END OF THE EU? Germany warns FIVE more countries could leave Europe after Brexit

Whenever something supposedly "unique" happens on the world stage, I ask myself has this occurred anywhere else? If so, how did those countries fare after the breakup...and how are they doing today?

Is there any relatively modern world example of a multi-country union breaking up?

a reply to: carewemust

The USSR comes to mind.

Infer what you will from that.

originally posted by: essentialtremors
a reply to: carewemust

The USSR comes to mind.

Infer what you will from that.

Thank-you for that information, EssentialTremors. I see from en.wikipedia.org... that 10 of the 15 countries achieved greater prosperity after the breakup, but it took a quite a few years. Over 1 million people died in the first 10 years. Let's hope Britain, and any other countries following in its footsteps, recover and prosper much faster.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Apparently, it's time to start dumping immigrants...

'MOVE JUNGLE TO UK' Calais mayor sparks furious row after demanding that squalid migrant camp be moved to Britain

THE mayor of Calais says migrants living in the Jungle camp and others in France should be moved to Britain so Brits “take the consequences” of Brexit.

www.thesun.co.uk...

Surely that is why in the past countries had *Border control*? If they (the French)

have people on their soil they must have let them in .... =their problem


The British have at all times wanted to control their borders and all of those people

in the Calais camps are not on British soil so .... not a UK problem


If a storm fills my property with debris or rubbish I cannot just dump it when

clearing up, in my neighbors property?

So if the French don't want immigrants .... close their borders. Job done

Strange, I dont seem to recall the British saying to the French, Oh The Germans are at your border are they? Well, thats your problem isnt it........you deal with it.....

Perhaps if the French didnt act like babies, and stood up to invaders as they should have..............
What would Napoleon have thought about the French of Today??

And these people are Not "Immigrants"...they are invaders...economic, refugee or otherwise......
They can go East or South would be a better option for them.

a reply to: gort51

To be fair that was a different situation, we had a professional but small army who punched far above there weight and if the French army had been comparable the German's would not have succeeded as it was the French line's that broke while our army was holding the German's at bay.

There army you see were part timer's and conscript's a little like our territorial army is today.

There are those in France whom have an entrenched hatred for us though and there is no if's or but's about that.

We had to save our army or the war would have been lost but the French blame us for not taking there army instead at Dunkirk though we did take all we could, We had to sink the French naval fleet at harbour after it refused to surrender as it was under the control of the Viche French government and we had blockaded them in port, if we had not sank them once again the German's would have had another full Atlantic fleet to use against us
and the war would have been lost but though we gave them a time table the French admiral neither evacuated his ship's nor did he surrender so thousand's of young French sailors were killed by the British navy in a tragedy that should never have happened had that pride of a French admiral not gotten in the way of common sense, he was perhaps a Viche supporter but likely most of those sailors hated the German's and would have given the chance fought on our side to free there motherland.

Also there is a long history of the French attacking British truck's and knifing there tyre's when they are on strike but leaving the German, Italian and other's lorries untouched.

We also wrecked there European empire at waterloo and as a matter of national pride they have never forgiven us for that either even though it was they whom were the aggressive invaders of those other European country's at that period.

Complicated, we have reason to not like them as well, Eating snail's and frog's leg's and forcing our people to speak French for 400 years after the Norman invasion but in the vent garlic bread is quite popular here as is French cheese so we really don't dislike them at all though of course neither do we trust them and we remember our fathers and grandfathers generation whom laid down there lives not just to free us but to free them which they never really appreciated half as much as perhaps they should have, lastly it is bad blood in the family and when Sibling's squabble it is pretty awful as anyone with multiple bother's and sister's knows, there is a hell of a lot of French blood in the English and vice versa but we are different enough that it is the differences we see and we nit pick about one another if given the chance to do so like stupid little kid's arguing over who had what and who get's what.

You know the Royal navy was founded to protect us from the FRENCH and they built there own castle's and navy to protect them from us.

originally posted by: carewemust
Whenever something supposedly "unique" happens on the world stage, I ask myself has this occurred anywhere else? If so, how did those countries fare after the breakup...and how are they doing today?

