steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 16, 2018 11:41:30 GMT
Well, the main problem is: The EU is still the most powerfull (economically) construct. With UK leaving they would have no real impact in the UN. So really, either they get the french "Veto" or - as a replacement FOR the EU (propably with some laws changed in germany so that germany act here for the EU) germany. You could discuss the problem "Veto" at all, that is something strange and unjust. But if you change the Veto-stuff, then it is either the EU or germany, nothing else. If they try to give it to some other country, then the EU would try to keep it french. There would be a lot of pressure, manipulations etc. to do that. If UK had stood in the EU i could see your path, but with them leaving - no way. Well the EU would want that but I could see a lot of the rest of the world not having it stay in Europe as that would keep 4 out of 5 seats 'white' so not sure how that would work out but there's bound to be a hell of a mess, not to mention quite a scrap over the issue. This also presumes that the EU can bother with that while the crisis of what to do about France and all the economic and other disruption the event will cause. Oh, it is just easy. Either france keep its veto or it is moved to either the EU or germany (for the EU). Another way isn´t in the cards. France is both, a moneysink for the EU partners, but also a HUGE chance. The veto-stuff could be solved in a different way: If the EU-members no longer pay the many money they do actually, the UN can´t do a shit in future. It is one thing to not give the continous member seat to germany as otl (with UK and france having a seat and veto), but to give up "everything" as in the scenario you describe will not happen. Never in the next 50-100 years. White or nonwhite, doesn´t matter at all. Only money and influence. It is more realistic that UK will give up its veto right... and i can´t see this happening in the next 50 years, too. But yes, it would be right if UK give its veto-right and seat to india... that special relationship should happen. the indians deserve this (in my humble opinion). But might is worth more as morale, so nope, i really can´t see UK giving up Veto-right. As we can see today (with the americans voting Trump, UK leaving the EU) there is nothing that is "forever", so the european countries that could have been lulled 20 years ago will not accept that. But that is actual politics, not part of that ASB-story. So sorry for distracting this. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,932 
Likes: 46,076
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 16, 2018 11:44:32 GMT
Well the EU would want that but I could see a lot of the rest of the world not having it stay in Europe as that would keep 4 out of 5 seats 'white' so not sure how that would work out but there's bound to be a hell of a mess, not to mention quite a scrap over the issue. This also presumes that the EU can bother with that while the crisis of what to do about France and all the economic and other disruption the event will cause. Oh, it is just easy. Either france keep its veto or it is moved to either the EU or germany (for the EU). Another way isn´t in the cards. France is both, a moneysink for the EU partners, but also a HUGE chance. The veto-stuff could be solved in a different way: If the EU-members no longer pay the many money they do actually, the UN can´t do a shit in future. It is one thing to not give the continous member seat to germany as otl (with UK and france having a seat and veto), but to give up "everything" as in the scenario you describe will not happen. Never in the next 50-100 years. White or nonwhite, doesn´t matter at all. Only money and influence. It is more realistic that UK will give up its veto right... and i can´t see this happening in the next 50 years, too. But yes, it would be right if UK give its veto-right and seat to india... that special relationship should happen. the indians deserve this (in my humble opinion). But might is worth more as morale, so nope, i really can´t see UK giving up Veto-right. As we can see today (with the americans voting Trump, UK leaving the EU) there is nothing that is "forever", so the european countries that could have been lulled 20 years ago will not accept that. But that is actual politics, not part of that ASB-story. So sorry for distracting this. So we have a Frecexit, would the French under Napoleon III if he still is in charge not try to stay in the EU as it would mean the rest of the EU gives him aid to modernize. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 16, 2018 14:05:38 GMT
Oh, it is just easy. Either france keep its veto or it is moved to either the EU or germany (for the EU). Another way isn´t in the cards. France is both, a moneysink for the EU partners, but also a HUGE chance. The veto-stuff could be solved in a different way: If the EU-members no longer pay the many money they do actually, the UN can´t do a shit in future. It is one thing to not give the continous member seat to germany as otl (with UK and france having a seat and veto), but to give up "everything" as in the scenario you describe will not happen. Never in the next 50-100 years. White or nonwhite, doesn´t matter at all. Only money and influence. It is more realistic that UK will give up its veto right... and i can´t see this happening in the next 50 years, too. But yes, it would be right if UK give its veto-right and seat to india... that special relationship should happen. the indians deserve this (in my humble opinion). But might is worth more as morale, so nope, i really can´t see UK giving up Veto-right. As we can see today (with the americans voting Trump, UK leaving the EU) there is nothing that is "forever", so the european countries that could have been lulled 20 years ago will not accept that. But that is actual politics, not part of that ASB-story. So sorry for distracting this. So we have a Frecexit, would the French under Napoleon III if he still is in charge not try to stay in the EU as it would mean the rest of the EU gives him aid to modernize. Hi, under NO circumstances the EU or the neighbours would accept Napoleon III as a ruler and partner. That is ASB in the ASB-action  Why? Napoleon is an absolute ruler, arrogant, brutal and a warmoronger... the others