the long run?

We may as well, as we sure as hell won't be talking about it's future

Topkek from Britain Eurocucks

The EU may have taken some of its inspiration for its ambition from the story about the tower of Babel. (some have disputed over what the building actually represents.)

> an independent country will always have more influence than a province/state
Why ?

Integration of currencies, customs, border controls, and now talk of integrating army and fiscal policy and there was previously (perhaps currently as well? I haven't kept up with it) strong support for taxation rights vis a vis the EU Financial Transaction Tax, + increasing the power of the EU parliament and commission, etc. They're taking the EU step by step down the road to greater integration ending in the United States of Europe. That's the end goal. They've said as much before.

I understood that part, I didn't understand the why it's bad part.

It's basically an American project.
Hell, Jean Monnet himself worked closely with the CIA.

>people actually want to live in diapers for another 10 to 15 years

Because that one single market was putting barriers in place for trade with the rest of the world. I know, I export to the EU, they had massive tariffs on Chinese products (in some cases 30%+). Being independent will allow the UK to tailor its trading policy to exactly what it needs.

For example, the UK currently consumes much more steel than it produces; currently they'd have to buy European steel at a significant markup instead of Chinese, South African, Russian etc. steel. Being independent, they can now buy from whomever they want to if they so desire, put trade incentives in place if they want to encourage their own domestic industry, etc etc. Same with practically every other trade good. A UK-specific trade policy will always be better than a general EU policy.

Aside from that, the EU still exists and walls have not popped out of ground all around the EU, preventing Britain from trading with them. They can still trade with the EU, just as an outside country now.

We have different value systems.

What is Texas's foreign policy?

>What is Texas's foreign policy?
Kill all Mexicans and build a huge Wall?

That's a good point, but if the EU-UK trade negotiations don't work out that well (and leaving aside potential consequences for the City), will the losses from the single market be compensated by such greater potential gains in other countries?

How divergent is the UK's foreign policy from the EU though? If they had radically different priorities I'd understand, but it seems to me that by and large they're aligned - except that the UK reserves for itself the right to intervene overseas (as does France, for example)

The individual states do lose some influence, but it's for the good of the country as a whole. Just look at how much influence USA exerts.

Besides there are always the shining jewels and there are those shit states. California, for example, has a bigger GDP than 6th largest economy - France. Saying the state can't do well for itself while being a part of a federal government is kinda baseless.

Germany attempt to takeover Europe by economic rather than military means. Cucked hard by the English yet again.

Oh do shut it with your 'Germany is the boogeyman'

t. G*rm

I don't know. Check what the representatives and senators voted on foreign policy issues. And what happened the last time you had a texan president too.

I'm pretty sure that even though texans do not have the final say in foreign policy, their membership of the USA let them have a say in issues they wouldn't have been able to influe on otherwise.
And Texas wouldn't have become as important economically and demographically as it is without being in the union.

Is the problem not that influence is lost, but that the label on it changes from country X to union Y ?

Also, are you in favor of the independence of your county from the UK ? Why not, and why wouldn't you apply the same logic to the UK ?

>merkel invites all of africa&mid-east to the EU without asking anyone
>germany isn't the enemy here

Stay cucked Hans.

>merkel decides on every single thing that happens in the whole wide world

The immigrant crisis has forced all members on implementing some policies. The immigrants were coming either way. Now if we are in control, we get to decide where and when and how many. That was the general idea. Though, I will concede that our current policies haven't met up with expectation and we do need to do more.

This only works for imports, and/or trade with large established economies, plus running an import based economy only works for so long, until the current account deficit gets severly affected, and their current account deficit is pretty bad already.

Being outside of the free market as a country for whom the EU accounts for 62% of trade exports means the EU will be able to toy with tariffs at will where the UK is concerned. If any continental lobby wants British products severely disadvantaged at export to the EU, they will get their way.

So that is in no way good news for the UK.

Now, say the UK wants to compensate by exporting to the rest of the world. Well they already export to the US, and they may get a deal with the US, which will help, but only to an extent. Plus, they won't hold as much weight in negociations with big players such as China or Brazil or the US, which means they won't be getting the best deal they could hope for.
How about trading with emerging countries? Well unluckily for the UK, ECs need the import tariffs to keep afloat more often than not, and it is in any case a great boost to their economy. They won't be lowering tariffs for the UK exports any time soon.

tl;dr: The UK's current account deficit will get worse, their trade balance will go even further down the shitter unless they get an EU trade agreement.

Nice wikipedia read.
>The union maintains permanent diplomatic missions throughout the world and represents itself at the United Nations,
So do all nations.
>Through the Common Foreign and Security Policy
Literally a lie. The EU does not have a common foreign and security policy.

Like what the fuck is hits? This article says two facsts, a) EU has embassies (wow!!!!!! embassies!!!) and is in the UN (WOW!111) and then claims the EU is a potential superpower.

The EU is a dysfunctional mess that couldn't even bend Russia and has succumbed to demands from Turkey. Not a superpower nor a potential superpower in a hundred years.

So what was your post trying to prove? Having an embassy and being in the U.N makes you a superpower?

>The immigrant crisis has forced all members on implementing some policies. The immigrants were coming either way. Now if we are in control, we get to decide where and when and how many. That was the general idea. Though, I will concede that our current policies haven't met up with expectation and we do need to do more.

Is this what you krauts actually tell yourselves? Go to the Cologne victims and tell them your policies just aren't meeting expectation but everything is under control, that they have to accept mass migration because it was "coming either way", just like the French PM said that France must "learn to live with terrorism". No country *must* go alone with this, it's your cucked liberal way of thinking that enables this.

>The EU is a dysfunctional mess that couldn't even bend Russia
Nobody can bend Russia m8. You're overreaching.