Is there any relatively modern world example of a multi-country union breaking up?

I have an excellent example for you.

A small country was engaged in the Exchange Rate Mechanism, vital for ensuring stability and economic growth for all the member states. For various reasons, they then withdrew. It was a calamity, becoming known as "Black Wednesday" and the end of the world as we knew it... until the economy started to boom as a result. Now it's often referred to as "White Wednesday" and regarded as one of the best economic decisions that country has made for decades.

That little country is called the UK

a reply to: gort51

So what are you going to do? Occupy calais?

Misleading topic title. Germany said no such thing. Nobody in Germany said such thing.
A bunch of lies from the rag express. CO .u k

Okay, the EU is fantastic, best thing since the wheel, so why is it that America, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Sweden, all the rest of the worlds countries have not expressed the slightest interest in joining? America and Germany have their own little trade agreement between themselves, outside of the EU, so why is it no one else can in the EU??

a reply to: pikestaff

The model they are working from is to run the world by a few extremely wealthy (and corrupt) family's and to partition it into neat block's so each family has there own empire, they then run it from a secret council in which they have meeting's and democracy is most definitely not there intent but keeping people both divided (to stop uprising's and the birth of true democracy even if it only ever last's for a short time) and also locked into these little block's with the poorest being essentially non persons is there absolute intent.

A slave planet with a hidden government.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like a rolling snowball effect might be moving within the E.U.

Some countries are suggesting doing a vote for Stay or leave too.

This article mentions Germany might have to pay more when the UK say bubye.

Who can shed light on the imbalances that exist from country to country ?

Who in the EU has the best "advantage" and who is paying the bills ?

END OF THE EU? Germany warns FIVE more countries could leave Europe after Brexit

France, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Hungary could leave.

Front National leader Marine Le Pen has pledged to hold a French referendum if she emerges victorious in next year's presidential elections.

While for the past two months a Nexit has been on the cards after Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected a Ukraine-European Union treaty

Details of Berlin's concerns were outlined in a finance ministry strategy document.

Angela Merkel's country faces having to pay an extra £2.44billion a year to the annual EU budget once Britain has left.

You believe what the Express writes? The right-wing leaders in both Austria and the Netherlands have quite clearly and quite recently stated that they are not interested in leaving the EU, only in devolving more powers to the national and local governments in accordance with the Lisbon treaty.

It is only the UK who believes that leaving is the right remedy for everything wrong in the UK.

originally posted by: slider1982
Sweden, What a shambles, and I can see that there is so much tension and the EU will be blamed quite rightly. I think if they could vote Monday they would.

No they wouldn't. There is one party that doesn't like the EU, but it doesn't quite want Sweden to leave. Their main concern (aside from Sweden not quite being a pure Aryan country anymore) is that of integration. They perceive, and quite rightly so, a lot of social issues with immigrants keeping to themselves in 'ghettos' and not integration well into the Swedish society.

But leaving the EU is not on the agenda.

After the Brexit referendum, when it became clear that Sweden might lose its main EU ally as a non-euro and non-EU banking union country, there have been calls for Sweden to join the euro and to join the banking union in order to not lose influence in the EU.

Brexit is operating in the opposite way than what most Leave voters perceived, because the failed to realise that however much people in other EU member states might complain about the EU, they are not English and have a very different view of the EU and of their place in the world.

originally posted by: moniker

originally posted by: slider1982
Sweden, What a shambles, and I can see that there is so much tension and the EU will be blamed quite rightly. I think if they could vote Monday they would.

No they wouldn't. There is one party that doesn't like the EU, but it doesn't quite want Sweden to leave. Their main concern (aside from Sweden not quite being a pure Aryan country anymore) is that of integration. They perceive, and quite rightly so, a lot of social issues with immigrants keeping to themselves in 'ghettos' and not integration well into the Swedish society.

But leaving the EU is not on the agenda.