would KNOW that, because - well they knew history. So either the european neighbours take out Napoleon or france. Because i belive the french outside the borders of france, like the diplomats at the UN or in germany or whatever country the most senior diplomate was as the country exchanged would be sane, the europeans would support him/them. Basically it is some demonstrations (say some Eurofighters flying at 20m and do mach1+ or something) to give Nappy and Co the understanding that they have to behave (and withdraw peacefully from their power) or they will be removed. There is no other possibilities. Otherwise the benelux and germany, but also italy and spain would arm themself, close the borders and prepare for a war against this france. You don´t "negotiate" with Napoleon III, with his 1870-attitude. Not even the old kim, as mad as he was would be such a problem in behaviour as Napoleon would be. Or his generals. Because they belived in beeing the strongest army in the world (Untrue as the germans showed them in a few weeks) and a superpower, now suddenly they are the last powerfull country on the planet. EVERY single african or middle american state could destroy the military force of this france. They are fully incompatible... the EU neighbours would offer help - to a democratic elected or by the foreign-french diplomats ruled france. But not a country that is ruled by such an intolerant racist war moronger as Napoleon or the other politicians of this age. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,932
Likes: 46,076
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 16, 2018 14:20:12 GMT
So we have a Frecexit, would the French under Napoleon III if he still is in charge not try to stay in the EU as it would mean the rest of the EU gives him aid to modernize. Hi, under NO circumstances the EU or the neighbours would accept Napoleon III as a ruler and partner. That is ASB in the ASB-action Why? Napoleon is an absolute ruler, arrogant, brutal and a warmoronger... the others would KNOW that, because - well they knew history. So either the european neighbours take out Napoleon or france. Because i belive the french outside the borders of france, like the diplomats at the UN or in germany or whatever country the most senior diplomate was as the country exchanged would be sane, the europeans would support him/them. Basically it is some demonstrations (say some Eurofighters flying at 20m and do mach1+ or something) to give Nappy and Co the understanding that they have to behave (and withdraw peacefully from their power) or they will be removed. There is no other possibilities. Otherwise the benelux and germany, but also italy and spain would arm themself, close the borders and prepare for a war against this france. You don´t "negotiate" with Napoleon III, with his 1870-attitude. Not even the old kim, as mad as he was would be such a problem in behaviour as Napoleon would be. Or his generals. Because they belived in beeing the strongest army in the world (Untrue as the germans showed them in a few weeks) and a superpower, now suddenly they are the last powerfull country on the planet. EVERY single african or middle american state could destroy the military force of this france. They are fully incompatible... the EU neighbours would offer help - to a democratic elected or by the foreign-french diplomats ruled france. But not a country that is ruled by such an intolerant racist war moronger as Napoleon or the other politicians of this age. So we would see a regime change here, some people might not like it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 16, 2018 16:32:53 GMT
Hi, under NO circumstances the EU or the neighbours would accept Napoleon III as a ruler and partner. That is ASB in the ASB-action Why? Napoleon is an absolute ruler, arrogant, brutal and a warmoronger... the others would KNOW that, because - well they knew history. So either the european neighbours take out Napoleon or france. Because i belive the french outside the borders of france, like the diplomats at the UN or in germany or whatever country the most senior diplomate was as the country exchanged would be sane, the europeans would support him/them. Basically it is some demonstrations (say some Eurofighters flying at 20m and do mach1+ or something) to give Nappy and Co the understanding that they have to behave (and withdraw peacefully from their power) or they will be removed. There is no other possibilities. Otherwise the benelux and germany, but also italy and spain would arm themself, close the borders and prepare for a war against this france. You don´t "negotiate" with Napoleon III, with his 1870-attitude. Not even the old kim, as mad as he was would be such a problem in behaviour as Napoleon would be. Or his generals. Because they belived in beeing the strongest army in the world (Untrue as the germans showed them in a few weeks) and a superpower, now suddenly they are the last powerfull country on the planet. EVERY single african or middle american state could destroy the military force of this france. They are fully incompatible... the EU neighbours would offer help - to a democratic elected or by the foreign-french diplomats ruled france. But not a country that is ruled by such an intolerant racist war moronger as Napoleon or the other politicians of this age. So we would see a regime change here, some people might not like it. I think Steffen has a point in that while basically similar to any other European state in 1870, albeit possibly a bit more liberal and not particularly competent, Napoleon's regime would be seen as not disimilar to an unpleasant 3rd world regime. Its not a danger to any neighbour as its not powerful enough to be a threat. However given the growing centralisation of the EU there is probably going to be some pressure to intervene militarily and occupy France for a period of time. Whether they would do anything about its empire I don't know. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 16, 2018 16:37:59 GMT
