The penny has finally dropped

You do know that all the Promenade improvements have been paid for by the EU? Who's going to pay now?

Wiz

You are perfectly entitled to your views on whether Britain should stay in the EU or not and to continually express your views on this forum every single day and then a bit more.

Just some FACTS for you to consider:

1. We were net contributors to you EU and bailed out failing economies.

2. One of the countries we are leaving behind, will now have to contribute more and receive less from the EU.

3. We had a referendum on our membership of the EU and more people took part than in that referendum than in other event in the history of British politics. The result delivered by that democratic process was that more people wanted us to leave the EU than wanted us to remain in it.


Perhaps I should have just said:


For feck sake Wiz, stop moaning.
 
1966

Let me put it to you another way.

20's said that there had been relative peace in Europe for years and that there was little chance of conflict in Europe - or words to that effect, I apologise to you and 20's if he said something different.

Why on earth would somebody refer to the problems experienced in Yugoslavia in response to 20's post unless they were - as an ex moderator of this forum used to say - playing the man and not the ball ?

Nobody is denying that there were problems in Yugoslavia - that would be a huge understatement - but the problems they experienced had feck all to do with our nuclear deterrent or membership of the EU.

I have already accepted that you may chose to take that as reason to question our need for a nuclear deterrent if you so wish.

I responded because his statement was factually incorrect. What happened in the former Yugoslavia was barbaric, and last time I looked it was within Europe - and the existence of a deterrent (and a Union) did absolutely nothing to stop it.

I shouldn't have to explain simple concepts like this. Unless you are yourself deliberately playing the man?
 
I responded because his statement was factually incorrect. What happened in the former Yugoslavia was barbaric, and last time I looked it was within Europe - and the existence of a deterrent (and a Union) did absolutely nothing to stop it.

I shouldn't have to explain simple concepts like this. Unless you are yourself deliberately playing the man?

Before you had provided this response,I have already clearly stated in a previous post that there were problems in Yugoslavia and to state that there were problems is factually correct.

You are also right that Yugoslavia is/was in Europe but I would suggest that the problems experienced would have occurred in any case.

Back to 20's post that you chose to question, he stated that there was very little chance of conflict in Europe.

I certainly agree with what he said, are you suggesting otherwise ?
 
That is absolute cobblers. It's less than 30 years since the break up of Yugoslavia with all the murderous atrocities and ethnic cleansing that went with it. You surely haven't forgotten that?
Forgive me if I'm wrong but I said in my post "between nations" and that was correct. Yugoslavia was a conflict within itself and as you say that conflict caused the break up. Prior to that conflict there were no individual nations called Croatia, Serbia etc. They were all regions of Yugoslavia.
So cobblers to you.
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong but I said in my post "between nations" and that was correct. Yugoslavia was a conflict within itself and as you say that conflict caused the break up. Prior to that conflict there were no individual nations called Croatia, Serbia etc. They were all orregions of Yugoslavia.
So cobblers to you.
Yugoslavia was an artificial construct created out of the ashes of the First World War. You don't know your history if you don't know the impact of Serbia on the causes of that conflict.

I suggest you're nearer to Northampton.

Edit: and before we go calling all and sundry, we are still dealing with the Irish question.
 
Yugoslavia was an artificial construct created out of the ashes of the First World War. You don't know your history if you don't know the impact of Serbia on the causes of that conflict.

I suggest you're nearer to Northampton.

Edit: and before we go calling all and sundry, we are still dealing with the Irish question.
Artificial or not is not the point. My post was factually accurate. Tell me it's not? I challenge you to tell me it's not! And I'll give you another reason why it was. It's because my post referred to nuclear deterrent. And the nuclear deterrent came into being long after Yogoslavia was formed which was back in 1918.
 
….bit rich you accuse me of playing the man when I have to read your posts aimed at 2020.

ANd just for the record two points.
1. I was not playing the man.
2 66 acknowledged my point about nuclear deterrents. In other words it was a valid point.
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong but I said in my post "between nations" and that was correct. Yugoslavia was a conflict within itself and as you say that conflict caused the break up. Prior to that conflict there were no individual nations called Croatia, Serbia etc. They were all regions of Yugoslavia.
So cobblers to you.