Merkel ignored the inmigrant crisis while they flooded Greece, and only said something when Renzi threatened to give a free pass to inmigrants if the Union did not somehting to help them.
But when the inmigrants reached Germany, then it became a European problem.

But the lack of effort shows. The EU couldn't do anything more than mild sanctions because if they had done more EU-skeptic parties would have soared in popularity. It's not what they did per say, but what they couldn't do.

We don't need to give arguments anymore, we already won. Stay salty

>we won
I wouldn't exactly call it that.

Oh, did the remain vote win?

Nobody did.

>2011
>Lower Saxony still has administrative districts
Yeah, no.

Leave won. Britain will leave the EU and the globalists were defeated.

>Because that one single market was putting barriers in place for trade with the rest of the world. I know, I export to the EU, they had massive tariffs on Chinese products (in some cases 30%+). Being independent will allow the UK to tailor its trading policy to exactly what it needs.

And you think you will have a better leverage in making a trade agreement outside of the EU rather than inside?

>For example, the UK currently consumes much more steel than it produces; currently they'd have to buy European steel at a significant markup instead of Chinese, South African, Russian etc. steel.
Aside from that, the EU still exists and walls have not popped out of ground all around the EU, preventing Britain from trading with them. They can still trade with the EU, just as an outside country now.
So if Britain is inside the EU, its forbidden to trade with third country, but EU is allowed to trade with the third country UK? You dont really make sense

Because the sanctions are forced by USA
Europe has very little interest in the sanctions, since it hurt both Russia and EU economically

the US is the worst place you could possibly pick to make that point.

Texas, New York and California project considerably more power, culture, influence and relevance onto the world stage than comparable nations in terms of wealth, size and population.

And that's even assuming that they would be equal to their current station if independent, which is highly unlikely.

>the globalists were defeated
Britain left a regional block to focus on transcontinental/transoceanic relations through the Commonwealth, Atlanticism, and free trade with East Asia. London will remain one of the world's financial capitals.

> muh cologne victims
> muh terrorism

You are literally basing your world view on anecdotes and one-off events.

>scotland
>northern finland

this makes me giggle

>and one-off events.
Those 2000 men that sexually harassed and raped those women just returned home like "Lol, that's something that I'll only do once. I totally don't have any non-western views about women that I'll project throughout my life and pass on to my kids! Phew that would be silly!""

I would say quite different with regards to migration (which is the most important plank aside from war and trade), but aside from that it's about the same as any other non-EU western country's foreign policy, which is more or less the same as the EU's. Point is that the UK is free to engage or disengage from the EU on foreign policy points now on whatever issue is on the table rather than having to come to an agreement with 27 other countries about a coordinated foreign action; I don't see how the contrary would be true (diminished influence) if they're independent, unless they were particularly persuasive in the EU parliament. But even then, wouldn't they be able to do the same independent?

I would say yes as the EU is ~1/5th of the world's total GDP and leaving will give the UK greater ability to interact with the other 4/5s, but that's impossible to know. It's hard to tell how things will turn out at the moment. I will say that I don't think the EU negotiations will go south, as the UK is/was an overall importer of EU goods than an exporter, in other words if the EU puts in harsh trade barriers and the UK responds in kind, it would hurt the EU more than the UK. That said, they might just do it as a warning for others not to leave.

I wouldn't be in favor of my state's independence from the USA (yet) because I'm an American, Utah is American and we're still governed by Americans. The issue with the UK and the rest of the EU is other people infringing on the sovereignty, even slightly, of their member states. I'm of the opinion that a country should only ever be governed by its own people, should that be their choice, which is why I was in favor of the Scottish referendum in the past. I have no problem with people having a decision every once in a while as to whether or not they want to continue being governed as they are.

This might change for the EU in another 100, 200 years' time as national identity

cont

I can't personally know that.

I haven't done any qualitative research into each and every one of those people, but I sure hope that the people in charge of lawmaking and social policies in the affected countries listen to people who have, rather than edgelords on the internet.

You're not English. You're either a Londoner, Scot or Irishman. Fuck off cuck.

shifts and people begin to identify more as European than British etc., but that time hasn't come yet and it's fairly clear from polls around the EU that people are dissatisfied with the status quo. The current leaders of the EU are trying to force things through the back door and it's just making a mess of it all.

I realized that after I wrote it due to the differences in how the USA and the EU work.

Should have amended the original to 'countries in the EU have less influence in the EU than without', insofar as the EU actually has global influence that it tries to exert simply because they have to come to a general consensus.

>as the UK is/was an overall importer of EU goods than an exporter,

No it isn't.

> it would hurt the EU more than the UK

No it wouldn't

SeeAnd just look up "UK trade deficit with the EU", and "UK current account deficit";

The UK has a trade deficit you silly fool.

That would be a worse case scenario.

On the other hand, being able to import cheap raw materials particularly steel, making British products more competitive on the world market and putting greater controls on migration (assuming they actually get their shit together on this point) to import skilled workers could result in a significant rise in GDP growth.

And while the UK exports 62% of its... exports to the EU, they still have a 60bn pound deficit with the EU. I strongly doubt they'd cut off their nose to spite their faces.

They'd have more freedom on trade deals as well. The British trade lobby, for example, will not have to take into account the Polish and German steelmakers when trying to trade with China, the governments of which would be certain to stonewall any sort of deal involving lowered to no tariffs for Chinese steel. I don't really see how they'd be on the backfoot with regards to negotiations. If anything, wouldn't they be more free?

I wish I had a crystal ball and could see 10 years into the future on this point.

Why?

theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/uk-trade-deficit-hits-new-record-of-24bn-pounds-eu-referendum-brexit