Well the EU would want that but I could see a lot of the rest of the world not having it stay in Europe as that would keep 4 out of 5 seats 'white' so not sure how that would work out but there's bound to be a hell of a mess, not to mention quite a scrap over the issue. This also presumes that the EU can bother with that while the crisis of what to do about France and all the economic and other disruption the event will cause. Oh, it is just easy. Either france keep its veto or it is moved to either the EU or germany (for the EU). Another way isn´t in the cards. France is both, a moneysink for the EU partners, but also a HUGE chance. The veto-stuff could be solved in a different way: If the EU-members no longer pay the many money they do actually, the UN can´t do a shit in future. It is one thing to not give the continous member seat to germany as otl (with UK and france having a seat and veto), but to give up "everything" as in the scenario you describe will not happen. Never in the next 50-100 years. White or nonwhite, doesn´t matter at all. Only money and influence. It is more realistic that UK will give up its veto right... and i can´t see this happening in the next 50 years, too. But yes, it would be right if UK give its veto-right and seat to india... that special relationship should happen. the indians deserve this (in my humble opinion). But might is worth more as morale, so nope, i really can´t see UK giving up Veto-right. As we can see today (with the americans voting Trump, UK leaving the EU) there is nothing that is "forever", so the european countries that could have been lulled 20 years ago will not accept that. But that is actual politics, not part of that ASB-story. So sorry for distracting this. I think you over-estimate the power and influence of the EU in the wider world. Plus the way this would be seen as a stitch-up by much of the world. Trying to do so, whether it works or not would make it deeply unpopular across much of the world. Not to mention opponents, including Russia and China would make propaganda about it and either could well veto the sort of move your proposing. Saying if the EU doesn't get its way it would remove all funds could well backfire. Apart from the fact it would cause even more anger around the world a chunk of what the UN does it in its interests in terms of maintaining order, or at least reducing instability. If they tried to carry out such a programme there would be widespread resistance inside the EU itself and rage around the world. |
|
mullauna
Banned
Banned
Posts: 376
Likes: 40
|
Post by mullauna on Mar 16, 2018 23:11:19 GMT
what happens with the French Empire that have come along for the ride?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 17, 2018 1:01:54 GMT
what happens with the French Empire that have come along for the ride? Can't remember exactly what there is but the African sections will quickly get taken over by the up-timers. IIRC Morocco wasn't a protectorate at this stage so if that's still the modern state it will probably seek to add most of Algeria to its crown. Not sure how much of Senegal the French formally held but its also likely to be liberated by neighbours. With assorted islands and the French Guiana region that would probably depend on the circumstances. Come to think of it some of the Pacific protectorates possibly became so after 1870 so they should still be their modern selves, the only parts of France that will be so. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 17, 2018 11:48:06 GMT
Oh, it is just easy. Either france keep its veto or it is moved to either the EU or germany (for the EU). Another way isn´t in the cards. France is both, a moneysink for the EU partners, but also a HUGE chance. The veto-stuff could be solved in a different way: If the EU-members no longer pay the many money they do actually, the UN can´t do a shit in future. It is one thing to not give the continous member seat to germany as otl (with UK and france having a seat and veto), but to give up "everything" as in the scenario you describe will not happen. Never in the next 50-100 years. White or nonwhite, doesn´t matter at all. Only money and influence. It is more realistic that UK will give up its veto right... and i can´t see this happening in the next 50 years, too. But yes, it would be right if UK give its veto-right and seat to india... that special relationship should happen. the indians deserve this (in my humble opinion). But might is worth more as morale, so nope, i really can´t see UK giving up Veto-right. As we can see today (with the americans voting Trump, UK leaving the EU) there is nothing that is "forever", so the european countries that could have been lulled 20 years ago will not accept that. But that is actual politics, not part of that ASB-story. So sorry for distracting this. I think you over-estimate the power and influence of the EU in the wider world. Plus the way this would be seen as a stitch-up by much of the world. Trying to do so, whether it works or not would make it deeply unpopular across much of the world. Not to mention opponents, including Russia and China would make propaganda about it and either could well veto the sort of move your proposing. Saying if the EU doesn't get its way it would remove all funds could well backfire. Apart from the fact it would cause even more anger around the world a chunk of what the UN does it in its interests in terms of maintaining order, or at least reducing instability. If they tried to carry out such a programme there would be widespread resistance inside the EU itself and rage around the world. Hi, we disagree here. In the moment the EU has 2 states (France and UK) who could veto any UN-resolutions. So there is no need to change much. Overall the interests of the european nations and the two countries were very similar. Also the USA could be motivated quite often also. Now - we speak about TTL - we loose UK by the Brexit, Donald Trump as US-president is - from an european POV a not so logical working president. With this they have only france that could stop "wrong developments" for the EU. Still the economic powerfull community! If others would "deny" the europeans their seat that would anger them... esp. because neither UK nor the USA are "trustworthy" from the EU-POV. Propably the EU would try to keep the french seat. (after all, if this seat still exist everything is fine. we discuss the point in that the UN try to remove the french seat. If that happens either the EU or germany (as the biggest EU-country would gain that seat. Or - france keep it, but it will be the "modern-france", not napoleonic france that keep that seat. i hope i could give more details how i see such development. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 17, 2018 12:04:47 GMT
