I seem to remember saying in the past

"Attack the message not the messenger"

---

Bernie is quite right, this should be an interesting thread, because the fate of Britain in the next 5 years could very well have a profound impact upon the EU as well. It is just a shame that some people want to spoil it.

Indeed Chris.

Well Richard ought to be thanked profusely for that Dateline London link. It raised many important issues facing the United Kingdom - Issues that require those that govern to step outside party politics for a change & do what is right for the UK as a whole.

Cameron is making a big mistake in stating that he wants to govern as one nation - that is not possible as the EU crisis over the years has shown.

As I have already stated earlier, there really is a groundswell of disillusionment outside of London that if not looked into why over the next 5 years, will only increase Nationalism to such a degree that the "One Nation" will cease to exist.

Janet in the link Richard provided hit the nail on the head - The Tories won because many did not want to see a weak & ineffectual PM allied to the SNP - At a guess (IMV only) would have been more catastrophic that the Labour party of the 70's - many did not want to see those days return & to be honest, can you blame them?

It's all in the hands of the Tories now - the question is: -

Can they step up to the plate?

I was just about to comment about the three major international bodies set up after the end of the second world war: the EU, NATO, and the UN.

Of the three, I think that the EU was the one most directly set up to prevent a new European war - by creating the conditions which remove the tensions which ultimately lead to war. That's co-operation, collaboration and mutual understanding.

NATO only comes fully into play if diplomacy fails - by pledging to return military fire, if any of its members are attacked by a non-member. In the ultimate case, that leads to MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - which I wouldn't consider a success for diplomacy. I don't think the NATO treaty has much, if anything, to say about reducing tensions between member states of the EU, like France and Germany - and of course Germany (even West Germany) wasn't a founder member of NATO, and East Germany wasn't eligible to join until after re-unification.

The United Nations takes us back to the diplomatic, preventative approach to international conflict - though I have to say that the human race seems to have singularly failed to evolve a non-violent alternative to the "get your coat off and I'll see you outside" approach to conflict resolution. Both the WHO and UNESCO are specialist agencies within the UN.

So, I re-state my position that the EU is "the institution set up specifically to reduce the risk of yet another European war" - rather than to win it when it happens. And as such, I want to stay a member.

Well Richard ought to be thanked profusely for that Dateline London link.

This week's programme wasn't very typical - with two UK journalists taking vigorously divergent positions. It's broadcast every week on the BBC News channel, and quite possibly available on BBC World as well. Normally there are three foreign correspondents, and just one (if any) from the UK. I make a point of catching it when I can, for a thoughtful balance to the domestic news agenda. I've already complained to Chris privately about suffering withdrawal symptoms when it was bounced off the airwaves last week by the arrival of Princess Charlotte.

So, I re-state my position that the EU is "the institution set up specifically to reduce the risk of yet another European war" - rather than to win it when it happens. And as such, I want to stay a member.

I think you'll find that many agree with that.

The problem is that EU politicians are not thinking that way. To refer to fellow members as a "piddling little country" & as seen by that Frenchman on that debate - "It's a British problem not ours"

Hasn't it been proven that Britain is one of the highest net contributors to the EU, yet when we see mention of any issues we have with the EU, we become a "piddling little country?"

When the fiscal issues are taken out of the picture & all members treated as equals, then & only then will the EU succeed - Unfortunately, I'll see pigs fly before that day arrives.

At the moment the EU (in effect) only consists of France & Germany because as far as they are concerned all the other members are "piddling little countries".

If they don't change for the better you will see conflict in Europe again.

I was just about to comment about the three major international bodies set up after the end of the second world war: the EU, NATO, and the UN.

Of the three, I think that the EU was the one most directly set up to prevent a new European war - by creating the conditions which remove the tensions which ultimately lead to war. That's co-operation, collaboration and mutual understanding.

Yep, you are absolutely right. The sharing of coal and steel, two essential resources for a war economy (back then anyways), would not just reduce tensions, it would simply make it virtually impossible to start gearing up for war again.

Also, in the Schuman declaration (today is its 65th anniversary) which is the founding declaration of the ECSC, its specifically mentioned that an objective is to avoid another European war.

NATO only comes fully into play if diplomacy fails - by pledging to return military fire, if any of its members are attacked by a non-member. In the ultimate case, that leads to MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - which I wouldn't consider a success for diplomacy. I don't think the NATO treaty has much, if anything, to say about reducing tensions between member states of the EU, like France and Germany - and of course Germany (even West Germany) wasn't a founder member of NATO, and East Germany wasn't eligible to join until after re-unification.

Yes, furthermore, NATO was specifically designed to counter an eventual Soviet attack on Western Europe. It was never concerned with preventing another European war, though of course if most European states are cooperating militarily, then war becomes less likely.

The United Nations takes us back to the diplomatic, preventative approach to international conflict - though I have to say that the human race seems to have singularly failed to evolve a non-violent alternative to the "get your coat off and I'll see you outside" approach to conflict resolution. Both the WHO and UNESCO are specialist agencies within the UN.

Well, the UN hasn't failed that badly. Yes, its not the best at stopping conflicts once they have started, and it can't solve every conflict. At the same time, what people often miss is that the UN has been key when it comes to setting up a relatively consistent body of international law and international norms, that for the most part are either upheld by most countries, or at least considered to be what the standard should be. Obviously, its far from perfect, but, do consider what the situation before the Second World War used to be, with almost no international law, what little there was tended to be relatively inconsistent and generally only applied to Europe.

