Liveinadive wrote:

Reduced revenue from import taxes.
The impression a major state can leave with very little consequences.

For your first point, I think that they would rather keep trade flowing rather than make money through import taxes. Everything is so tightly bound up across Europe that the losses caused by disruptions in that will far outweigh any gains in duties.

As for the second point, I'd say that a loss of any decision-making power within the EU would be considered a pretty major consequence by the EU.

But yes, this is currently pie in the sky, but two years is a long time, fuck knows what will happen to public opinion between now and then.

Honestly, I dont see opinion shifting in favour of the EU.
The press won't let it and the population is too stupid to think for themselves.

Any downturn in economy or jobs will be "We need to get out faster!", any upturn will be "We haven't even left yet and look how shiny Farage's arsehole is".

Liveinadive wrote:

Honestly, I dont see opinion shifting in favour of the EU.
The press won't let it and the population is too stupid to think for themselves.

Any downturn in economy or jobs will be "We need to get out faster!", any upturn will be "We haven't even left yet and look how shiny Farage's arsehole is".

Give them some credit, 9 months ago you were saying it was so close people will change their minds, needs a revote due to campaign disinformation. Now suddenly every once in possession of a ballot paper is an idiot

I do understand the frustration though, and to be fair, it's not the furthest conclusion to draw

The Observer's editorial today is pulling no punches.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/26/observer-editorial-triggering-of-article-50-jeopardises-60-years-of-unparalleled-peace

By that logic surely they would get 48% of the vote by opposing Brexit, which would be a landslide in any GE.

Also exactly when in the last 60 years was Europe at peace?

cockbeard wrote:

Also exactly when in the last 60 years was Europe at peace?

That wasn't what they said.

60 years of unparalleled European peace

Compared to European history before the EU, what we've seen over the past 60 years has been remarkably peaceful.

And which parts do you think are scaremongering exactly?

Keep getting some gobshite comedian called Lee Hurst retweeted into my timeline telling me it'll be ok now because he lives before mobile phones and the internet and joining the EU (he was 10 when we joined) and it was great. He might have a point, before the internet I would never have had to see his puckered arse mouth whilst eating.

He did used to turn up on TV pre-internet, or at least, pre-widespread adoption of the internet.

He thinks his career's all over. It is now.

All he does now it seems is tweet vaguely pro-Brexit stuff and then call people who disagree with him sad.

Depends what you define as whilst the EU has been a thing, Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon? There was a jock off wall dividing the continent for around half of those 60 years, as well as British/French/American/Russian troops on (what is now) German soil

Yugoslavia tore itself apart in the nineties, and we've seen the secession and reintegration of various former Soviet states. So whilst none of them were EU members at the time, if you go with the 50s definition then Germany could easily claim they were being oppressed by other members. Hell GB and EIRE joined in the 70s, the very height of the troubles

No these two examples aren't a declared war, they were large aggressive police actions carried out are the request of the nation on whose spoil it took place, but it's not exactly peace either

I'm not saying the EU isn't a driver for some very good things, i just think that article title is overegging the pudding somewhat, and i try not to give obvious clickbait the satisfaction of my page vote

Afaik, this is the longest period where two Western European countries haven't gone to war with each other since the Romans ran the show. Whether that's because of NATO, nuclear weapons, a hangover from WW1 and 2, the EU, globalisation, the Cold War, something else or a mixture of some or all of them, I doubt anyone can prove it one way or the other.

Brexit could (may well not, but could) lead to an unravelling of the EU.

If the EU unravels, then the possibility of war in Europe is much greater than before.

This is all before we even factor in the greater pressures that will be put on us by climate change.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexit will immediately lead to war in Europe, but there is no doubt that it increases the risk.

monkey wrote:

If there's eg 10 things at the moment stopping us from declaring war on France, leaving the EU leaves us with, I dunno, 7. It's still inconceivable at this stage, mainly as America would not allow it. But part of the reason war is improbable is because we take for granted that European countries have integrated economies and dispute resolution mechanisms through the EU.

The article itself isn't really about that though. The title isn't representative of the content. All it really states is that the UK has benefited from the peace and security of the EU. Which really could just be interpreted as our export markets haven't been interrupted too much by war amongst other nations.

Plus I believe France are far better equipped than us

Though if the last sixty years have been the most peaceful in history, then maybe that isn't the status quo </devil's advocate>

Maybe the peace is in place as the greatest antagonist of the previous century now basically has what they wanted, economic and political control over most of mainland Europe