A century ago Europe begun its suicide

you will have to expalain where British banks help continental Europe. The biggest ports in Europe are Rotterdam, Hamburg and Marseille to my knowlegde, and I don't think this will change in terms of supplying the continent with goods.

Britain has been unable to cover its population with food, gas or oil to my knowledge for quite some time. So they import more of all all three than they export.

and their financial aid to the EU is the smallest in terms of percantage per capita of all countries who pay in. I think Poland getting the Euro can replace the UKs contribution quite esily.

I know people like to think WW2 and the cold war are still on, but both are over, and I will never understand why England feels they have to intervene to prevent one country being dominant in the EU. Why is it negative if we finally work together and simply accept that the conflict between the countries is over. It's the EU! We live in the same country!

 

Wonder if anything of what you've said is going to stand the test of time. Turkey is probably the strongest in the region for now. But Egypt? Iran? Come on. Iran couldn't beat Iraq in the 8 year war, which is a much smaller country. South of the border of Turkey there is a lot of fighting spirit that neither Turkey, nor Iran share.

 

Germany didnt fail in 1914 by the British intervention, the Belgian resistance, the Russian offensive or French heroism ... Germany failed simply because their whole strategy was based on an impossible military plan.(Schlieffen modified by Moltke the young).

 

Not Marseille, but Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp.

 

Britain has the largest banking sector in Europe with unmatched access to capital markets, mineral and metal exchanges. Nobody else in Europe has those things, even though Germany would like them at Frankfurt. The point is that if Britain leaves the EU the EU loses those things. As well as Belfast, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Barrow, Newcastle, London, Portsmouth, Bristol, Southampton and that is only half the major ports Britain has. Sure Holland has Rotterdam maybe the best port in the world, Hamburg for Germany which freezes in winter and has to be kept open by icebreakers and port tugs. France has Marseille, Le Havre, Brest, Calais. That is it for those countries. Britain has more major ports and naval bases then the rest of western Europe combined. Also most of the British ports are natural, however the ports in Germany, Spain and Italy have to be developed which costs money. Basically the EU is saying good by to its best ports if the UK leaves.

Yes we have because of trade with Europe, North America and the rest of the world. Going into our dozen plus ports.

No Poland joining the EU will not makeup for the UK leaving the EU and its investments going with it.

Oh so you are a Protestant English speaker with a British accent who believes in freedom from government within a framework of law designed to protect property and persons? If no then you aren't British and I am not European.

 

It doesn't really matter. The point is those ports get so much trade because they are the only ports in that area. It is the same with China, people say oh wow China has so many busy ports China must be a great power. No China has such busy ports because it doesn't have very many ports. Britain and the US on the other hand have so many ports they struggle to keep them open.

 

I never said Egypt was a great power. I said it was a natural and stable state which its people would defend. You are talking about Iran 25-30 years ago. It is different now and Iraq is open to Iranian manipulation.

Who is more likely to be able to stopped the fighting Shia Iran or Sunni Turkey. Turkey is more likely.

 

I am still confused to tell you the truth. London's banking sector or its stock exchange is well known, but I don't understand its importance to the EU or the Eurozone which the UK is not a part of. Same thing about the ports. Although they are important, I don't understand their importance for areas outside UK.

I seem to look at the EU as a whole while you choose to separate between the countries. And to me the UK is not of segnificant importance to the 430 millionen EU citizens who don't happen to live in the UK. You don't use the Euro and your trading and ports are focused on your island and not of significant importance to the rest of the EU. I might be wrong so correct me if goods for example come from Glasgow and supply areas ouside the UK.

Poland joining the Eurozone would be a good step for us as 40 million + people would use and trade with the Euro. Also they're financially very stable and could replace Britains small contributions (financially I mean) to the EU.

See there is the difference. I consider myself European first...

 

Britain is a part of the EU.

They are still separate

The UK contributes significant amounts to EU and offers jobs to EU citizens.

Thank god for that.

Freight comes and go from the UK all the time. It really doesn't matter so much as to where the ports are located any more.

I don't think so. Many countries that adopted the Euro actually found prices of items increase and it is not as strong a currency as the pound.