Try telling the former Yugoslav states that they are not individual nations. Just do it from a safe distance. 😀

As Wiz said, it was an artificial construct that was only really held together by the strength of Tito's leadership. And the response of Western Europe was slow, ineffectual and half-hearted once the fighting started.

If we are debating European security, I would argue that NATO has played a bigger role than the EU ever has, largely because of the involvement of the Americans. The EU as it is currently constituted is increasingly a loose collection of disparate states who club together for economic reasons, as much as strategic ones. Apart from the economic benefits of the Union (now thrown away by us), there is little commonality between (for example) Ireland and Greece. I certainly don't see much prospect of either dying in a ditch for the other.
 
Try telling the former Yugoslav states that they are not individual nations. Just do it from a safe distance. 😀

As Wiz said, it was an artificial construct that was only really held together by the strength of Tito's leadership. And the response of Western Europe was slow, ineffectual and half-hearted once the fighting started.

If we are debating European security, I would argue that NATO has played a bigger role than the EU ever has, largely because of the involvement of the Americans. The EU as it is currently constituted is increasingly a loose collection of disparate states who club together for economic reasons, as much as strategic ones. Apart from the economic benefits of the Union (now thrown away by us), there is little commonality between (for example) Ireland and Greece. I certainly don't see much prospect of either dying in a ditch for the other.

Robbie

There is no doubt that there were problems in Yugoslavia, I have already said that saying so was a huge understatement.

20's said that there was little chance of conflict in Europe, I'd agree with that and I am sure you would too.

No big deal but I fail to see what your reference to Yugoslavia has to do with anything ?

What happened in Yugoslavia doesn't increase the chance of conflict in Europe in the future ?
 
To be fair, the hydrogen bomb has been more effective than the EU in preventing global conflict. The EU could not even prevent the Balkan Wars as the former Yugoslavia broke up into malevolent nationalist factions. In fact, one might say that the EU clumsily provoked the war with Germany’s hasty recognition of Croatia’s independence before they had brought Serbia to the negotiating table.

I agree your point re. Croatia. However, I think that nuclear weapons have actually facilitated wars. OK, the big one hasn't happened but lots of border wars and Middle East conflicts have happened precisely because the big powers have not dared to damp them down. This is because of the proxy relationships that these minor combatants have with the USA and Russia.
Nuclear weapons did nothing to prevent the Chechens taking on the Russians, or the Argentine invading the Falklands.

I may be a little slow in replying... but I did say that nuclear weapons have prevented global conflict... you know, the Cold War thing. Not all wars.

But that is precisely why the big powers have used satellite states to further their disputes in more localised wars. Such as Korea, Vietnam and the myriad wars in Africa and now Syria. In the Balkans, Serbia was talking with Russia. However, because these were localised, although vicious and deadly to civilians, it’s not total war between the big powers threatening their own existence, so no nukes. Same goes for the Middle East, various states are aligned with big powers. Trump has given Assad and Syria to the Russians, basically, in this modern version of the 19thC “Great Game”.

I am not sure that tactical nukes were a completely absent factor in the Falklands War. If only as an implied threat. There was some discussion at the time about why HMS Conqueror chose to use conventional WW2 torpedos against the Belgrano when it might have had, errr, another option. And the RAF went to an awful lot of trouble in mounting 8000 mile missions from Ascension for bombing Stanley airfield to demonstrate that they could get a Vulcan on target if needed. An aircraft designed to deliver a tactical nuke. So, there was certainly an implied threat that we could use the ultimate option. Say, for example, if the Argie aircraft carrier, 25th May, sallied out again on a do-or-die mission against the Task Force. I am sure all options were considered within the War Cabinet but we will never know. And I am rather glad the Argies decided not to call any potential bluff.
 
Last edited:
We will still be in Europe, just not in the crooked federalist gang of the EU.
 