I think you over-estimate the power and influence of the EU in the wider world. Plus the way this would be seen as a stitch-up by much of the world. Trying to do so, whether it works or not would make it deeply unpopular across much of the world. Not to mention opponents, including Russia and China would make propaganda about it and either could well veto the sort of move your proposing. Saying if the EU doesn't get its way it would remove all funds could well backfire. Apart from the fact it would cause even more anger around the world a chunk of what the UN does it in its interests in terms of maintaining order, or at least reducing instability. If they tried to carry out such a programme there would be widespread resistance inside the EU itself and rage around the world. Hi, we disagree here. In the moment the EU has 2 states (France and UK) who could veto any UN-resolutions. So there is no need to change much. Overall the interests of the european nations and the two countries were very similar. Also the USA could be motivated quite often also. Now - we speak about TTL - we loose UK by the Brexit, Donald Trump as US-president is - from an european POV a not so logical working president. With this they have only france that could stop "wrong developments" for the EU. Still the economic powerfull community! If others would "deny" the europeans their seat that would anger them... esp. because neither UK nor the USA are "trustworthy" from the EU-POV. Propably the EU would try to keep the french seat. (after all, if this seat still exist everything is fine. we discuss the point in that the UN try to remove the french seat. If that happens either the EU or germany (as the biggest EU-country would gain that seat. Or - france keep it, but it will be the "modern-france", not napoleonic france that keep that seat. i hope i could give more details how i see such development. I think we will have to disagree here. I see what your proposing and why but I can see a lot of opposition to it and also while if the EU can possibly block anyone else getting the seat other powers, especially the Russians and Chinese can block them from gaining anything from it. The costs of taking what most will see as a racist stance to protect vested interests and being willing to paralyse the UN is likely to be high. Especially since the stance will also be seen as rather paranoid. The US is not European and is untrustworthly because of its current leader and differing interests, The only thing that makes the UK 'not trustworthy' is the hostility of the current EU leadership. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 19, 2018 10:08:09 GMT
Hi, we disagree here. In the moment the EU has 2 states (France and UK) who could veto any UN-resolutions. So there is no need to change much. Overall the interests of the european nations and the two countries were very similar. Also the USA could be motivated quite often also. Now - we speak about TTL - we loose UK by the Brexit, Donald Trump as US-president is - from an european POV a not so logical working president. With this they have only france that could stop "wrong developments" for the EU. Still the economic powerfull community! If others would "deny" the europeans their seat that would anger them... esp. because neither UK nor the USA are "trustworthy" from the EU-POV. Propably the EU would try to keep the french seat. (after all, if this seat still exist everything is fine. we discuss the point in that the UN try to remove the french seat. If that happens either the EU or germany (as the biggest EU-country would gain that seat. Or - france keep it, but it will be the "modern-france", not napoleonic france that keep that seat. i hope i could give more details how i see such development. I think we will have to disagree here. I see what your proposing and why but I can see a lot of opposition to it and also while if the EU can possibly block anyone else getting the seat other powers, especially the Russians and Chinese can block them from gaining anything from it. The costs of taking what most will see as a racist stance to protect vested interests and being willing to paralyse the UN is likely to be high. Especially since the stance will also be seen as rather paranoid. The US is not European and is untrustworthly because of its current leader and differing interests, The only thing that makes the UK 'not trustworthy' is the hostility of the current EU leadership. Hi, we agree to disagree My points are written wrom that ASB-scenario, that mix real-politics from today with a complete changed france in that a totalitarism dictatorship rule uneducated racist and intolerant nationalistic people (from a modern POV the french of 1870 couldn´t seen different). So the point we discuss is the Veto-right of the UN. The EU will no longer trust ANY american government, because if somebody as Trump could get elected into power, everyone could be the next president (at last this is my understanding how the most european politicans see the situation). So one stable partner is just gone - propably forever. The russians in the same time start to "retake" their empire - the crimea and now the Ukraine, the actual election system. The eastern european countries, all in the EU will be very afraid. Either they start to rearm nuclear themself (poland esp.) or they demand independent security by the EU. Just because they do not know if the US president, who is seen in the media as "russian supported" (fake election) would really help em. Russia in the same time seem to think that a regional "conflict" could gain em power. We could just hope that such things never happens in the baltics... So, the french Veto-right is suddenly VERY potential. UK is - from an EU-POV full untrustworthy, the whole idea of giving the EU the finger but keep the stuff the british want for themselves is so silly that it hurts. Even people like me, who have zero friendship with the EU-politicans agree 100% about maximum pressure against the british, including full scale trade wars if necessary. (nothing against british people, but the idea that the europeans still finance the wishes of UK is insulting and stupid. I think we will disagree here, too, but that is just my