That is very doubtful as they are net receiver of EU monies whereas the UK is a net contributor with a difference of 8Bn euros compared to Poland

Britain is better off outside the EU and has historically acted as counter balance.
Leaving the EU would not deny British trade to EU markets and it would save the treasury billions of pounds per year.

 

While Britain is in the EU the rest of the EU gets better access to London, Leeds and Edinburgh financial markets and the exchanges in London. So with the UK outside the EU, the rest of the EU will lose the access. Many EU companies will choose to stay in Britain rather than move to Frankfurt or Paris. They are small fry compared to the UK. For instance when the EU was trying to bailout its banking sector it couldn't print the money it had to borrow so where did it go for the money the UK. You say you think of the EU as a nation, rather than a number of nations. Then you would think losing a dozen of your best ports would be an issue for an EU nation. However you seem to think of the UK as not mattering to the EU. So which is it? No ports has any importance to a population outside of its area, however Britain has more ports than anywhere else in the world. With only the US having more ports than Britain.

So you don't mind losing 15% of your GNP, your largest financial sector, your largest oil and gas market, a dozen ports, 63 million people and some of the best farmland in Europe. Are you daft? Of course Britain matters to the EU and of course the EU matters to Britain. Britain leaving the EU will cause problems for both the EU and Britain. However staying in will be worse for Britain than leaving.
Well of course goods from Glasgow don't go to Europe. Same as good from Le Havre don't go to Romania. The question is does the EU want to lose the UK, the answer is no.

Poland has a GNP of about 500 billion dollars, the UK has a GNP of 2.4 trillion dollars. The UK has a GNP 5 times Poland and you expect Poland alone to makeup for Britain leaving?

 

You misunderstood me. I must have not been clear. I don't think the UK leaving the EU is good, but I believe it's inevitable since neither the people of the UK nor her politicians want to join in with a united European cause. I personally think that the worst for the EU would be if Germany left and went back to the German Mark, France second since the have the Euro as well, but I'm not convinced UK dropping out will have that many negative consequences for continental Europe. Primarily because I think people expect it to happen sooner or later anyhow and they're preparing for it. Right now, you have really three big boys: Germany, France and the UK. The participation of the UK in EU policies has been limited at best over the last 15 years. Correct me if I'm wrong about that...

If for arguments sake the UK would have gone with the Euro, them leaving would be horrible. But they chose to remain with their british pound. If they joined the Eurozone, it would make the Euro the most traded currency of the world and probably knocking the center of the worlds trading market from Wallstreet to London. Which I think would benefit all Europeans.

The politicians of the UK have been very disappointing at best when it came to working with Germany or France. I don't like these countries fighting over who gets how much of a cake. I would definitely prefer them working closer together. I just feel that the mentality of the people of the UK won't improve in terms of the EU and they will want to succeed from the EU, which will be bad, but then I feel the EU as one country will be making faster steps than now when the UK's politicians don't get involved or stop projects from moving forward in the fear that one country dominates a sector. It feels like they're trying to create balance within the EU instead of moving all of the EU further. But that is just my opinion...

 

This is an interesting topic!
I think the downfall of Europe started from WWII, and the only winner of this war was USA.

The destructive level of WWI totally can't compare with WWII. although I wonder would Europe still face the problem of Aging population....(as this is the common problem of developed countries)

but...to think deeper, the SEED of the fall of Europe...that is COMMUNISM!

 

We can sustain that, historically, WW I was less avoidable than WW II.

We can argue that without Hitler and Nazism WW II was impossible to start, but this would haven't excluded the possibility of a war against the Communist block ... [so at the end we would have seen a WW II anyway].

WW I was unavoidable because it was the result of the tenses created among the European powers during their colonial expansion. With that geopolitical mind set in the continent there was not enough room for all those empires [in that context UK was the most lucky power, since it was and it is an isle not connected to the continent, and its empire was substantially all oversea].

 

WW1 was avoidable. Only It was necessary a conductor like Bismarck. WW1 was the result of a complete lack of vision and above all, a product of fear. And yes, WW1 was the suicide of Europe. The end of European Hegemony.There were nationalist countries (Serbia, Italy, Romania, France, Russia, Germany), but others lacked this nationalism (Transleithania - Cisleithania, Britain, Belgium, USA etc.)