Artificial or not is not the point. My post was factually accurate. Tell me it's not? I challenge you to tell me it's not! And I'll give you another reason why it was. It's because my post referred to nuclear deterrent. And the nuclear deterrent came into being long after Yogoslavia was formed which was back in 1918.
You said there was no such country as Serbia. The whole Balkan conflict came about because of those pre WWI countries reestablishing their self determination forced on them by Versailles.
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong but I said in my post "between nations" and that was correct. Yugoslavia was a conflict within itself and as you say that conflict caused the break up. Prior to that conflict there were no individual nations called Croatia, Serbia etc. They were all regions of Yugoslavia.
So cobblers to you.

Not wholly correct. Croatia and Slovenia declared independence and secession from their association with Yugoslavia on 25th June 1991. The Yugoslav National Army (Serbian) mobilised the next day to suppress the declaration and the isolated armed police incidents of early 1991 escalated into an all-out war over the summer. By mid-July the YNA had moved 70,000 troops into the now independent nation, Croatia. Major military actions did not end until January 1992 with the UN-backed peace plan. Sporadic fighting continued until 1995.
 
Last edited:
My post was factually accurate. Yugoslavia came into being in 1918. So from that date those countries that previously independently existed became under the flag as part of Yugoslavia. And that was before the advent of nuclear weapons became a deterrent.
The purpose of my post was regarding the UK not being in the EU and the effects of it's safety from conflict because of that which is the point 1966 raised.
 
I may be a little slow in replying... but I did say that nuclear weapons have prevented global conflict... you know, the Cold War thing. Not all wars.

But that is precisely why the big powers have used satellite states to further their disputes in more localised wars. Such as Korea, Vietnam and the myriad wars in Africa and now Syria. In the Balkans, Serbia was talking with Russia. However, because these were localised, although vicious and deadly to civilians, it’s not total war between the big powers threatening their own existence, so no nukes. Same goes for the Middle East, various states are aligned with big powers. Trump has given Assad and Syria to the Russians, basically, in this modern version of the 19thC “Great Game”.

I am not sure that tactical nukes were a completely absent factor in the Falklands War. If only as an implied threat. There was some discussion at the time about why HMS Conqueror chose to use conventional WW2 torpedos against the Belgrano when it might have had, errr, another option. And the RAF went to an awful lot of trouble in mounting 8000 mile missions from Ascension for bombing Stanley airfield to demonstrate that they could get a Vulcan on target if needed. An aircraft designed to deliver a tactical nuke. So, there was certainly an implied threat that we could use the ultimate option. Say, for example, if the Argie aircraft carrier, 25th May, sallied out again on a do-or-die mission against the Task Force. I am sure all options were considered within the War Cabinet but we will never know. And I am rather glad the Argies decided not to call any potential bluff.
All good points. Yes. I had overlooked your specifying 'global' conflict' in your thread.
 
Why is fishing perceived as being so important, it constitutes 0.05% of our economy, furthermore our tastes vary greatly to our European cousins. We like white fish such as cod whereas we export lobster, crab and langoustine across the channel, which needs to be delivered fresh and some of it still alive. This is going to be problematic if we are out the customs arrangement/single market. Salmon also incurs tariffs into the eu.
The Scottish fisheries minister described it as fish pie in the sky
It's yer Scottish constituencies innit...and Grimsby. There's votes in that there cod.
 
Not wholly correct. Croatia and Slovenia declared independence and secession from their association with Yugoslavia on 25th June 1991. The Yugoslav National Army (Serbian) mobilised the next day to suppress the declaration and the isolated armed police incidents of early 1991 escalated into an all-out war over the summer. By mid-July the YNA had moved 70,000 troops into the now independent nation, Croatia. Major military actions did not end until January 1992 with the UN-backed peace plan. Sporadic fighting continued until 1995.

All good points. I'll add some more :

The kingdom of Croatia dates back to the 7th century, and the Kingdom of Bosnia pre-dates the Holy Roman Empire. Macedonia goes back as far as the 7th century BC. Anyone pretending that these weren't proud, independent people, or suggesting that they only emerged from the break up of modern-day Yugoslavia is talking nonsense.

And yes, I did look all that up. I wanted to be sure of my facts. There are some people who assert black is white with such confidence that occasionally you doubt yourself.
 
All good points. I'll add some more :

The kingdom of Croatia dates back to the 7th century, and the Kingdom of Bosnia pre-dates the Holy Roman Empire. Macedonia goes back as far as the 7th century BC. Anyone pretending that these weren't proud, independent people, or suggesting that they only emerged from the break up of modern-day Yugoslavia is talking nonsense.