Point about that). But my opinion is nothing in that... the EU for sure knows quite well that they can´t expect any support by UK, because if they would need them they would try to press a better deal in the economics... that is something the EU can´t accept or break appart. Because of this the european countries will either get that UN-veto-right-position for the EU or germany (again, not for german dominance but to represent the EU if the first can´t be done - with treaties in the german constitution that make this point crystal clear) or they will retreat from that organisation, let them break appart. Look at the sums the europeans pay into the UN-budget. it is either get this or we do no longer support you. Period. Call it racism (but then, why isn´t it racism that UK - much weaker in economic and influencing areas has this right?) all days long, that is the position of the europeans. Beeing the strongest economic area in the world, with russia and USA running into a new cold war, they could either get what they want here - or the UN cripples itself permanently. We still have the alternative position that france keep its veto rights. The problems that could be created are "who represent france now?". With the old-style france needing help in huge numbers, in the same time they are full of deep hate against germany, but more so great britain (it is 1870, not 1871, right? So the defeat against germany hasn´t come, also the poisoned peace treaty of Frankfurt) and need lots and lots of help in 100% of their areas. So, if the french "loose" their veto-rights, the UN allready played foul. Propably fueled by UK, that hope to get a torturing tool against the EU in their economic downfall caused by the tradewars with the EU. It is ALL about politics, the russians and chinese would sit and wait, because such moves could bring the EU into THEIR camp - at last in many things. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 19, 2018 10:57:21 GMT
I think we will have to disagree here. I see what your proposing and why but I can see a lot of opposition to it and also while if the EU can possibly block anyone else getting the seat other powers, especially the Russians and Chinese can block them from gaining anything from it. The costs of taking what most will see as a racist stance to protect vested interests and being willing to paralyse the UN is likely to be high. Especially since the stance will also be seen as rather paranoid. The US is not European and is untrustworthly because of its current leader and differing interests, The only thing that makes the UK 'not trustworthy' is the hostility of the current EU leadership. Hi, we agree to disagree My points are written wrom that ASB-scenario, that mix real-politics from today with a complete changed france in that a totalitarism dictatorship rule uneducated racist and intolerant nationalistic people (from a modern POV the french of 1870 couldn´t seen different). So the point we discuss is the Veto-right of the UN. The EU will no longer trust ANY american government, because if somebody as Trump could get elected into power, everyone could be the next president (at last this is my understanding how the most european politicans see the situation). So one stable partner is just gone - propably forever. The russians in the same time start to "retake" their empire - the crimea and now the Ukraine, the actual election system. The eastern european countries, all in the EU will be very afraid. Either they start to rearm nuclear themself (poland esp.) or they demand independent security by the EU. Just because they do not know if the US president, who is seen in the media as "russian supported" (fake election) would really help em. Russia in the same time seem to think that a regional "conflict" could gain em power. We could just hope that such things never happens in the baltics... So, the french Veto-right is suddenly VERY potential. UK is - from an EU-POV full untrustworthy, the whole idea of giving the EU the finger but keep the stuff the british want for themselves is so silly that it hurts. Even people like me, who have zero friendship with the EU-politicans agree 100% about maximum pressure against the british, including full scale trade wars if necessary. (nothing against british people, but the idea that the europeans still finance the wishes of UK is insulting and stupid. I think we will disagree here, too, but that is just my Point about that). But my opinion is nothing in that... the EU for sure knows quite well that they can´t expect any support by UK, because if they would need them they would try to press a better deal in the economics... that is something the EU can´t accept or break appart. Because of this the european countries will either get that UN-veto-right-position for the EU or germany (again, not for german dominance but to represent the EU if the first can´t be done - with treaties in the german constitution that make this point crystal clear) or they will retreat from that organisation, let them break appart. Look at the sums the europeans pay into the UN-budget. it is either get this or we do no longer support you. Period. Call it racism (but then, why isn´t it racism that UK - much weaker in economic and influencing areas has this right?) all days long, that is the position of the europeans. Beeing the strongest economic area in the world, with russia and USA running into a new cold war, they could either get what they want here - or the UN cripples itself permanently. We still have the alternative position that france keep its veto rights. The problems that could be created are "who represent france now?". With the old-style france needing help in huge numbers, in the same time they are full of deep hate against germany, but more so great britain (it is 1870, not 1871, right? So the defeat against germany hasn´t come, also the poisoned peace treaty of Frankfurt) and need lots and lots of help in 100% of their areas. So, if the french "loose" their veto-rights, the UN allready played foul. Propably fueled by UK, that hope to get a torturing tool against the EU in their economic downfall caused by the tradewars with the EU. It is ALL about politics, the russians and chinese would sit and wait, because such moves could bring the EU into THEIR camp - at last in many things. Given the paranoia in the