On top of that, the UN has to balance two mutually exclusive interests, at the one hand the geopolitical interests of the 5 UNSC members, and at the other hand the desire to uphold human rights and peace throughout the world. They are in an impossible split when those two interests clash, and they clash often. Although even here there is an argument to be made that the UN, by its very existence has reduced the number and scale of conflicts. Remember that these days, at least in the West, conflicts needs an UN mandate and we have become more hesitant to get involved in a conflict without such a mandate. And countries that do start a conflict without a mandate, pay a pretty steep political cost. Before the UN, a country did not have to consider the legitimacy of the conflict it wanted to wage, now it does.

of course Germany (even West Germany) wasn't a founder member of NATO, and East Germany wasn't eligible to join until after re-unification.
founder member

Hmmm.
http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm
1945 - 1959
A peaceful Europe – the beginnings of cooperation
The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War. As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace. The six founders are Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The 1950s are dominated by a cold war between east and west. Protests in Hungary against the Communist regime are put down by Soviet tanks in 1956; while the following year, 1957, the Soviet Union takes the lead in the space race, when it launches the first man-made space satellite, Sputnik 1. Also in 1957, the Treaty of Rome creates the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘Common Market’.

I think the difference, as the links posted by other users have demonstrated, is that the EU was set up to prevent war by enforcing open trade links and thus interdependency. Whereas NATO was set up to prevent war by fear: by making the consequences so terrible that no sane leader or country would embark on war. Unfortunately, they didn't find a way to prevent insanity while they were at it.

@Chris S and Richard Haselgrove.

The EU is an economic union founded on a political and economic basis, including trade.

Not all EU members are part of NATO.

NATO is in fact an abbreviation for North Atlantic ...

The rest needs to be looked up. Getting back to it.

Therefore Sweden is not a member of NATO.

You may see Nato instead of NATO at times. Also their domain is .int

Even NATO is based on a political decision making process. Should a crisis or war emerge, it would of course be left to the military men to make the necessary decisions.

Oh, perhaps I should stick to the thread title and mention the Chunnel while still posting here.

As I understand it the EU was set up based upon mutual trade agreements.
I'm therefore finding it difficult to understand why many here believe that the EU was set up to prevent war. NATO was set up for that, the EU was set up for trade purposes. But I will go away and research further.

The EU IS set setup for trade purposes.
Nothing else. Almost.
Yes the EU have a small army. About 60,000 men both Soldiers and administrators.
It's like EEU...

The Eurasian Customs Union (EACU) is a customs union which consists of all the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union. It came into existence on 1 January 2010 as the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia (Russian: Таможенный союз Белоруссии, Казахстана и России).[8] The union initially consisted of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, and was enlarged to include Armenia and Kyrgyzstan from 1 January 2015.[9] The original treaty establishing the Customs Union was terminated by the agreement establishing the Eurasian Economic Union, signed in 2014, which incorporated the Customs Union into the EEU's legal framework.

NATO is in fact an abbreviation for North Atlantic ...
The rest needs to be looked up. Getting back to it.
Therefore Sweden is not a member of NATO.
You may see Nato instead of NATO at times. Also their domain is .int

You are right.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization AKA NATO.
http://www.nato.int/
Europian Union AKA EU.
http://europa.eu/

Wonder why so many countries around the Baltic Sea are members not even Close to the Atlantic?

Sweden is something like a semi-member of NATO.
We have been that for 70 years:)

I've just been watching the BBC's Dateline London, and I'd invite anyone who has access (that link is possibly UK only) to do the same.

Yes only for UK Viewer.
However I can read this http://www.bbc.com/
With videos:)

The BBC is strange like that - you can't see bbc.co.uk, and I can't see bbc.com

I wonder if the news is the same on both sides of the iron curtain?

Speaking as an ex-pat, the news is tailored more for abroad than UK centred. I can't watch the BBC shows, but I can listen to all the radio shows on iplayer. I listened to the whole election broadcast on radio 4. Canada does have an excellent radio equivalent called CBC, but obviously there are more stories about bears than on Radio 4.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Speaking as an ex-pat, the news is tailored more for abroad than UK centred. I can't watch the BBC shows, but I can listen to all the radio shows on iplayer. I listened to the whole election broadcast on radio 4.

I can also listen to the BBC radio shows from here:)
They have some funny comedies on BBC Four.
And yes even Swedish ones...

24 hours later...

More to come?

24 hours later...

More to come?

I would think so, this is only the beginning.

I am sure you are all familiar with the google search autocomplete and how it reflects what people are searching for.

In the run up to the election I started to type in "can I vote.." and the first search suggestion that came up was "can I vote snp from England?"

I wonder how many seats the SNP would have got if they had fielded candidates in England?

---

Reality Internet Personality

I am sure you are all familiar with the google search autocomplete and how it reflects what people are searching for.
In the run up to the election I started to type in "can I vote.." and the first search suggestion that came up was "can I vote snp from England?"

Didn't work for me.
I got the US first.
http://www.canivote.org/
Then England.
Whatever:)
Why do one have to register to vote?
It's beyond me...

Why do one have to register to vote?
It's beyond me...

Methinks you're taking the mickey - again :-)

To prevent voting fraud, if no registration, one could vote as many times as one could get away with.

Not possible you think?

If it can happen with claiming benefits, it would certainly happen with voting.

Why do one have to register to vote?
It's beyond me...

Methinks you're taking the mickey - again :-)
To prevent voting fraud, if no registration, one could vote as many times as one could get away with.
Not possible you think?
If it can happen with claiming benefits, it would certainly happen with voting.

But here the Skatteverket, IRS are controlling the voting system and sending ONE ballot per person by mail and its checked when you are leaving a ballot.
Quite simple really.
Worked here for ages...
It's not like Eastern Ukraine or Crimea here you know.