And yes, I did look all that up. I wanted to be sure of my facts. There are some people who assert black is white with such confidence that occasionally you doubt yourself.
Its almost as if some people can't say they were incorrect.
 
At the time of the conflict there was no such INDEPENDENT country as Serbia or any of the others you mention.. The fact they existed pre 1918 is irrelevant to my point and those quoting the fact are taking it out of context. As I said to Robbie the key part to my post was "between nations" and the Balkan conflict was not between nations.
Further evidence is given that in football terms prior to the Balkan conflict there was only Yugoslavia that entered tournaments and Following the Balkan conflict those regions of Yugoslavia became independent countries who now compete as individual nations in football tournaments.
The countries referred to existed prior to the creation of nuclear weapons.
 
Its almost as if some people can't say they were incorrect.
Agreed.
I stated that since the advent of the nuclear deterrent there had between no war between nations of Europe. Robbie quoted the Balkan conflict. He was wrong as it was not between "nations of Europe". It was between the regions of what was at that time Yugoslavia. Subsequently those regions of Yugoslavia became independent nations. The fact they existed prior to 1918 was irrelevant to my point.
 
Agreed.
I stated that since the advent of the nuclear deterrent there had between no war between nations of Europe. Robbie quoted the Balkan conflict. He was wrong as it was not between "nations of Europe". It was between the regions of what was at that time Yugoslavia. Subsequently those regions of Yugoslavia became independent nations. The fact they existed prior to 1918 was irrelevant to my point.

Dear God. Talk about focusing on the pebble and missing the beach......
 
Dear God. Talk about focusing on the pebble and missing the beach......
No Robbie, that's what you did. I believe you knew exactly the point I was making and that since the advent of nuclear weapons there had been no conflict between nations.
You can have a pop at me all you want, you'll get it back.
For instance why does the username "basilrobbie" never show as being one of the "members online"? Noticed it for a while now, when you are posting. You trying to hide something?
 
It appears for me, 20s. I do tend to log off when I have posted though.

We could argue the toss about this, but is it really worth it? You think Europe is and has been conflict free because of nuclear weapons, I don't. Whether the Yugoslavian confederation is/was one state or an amalgam of several isn't REALLY the point.
 
That's a good post 66. However my view is that you massively over egg the point of a conflict starting within our continent which could become global. The very fact that we now have a nuclear deterrent means the chance of conflict between nations of Europe is minimal. And I would say that if there was a threat from outside of Europe then the nations would pull together whether they were part of the EU or not. The biggest threat on this continent comes from terrorism of which we are seeing far and far more acts of. And in that respect I expect our counter terrorist agencies will still work together and exchange information.
That was my original post. I stand by it. I'm not sure it's me that is focusing on the pebble.Read it again and look at the variety of points I make.
 
We went to war with Iceland in 1972. Ask anyone in Fleetwood.

More of a proper war, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Does that not count?
 
I still don't understand how genocide in the Balkans doesn't count as conflict.

How about the little local difficulties in Northern Ireland? Separatists in Spain? The OAS in France? All within borders, so not really a proper fight?**

** Unless they are blowing up hotels in Brighton, of course.
 
I still don't understand how genocide in the Balkans doesn't count as conflict.

How about the little local difficulties in Northern Ireland? Separatists in Spain? The OAS in France? All within borders, so not really a proper fight?**

** Unless they are blowing up hotels in Brighton, of course.
Again, you think you've got it covered but once again I refer you to my original post. Acts of terrorism Robbie. acts of terrorism. And guess what I refer to in my original post? Yep, terrorism.
 
I still don't understand how genocide in the Balkans doesn't count as conflict.

How about the little local difficulties in Northern Ireland? Separatists in Spain? The OAS in France? All within borders, so not really a proper fight?**

** Unless they are blowing up hotels in Brighton, of course.
Oh and if you intend to quote me, please have the courtesy to use the whole part of the point I was making.
With regards to your first para the point I made was about a conflict between nations within our continent which could BECOME GLOBAL.
I'm not aware the Balkans conflict became global. You seemed to miss that key part of my point.
 