EU leadership that might be their attitude but I think it would be short-sighted and I think unlikely to work. Yes Trump is an idiot, making even Tusk and Barnier looking almost competent but the US might well support the EU getting a veto, presumably relying on getting something in return. However the problem would be getting this past Russia and China who would oppose the idea for the reasons I mentioned, as well as probably just about every temporary member of the security council. Britain could well be unfriendly in the short term given the naked and short sighted malice shown by the EU. However in the longer run Britain would be willing to be friendly to the EU once the latter stops being so pig-headedly stupid and irresponsible. [You are quite right that I would put up with the lies, insults and other crap the EU misleaders have generated over the issue]. All it needs there is the EU starts being responsible and looking after their own interest rather than acting like petulant 4 year olds. However I think even the current British government would need a hell of a lot of compensation to support something as politically explosive as your suggesting. You are actually wrong on the history. While there were of course tensions between Britain and France during this period, they often worked together quite well. The Crimean War and so called 2nd Opium war to give the two most famous examples. It was Germany that the French mistrusted, especially after Prussia's violent unification over the previous few years which made it far more threatening. As such its more likely that down-time France would look more to Britain for assistance, especially considering the EU - clearly German dominated in their eyes - was seeking to claim control over them. I'm not saying Britain would be willing to fight to protect France but the French aren't going to look too friendly on an unwelcome occupation by an organisation that seeks to deny their country its independence, which will be how its seen by the vast bulk of the population. Your last paragraph is so OTT that I will be generous and ignore it. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 19, 2018 12:44:23 GMT
Hi, we agree to disagree My points are written wrom that ASB-scenario, that mix real-politics from today with a complete changed france in that a totalitarism dictatorship rule uneducated racist and intolerant nationalistic people (from a modern POV the french of 1870 couldn´t seen different). So the point we discuss is the Veto-right of the UN. The EU will no longer trust ANY american government, because if somebody as Trump could get elected into power, everyone could be the next president (at last this is my understanding how the most european politicans see the situation). So one stable partner is just gone - propably forever. The russians in the same time start to "retake" their empire - the crimea and now the Ukraine, the actual election system. The eastern european countries, all in the EU will be very afraid. Either they start to rearm nuclear themself (poland esp.) or they demand independent security by the EU. Just because they do not know if the US president, who is seen in the media as "russian supported" (fake election) would really help em. Russia in the same time seem to think that a regional "conflict" could gain em power. We could just hope that such things never happens in the baltics... So, the french Veto-right is suddenly VERY potential. UK is - from an EU-POV full untrustworthy, the whole idea of giving the EU the finger but keep the stuff the british want for themselves is so silly that it hurts. Even people like me, who have zero friendship with the EU-politicans agree 100% about maximum pressure against the british, including full scale trade wars if necessary. (nothing against british people, but the idea that the europeans still finance the wishes of UK is insulting and stupid. I think we will disagree here, too, but that is just my Point about that). But my opinion is nothing in that... the EU for sure knows quite well that they can´t expect any support by UK, because if they would need them they would try to press a better deal in the economics... that is something the EU can´t accept or break appart. Because of this the european countries will either get that UN-veto-right-position for the EU or germany (again, not for german dominance but to represent the EU if the first can´t be done - with treaties in the german constitution that make this point crystal clear) or they will retreat from that organisation, let them break appart. Look at the sums the europeans pay into the UN-budget. it is either get this or we do no longer support you. Period. Call it racism (but then, why isn´t it racism that UK - much weaker in economic and influencing areas has this right?) all days long, that is the position of the europeans. Beeing the strongest economic area in the world, with russia and USA running into a new cold war, they could either get what they want here - or the UN cripples itself permanently. We still have the alternative position that france keep its veto rights. The problems that could be created are "who represent france now?". With the old-style france needing help in huge numbers, in the same time they are full of deep hate against germany, but more so great britain (it is 1870, not 1871, right? So the defeat against germany hasn´t come, also the poisoned peace treaty of Frankfurt) and need lots and lots of help in 100% of their areas. So, if the french "loose" their veto-rights, the UN allready played foul. Propably fueled by UK, that hope to get a torturing tool against the EU in their economic downfall caused by the tradewars with the EU. It is ALL about politics, the russians and chinese would sit and wait, because such moves could bring the EU into THEIR camp - at last in many things. Given the paranoia in the EU leadership that might be their attitude but I think it would be short-sighted and I think unlikely to work. Yes Trump is an idiot, making even Tusk and Barnier looking almost competent but the US might well support the EU getting a veto, presumably relying on getting something in return. However the problem would be getting this past Russia and China who would oppose the idea for the reasons I mentioned, as well as probably just about every temporary member of the