 

Bismarck didn't want to start WW1, but the King of Germany insisted (William II)
Britain is the last European Hegemony. Colonialism brought Europe to its golden age, at the end several European countries could not get enough benefit within this system, they had to complete with each other and the conflict began.

after WW2, Colonialism was no longer exist, as a new rise country found new ways to absorb capital, resources, and markets all over the world, they are much more intelligent and less cost than Colonialism

I don't have much knowledge on western history, so I don't know if WW1 was avoidable or not, but I still believe that communism is the most reason of the fall of Europe, it kept Europe disintegrated and weak. While the eastern Europe suffered in poverty and low efficient economy, the western Europe started to enjoy prosperity and unreasonable welfare benefits.

Leftists and liberals has been leading the western Europe political trend for the several decades, besides the cruelty of WWII, communism also gave them a great help. and now the mistakes are hardly to be corrected.

Even nowadays, the poison of communism is still affecting Europe (that's why EU and Euro is so difficult to achieve success, the economic and political gap are too varies from different Europe countries, its intention is good, to form a united and strong Europe, so to counter the mighty power of the US and USSR, sadly the reality is too harsh)

to conclude, the guy who wrote communism should be burn in hell for 10 centuries!

Communism is just a freak which should never exist in human history.

 

It's a good argument that WW I created the circumstances for the Communist Revolution in the imperial Russia. Actually the war context made the situation in Russia, for the low classes, even worse than before [also in Italy this happened, but the final output was well different, since Italy was already a democracy ... it was after the war that a dictatorial system came out, also for the consequences of WW I]. Being Russia an authoritative and totalitarian system the revolution against the power was an obvious reaction by the population.

Unfortunately the Communists were able to take the leadership of this revolution, creating the Soviet system.

 

Why should there have been a downfall of Europe? The wealth and life quality probably improved in almost every region of Europe in the last 100 years.

Losing colonies is no matter, they usually had more disadvantages than advantages anyway.

German politicians were probably glad, that they did not get back one of the former colonies, These plans were there in the twenties, but not anymore in the fifties.

I don't understand the aging population and the communism parts here.

 

WWI could have been avoided.

There were some things going wrong:
Germany tried to calm down Austria-Hungary, but these attempts failed. At this point Germany could have questioned the alliance.
The letter consultations between the Russian Czar and the German Kaiser were close to an agreement. The Russian Czar could have made steps to stop mobilization. I'm not sure, if he had the power to do so.
The German Social Democrats should have blocked the war credits in German parliament.

The Balkan wars did not lead to a world war, so the new situations could have been managed, too.

There was not enough will and competence to do so.

 

In a modern perspective you are right, unfortunately in that historical context the great powers had the curious habit to consider local wars like a matter of honor, so that the enlargement of the conflict was quite a duty of honor for them.

Anyway if they left honor and pride a part they would have had good probabilities to avoid a world war, at least in the brief term.

 

Yes, this was so. In some cases it is still so. Kobane may not be that important, it was not much known before the battle started there. For both sides it seems to become a symbol meanwhile. For Turkey, the US, or Europe, it's not a question of honor.

Russia is big enough, they would not need the Crimean Peninsula or the Donbass. They could have a new Black Sea military port outside Crimea, which they plan to build anyway. The economic advantages are rather low, Crimea has some tourism and food industry, Donbass is economically more important, but it probably wouldn't cover the disadvantages of sanctions, if Russia would get half of Ukrainian territory ... or a new Russia-friendly Ukrainian government.

So, honor and pride are still important factors in some conflicts.

In 1914, it was more influential, I guess.

 

Empires and aristocracies in continental Europe still existed as active actors on the world scene. Those environments knew [and know] establishments who give a high value to similar aspects of life [honor, pride, duty ...].

Sometime I wonder how would have been the world if in Germany, after the unification, they found a way to develop a democratic liberal monarchy, like UK was, but of course the "what if" exercise brings to nothing ...

 

Different stories. The German Empire was a confederation of states with different royal families.

 

Correct. Obviously that was the main difference between the "young nations" of Europe: Italy and Germany. Anyway, despite the liberal democracy in Italy [the democracy where only men of a certain census voted] the conditions for the birth of a dictatorship had created overall by the bad management of the consequences of the first World War.

The same happened in Germany where the Republic was not able to make the country restart in a suitable way.