After the Brexit referendum, when it became clear that Sweden might lose its main EU ally as a non-euro and non-EU banking union country, there have been calls for Sweden to join the euro and to join the banking union in order to not lose influence in the EU.

Brexit is operating in the opposite way than what most Leave voters perceived, because the failed to realise that however much people in other EU member states might complain about the EU, they are not English and have a very different view of the EU and of their place in the world.

Oh really, so you do not think the average person in Sweden at this stage wants mass migration to end NOW, there country is a bloody mess have you been to Stockholm??, what a difference a decade has made. With the UK now gone where do you think migrants will go to settle?. I hate to break it but people on the whole do not want mass migration, it does not work. London where I am from was "enriched" with unasked for migration and the local population was slowly forced out over the years so that now London's population is mostly Migrant and the same thing is slowly happening in other major cities.

We can all sit round and eat south African peace crisps but the main factor that people hate the EU is migration of low skilled workers from countries that have a tendancy to hate western values and culture. It is the elephant in the room. Not to mention what will happen when the UK actually makes this situation work. The world is far bigger than just the EU.

RA

The funny thing about the BREXIT is, it's never going to happen. Article 50 will never be invoked as the vote had no legal basis. Once you're in club Europe, you don't leave.

While this referendum may not be legally binding in the way of a commons vote, it has a mandate that compels parliament though.
We'll see in due course.
Here's an alternative view from an organisation containing just as many high profile QCs who oppose those trying to block article 50 on spurious legal grounds.
www.lawyersforbritain.org...

The legal power to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is in law a prerogative power vested in the Crown, which may be exercised by government ministers without the need for authorisation or consent from Parliament. There is no credible legal argument supporting the legal challenge being advertised by law firm Mishcon de Reya.

Constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. The referendum result not merely authorises but positively mandates the government to exercise its legal power to give notice under Article 50.

As a matter of democratic politics it is astonishing that so many people should apparently regard it as legitimate to engage in activities designed to frustrate the expressed will of the British people. Sadly, this is a symptom of the serious damage which 40 years of membership has done to our sense of national cohesion. This damage can begin to heal once we leave.


On a related note, my lad just came back from Berlin and saw Dexit scrawled on walls and bridges quite often.
Now, when you think of Germanys place at the heart of the EU, it's rather amazing to think that there is quite a sizeable minority who want out.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Okay, the EU is fantastic, best thing since the wheel, so why is it that America, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Sweden, all the rest of the worlds countries have not expressed the slightest interest in joining? America and Germany have their own little trade agreement between themselves, outside of the EU, so why is it no one else can in the EU??

Sweden already is in the EU.

As for why all those non European countries are not in the European Union, thats a tricky one...

a reply to: SprocketUK

I suspect they are right that a vote in parliament is not required however it would be unwise as they are clearly wrong that it is binding.

No referendums in the UK are binding. Even the AV vote which was in theory, could have been overturned by a subsequent act without any further referendum.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: carewemust
Whenever something supposedly "unique" happens on the world stage, I ask myself has this occurred anywhere else? If so, how did those countries fare after the breakup...and how are they doing today?

Is there any relatively modern world example of a multi-country union breaking up?

I have an excellent example for you.

A small country was engaged in the Exchange Rate Mechanism, vital for ensuring stability and economic growth for all the member states. For various reasons, they then withdrew. It was a calamity, becoming known as "Black Wednesday" and the end of the world as we knew it... until the economy started to boom as a result. Now it's often referred to as "White Wednesday" and regarded as one of the best economic decisions that country has made for decades.

That little country is called the UK

Not really comparable. The ERM was keeping the pound at unsustainable high level and forcing the the UK government to enact policies that where harmful to the UK economy. Fixed exchange rates are never a good idea, arguably even worse than the single currency (which is a spectacularly bad idea in its current form) . If we where talking about a country leaving the Euro zone it may provide some lessons, however is not really the same as the current situation.