Oh and if you intend to quote me, please have the courtesy to use the whole part of the point I was making.
With regards to your first para the point I made was about a conflict between nations within our continent which could BECOME GLOBAL.
I'm not aware the Balkans conflict became global. You seemed to miss that key part of my point.

I see we are still busily examining the pebble.

Terrorism, yes, probably. Although they would describe themselves as patriots and the OAS were actually campaigning with regard to the future status of a country in North Africa. Not quite global, but certainly not just a European issue either.

As for the Balkans, it drew in the Americans and peace-keeping forces from the UN, so I would argue that it got a global response. And the fact remains that you are busily focusing on your endless appetite for pedantry when the reality is that many thousands of people lost their lives in these European conflicts, and the EU and the nuclear super-powers were unable to prevent it.

Anyway, I'm out of this one now. You won't admit that anyone other than you has a legitimate point of view, much of your opinion seems to fly in the face of facts and - to be honest - debating with you is increasingly a dispiriting waste of time and effort.
 
Oh and if you intend to quote me, please have the courtesy to use the whole part of the point I was making.
With regards to your first para the point I made was about a conflict between nations within our continent which could BECOME GLOBAL.
I'm not aware the Balkans conflict became global. You seemed to miss that key part of my point.
The First World War was a Balkans conflict that became global involving countries that you say didn't exist 😉
 
I see we are still busily examining the pebble.

Terrorism, yes, probably. Although they would describe themselves as patriots and the OAS were actually campaigning with regard to the future status of a country in North Africa. Not quite global, but certainly not just a European issue either.

As for the Balkans, it drew in the Americans and peace-keeping forces from the UN, so I would argue that it got a global response. And the fact remains that you are busily focusing on your endless appetite for pedantry when the reality is that many thousands of people lost their lives in these European conflicts, and the EU and the nuclear super-powers were unable to prevent it.

Anyway, I'm out of this one now. You won't admit that anyone other than you has a legitimate point of view, much of your opinion seems to fly in the face of facts and - to be honest - debating with you is increasingly a dispiriting waste of time and effort.
Everyones entitled to a point of view Robbie -but that's not the point here The only point I've made since you stuck your size 12's in is that what I said was factually accurate. and once again you deflect and twist. Sure, it drew in peacekeeping forces but it did NOT become a global conflict.

Edit to add because again you seemingly deliberately miss the point in my first post. My response was to 66 about the UK not being within the EU. I clearly make the point "And I would say that if there was a threat from outside of Europe then the nations would pull together whether they were part of the EU or not". Perhaps just like other nations and peacekeeping forces got involved in the Balkan conflict.
 
Last edited:
Everyones entitled to a point of view Robbie -but that's not the point here The only point I've made since you stuck your size 12's in is that what I said was factually accurate. and once again you deflect and twist. Sure, it drew in peacekeeping forces but it did NOT become a global conflict.
Except it wasn't as demonstrated by the UN forming a peacekeeping line between Turkish and Greek forces in Cyprus. They're still there.
 
The First World War was a Balkans conflict that became global involving countries that you say didn't exist 😉
Another remainiac twisting and turning. My point was about the advent of nuclear weapons. I've made this point enough times so what is it that you are failing to grasp. When nuclear weapons became into being there were no such countries like the ones you state. Those countries became in 1918 part of the country known as Yugoslavia.
 
Another remainiac twisting and turning. My point was about the advent of nuclear weapons. I've made this point enough times so what is it that you are failing to grasp. When nuclear weapons became into being there were no such countries like the ones you state. Those countries became in 1918 part of the country known as Yugoslavia.
You won't get anywhere trying to debate 20's. Views are too entrenched and too angry after the election defeat.
 
You won't get anywhere trying to debate 20's. Views are too entrenched and too angry after the election defeat.
you're right Rusty of course. I acknowledged 66 made some points but the remainiacs didn't like me saying that imo if the UK was to become involved in a global conflict then countries still within the EU would come to our aid. Of course, I need to make the point that just because we've left/are leaving the EU does not mean that we aren't still a member of NATO which really is the key point that they also fail to grasp.
Some sore losers about, Rusty.😉
 
Back
Top