security council. Britain could well be unfriendly in the short term given the naked and short sighted malice shown by the EU. However in the longer run Britain would be willing to be friendly to the EU once the latter stops being so pig-headedly stupid and irresponsible. [You are quite right that I would put up with the lies, insults and other crap the EU misleaders have generated over the issue]. All it needs there is the EU starts being responsible and looking after their own interest rather than acting like petulant 4 year olds. However I think even the current British government would need a hell of a lot of compensation to support something as politically explosive as your suggesting. You are actually wrong on the history. While there were of course tensions between Britain and France during this period, they often worked together quite well. The Crimean War and so called 2nd Opium war to give the two most famous examples. It was Germany that the French mistrusted, especially after Prussia's violent unification over the previous few years which made it far more threatening. As such its more likely that down-time France would look more to Britain for assistance, especially considering the EU - clearly German dominated in their eyes - was seeking to claim control over them. I'm not saying Britain would be willing to fight to protect France but the French aren't going to look too friendly on an unwelcome occupation by an organisation that seeks to deny their country its independence, which will be how its seen by the vast bulk of the population. Your last paragraph is so OTT that I will be generous and ignore it. As i wrote - we will never agree about "who act wrong about the Brexit". It would be nice if you could accept that - like the overwhelming majority of the people in europe i see the only guilt in UK and that the idea that the EU will still give the british their "extra" is more than silly. But that is nothing we need to discuss... we will see what will happen in the near future. My bet is: the EU will hit UK hard, the british can either accept everything the EU demand or pay an even bigger price in tax wars and economic sanctions against the only economy the british still have - the finance sector. We both have zero influence in that, so we do not need to act uncivilized on that. As we both wrote - we disagree about it. Also - as taxpayer in the EU i hope the EU will bleed UK white to get everything UK has to pay. You may see it different - that is okay for me. It is - even if OTL politics - here important because it will influence the whole situation. With France beeing "out" there exist two possibilities. a.) "foreign-france" from the EU-ground keep the Veto right, the most realistic opinion in my eyes, or b.) the UN try to remove this section - but if this happens the EU /germany will either get this right or the european countries let the UN suffer... really suffer by removing its support. That is no game, that is no fun but politics. Personally i think no veto right should exist. All should have the same equal vote. Period. But with the veto right existing, with france - changed a lot - having that veto right we have to talk about what would happen with it. Here there exist no other solution, because france is in the EU, the EU want one Veto-right-nation in their community and with UK leaving they will fight for the french right. Another possibility doesn´t really exist. Yes - that is a lot actual political stuff - because the old french is moved into our actual date. The Trump-stuff, i don´t call him an idiot. I can´t allow myself an opinion about that. I would not know what i had done as an american in that situation (choice between Trump and Clinton). I also could not say what would have been "better" (from an european POV). Sorry, not my choice. I just try to analyse the situation: a.) Trumps USA is no longer a trustworthy partner for the EU b.) UK is no longer a trustworthy partner for the EU, because the Brexit and the huge problems that grow by this (esp. in monetarian areas) would mean that the EU will be pressed to accept another unfair and dishonest deal with UK, just like the Thatcher-UK did once (UK-discount). The time in that such behaviour was accepted - esp. from a country that gave the whole political class of Bruessles the fist - is gone. Another important point - it would tear appart the EU, if they would accept such behaviour, so by this the idea that the EU trust the british to help em in the UN without british demands (a price that could be to hight) is not correct. Still - as seen in that poison-killtry in UK there exist a lot common sense, but the politicans in the EU are no "dreamers". My personel hopes or wishes have nothing to do with that. But that the EU will change after UK has left, esp. the very strong US-connections will be weakened (we have not factored the "Trump-effect") seems clear to me. In the same time the fear about the russian bear hanging around the east european borders could cause interesting changes, too. About the "old france" - we need to agree to disagree again. France 1870 was quite antibritish, the crimea-war had nothing to do with this. Not to fight about something, but in the people, esp. the commoners, the british still were "perfidious albion"... something that changed only 30 years later, after 1907. With france looking at germany, this germany (that got crippled, lost "prussia" and is fully included - peacefully - in the EU that in the same time offers billions of euro as support to (re)build the state, that has full (100%) support by the foreigner french that have the nuclear power) is another fish to fry. As i wrote, the french wouldn´t love that their former empire has blown appart, but the whole technological stuff would be enough. No nation would work with Napoleon, he was a despot. Not even the british, knowing how mad Nappy was otl (that hadn´t changed...?) about a war would want him having nukes. So the scenario i described is the most realistic one. There is some demonstration, some helicopters bringing in some armed special forces, propably french ones (! they train in germany, right) and remove the old government (either by a 9mm bullet or get em unhurt) and a new, democratic french exile-government will help to build up the country, fueled by european money from the EU. That