Actually. The problem with the EU is not so much its existence but rather how it exists. Coming from the Netherlands myself I can tell you that there is a very real anti-EU group that is sizeable. That said; Mmost people in the Netherlands don't want to leave the Eu because the economic benefits for a merchantnation such as the Netherlands are pretty big. Our nation also belonged to 'the original six' that started the project decades ago that ultimatly lead to the EU's formation.


What really causes a lot of people to dislike the EU in the Netherlands is a couple of reasons that I will state now:

1) By far one of the largest problems is the control of the EU. The EU is not a real democracy. The people in Brussels are far from directly elected by the people of the EU. Instead they are appointed by people pof the leading parties in the government. Those leading parties themselves are on their term coalitions of the largest parties coming from the voting. The people rather want to be able to vote directly for the political EU members.

2) Outside being to far away in the voting area there is another mayor distance creator; Most people don't know what the EU decides for them and even if the do know what the EU wants to enforce; they don't get a vote for it as a people. This creates both unreast and alianation in the people of the individual memberstats as well as corruption in the political EU apparatus as a result of the feeling of being unchecked and unstoppable.

3) Bad balances of economics and powers. A mayor issue that the Netherlands is feeling is that the richer EU nations are pulling the weight of the weaker states. This would not be a problem if the weaker states would improve. This is actually a compounded issue thou. While it is true that form Sovietstates such as Poland have improved there is a general consensus that it seems as if there is a steady flow of 'new' ex sovietstates. Where Dutch trucker were replaced by Polish truckers they are now replaced by Romanian truckers and many fear that when the Romanians become to expensive they will be replace by others like Ukrainian truckers for example. This is destroying the internal working market of the lower level jobs. The problem is compounded by the string of temporary job contract with the loss of permanent job contracts. (thou that is not just an EU issue).
The second part is that Southern EU nations largely do not improve. Where Spain is at least trying nations such as Italy are flunking at Greece went as far as doing absolutely nothing until it was to late. Instead of using the gained momentum in the early days those nations rather decided to lay back and continue their failing political and economical tactics. The facct that the two strongest internal EU members France and GGermany did nothing in the zero's to stop it despite existing ruling is because those nations didn't manage to achieve the 3% bar themselves and decided not to eat their own dogfood (so to speak).

4) slow decision makiing processes and miscalculations. Another real issue is that the EU is very...very slow. This slow political apparatus is the result of the EU's violent history where only negotiations could settle issues as another way then war. The problem is that by now everything has become this massive paper tiger and this is being enhanced by bureaucrats who practically only own their jobs by the virtue of the paper machine rather then actually doing usefull stuff. The slowness of the EU led to the horrible migrationcrises that was so bad that nationstates simply decided outside of the EU to close borders. The EU instead was paralysed because it wanted on one hand to be politically correct and on the other self preserve itself. Bureaucracy casued this uneasy stalemate to continue and as a result massive economic weight was placed on the memberstates and the internal stability became dangerously threatend. These days right wing parties are growing and this will eventually result in a more right winged EU that will favoure a more self protecting EU and sacrifice the more human face.


On the larger side the Eu is destabilising. Some time ago I already mantioned on ATS that the western powers are weakening. Russia is having a naval practise in the Chinese sea and is making good ties with Turkey while the EU has been filled with Islamic fundamentalists. A year ago I warned that the US will be facing a Chinese naval power on its east side while EU will be in a civil war against Islamic fundamentalist that will eventually we stopped when Russians armor rolls over the ex sovietstates. That was a year ago!!

How long can the US have forces on the eastern border of the EU when it finally gets in war with China? And will those forces even be enough when the EU itself is in turmoil?
I hate being the bringer of bad new but when political correctness and being the one sided humanitaiest will destroy the EU then maybe its time to switch maskes.

But if that not makes you think consider this: The Eu is becoming more right winged and anti-foreigners. When the s*** hits the fan; do you really think a right winged EU will choose a far away ally over a strong Russia as partner? Right winged protectionist might very well ally themselves rather with Russia and use that coalition to quell the internal turmoil. Russia probably won't care if there is a genocide or two in Europe.