will not be a paradies, but the alternatives are much worse (the british government hoping to influence the french could offer what? They lack the money, support or manpower to really build up france. Only the EU could and would do it. Nobody else is able to achive this. It is ironically that the germans and belgians have the best opportunity, cause they have the most french speaking people who could teach reading and writing to the illiterate french commoners. (for 1870-level that was very good, for 2018 it is bad, seriously bad). But we face a country that suddenly has to accept Computers Nuclear power plants submarines cars trucks, airplanes container ships, terminals, the whole worldwide communication system. All in the same time with no "new french" of 1870 able to really understand this. By the way, woman are equal, gays are normal... this alone could tear a traditional1870-country appart. Could you explain why you "ignore" my last section? Everything is "OTL-politics", because these influence the whole scenario. Again, i wish no negative communication or negative feelings. Things we disagree about are not worth to get heated discussions... greetings Steffen |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,932
Likes: 46,076
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 19, 2018 15:00:58 GMT
Given the paranoia in the EU leadership that might be their attitude but I think it would be short-sighted and I think unlikely to work. Yes Trump is an idiot, making even Tusk and Barnier looking almost competent but the US might well support the EU getting a veto, presumably relying on getting something in return. However the problem would be getting this past Russia and China who would oppose the idea for the reasons I mentioned, as well as probably just about every temporary member of the security council. Britain could well be unfriendly in the short term given the naked and short sighted malice shown by the EU. However in the longer run Britain would be willing to be friendly to the EU once the latter stops being so pig-headedly stupid and irresponsible. [You are quite right that I would put up with the lies, insults and other crap the EU misleaders have generated over the issue]. All it needs there is the EU starts being responsible and looking after their own interest rather than acting like petulant 4 year olds. However I think even the current British government would need a hell of a lot of compensation to support something as politically explosive as your suggesting. You are actually wrong on the history. While there were of course tensions between Britain and France during this period, they often worked together quite well. The Crimean War and so called 2nd Opium war to give the two most famous examples. It was Germany that the French mistrusted, especially after Prussia's violent unification over the previous few years which made it far more threatening. As such its more likely that down-time France would look more to Britain for assistance, especially considering the EU - clearly German dominated in their eyes - was seeking to claim control over them. I'm not saying Britain would be willing to fight to protect France but the French aren't going to look too friendly on an unwelcome occupation by an organisation that seeks to deny their country its independence, which will be how its seen by the vast bulk of the population. Your last paragraph is so OTT that I will be generous and ignore it. As i wrote - we will never agree about "who act wrong about the Brexit". It would be nice if you could accept that - like the overwhelming majority of the people in europe i see the only guilt in UK and that the idea that the EU will still give the british their "extra" is more than silly. But that is nothing we need to discuss... we will see what will happen in the near future. My bet is: the EU will hit UK hard, the british can either accept everything the EU demand or pay an even bigger price in tax wars and economic sanctions against the only economy the british still have - the finance sector. We both have zero influence in that, so we do not need to act uncivilized on that. As we both wrote - we disagree about it. Also - as taxpayer in the EU i hope the EU will bleed UK white to get everything UK has to pay. You may see it different - that is okay for me. It is - even if OTL politics - here important because it will influence the whole situation. With France beeing "out" there exist two possibilities. a.) "foreign-france" from the EU-ground keep the Veto right, the most realistic opinion in my eyes, or b.) the UN try to remove this section - but if this happens the EU /germany will either get this right or the european countries let the UN suffer... really suffer by removing its support. That is no game, that is no fun but politics. Personally i think no veto right should exist. All should have the same equal vote. Period. But with the veto right existing, with france - changed a lot - having that veto right we have to talk about what would happen with it. Here there exist no other solution, because france is in the EU, the EU want one Veto-right-nation in their community and with UK leaving they will fight for the french right. Another possibility doesn´t really exist. Yes - that is a lot actual political stuff - because the old french is moved into our actual date. The Trump-stuff, i don´t call him an idiot. I can´t allow myself an opinion about that. I would not know what i had done as an american in that situation (choice between Trump and Clinton). I also could not say what would have been "better" (from an european POV). Sorry, not my choice. I just try to analyse the situation: a.) Trumps USA is no longer a trustworthy partner for the EU b.) UK is no longer a trustworthy partner for the EU, because the Brexit and the huge problems that grow by this (esp. in monetarian areas) would mean that the EU will be pressed to accept another unfair and dishonest deal with UK, just like the Thatcher-UK did once (UK-discount). The time in that such behaviour was accepted - esp. from a country that gave the whole political class of Bruessles the fist - is gone. Another important point - it would tear appart the EU, if they would accept such behaviour, so by this the idea that the EU trust the british to help em in the UN without british demands (a price that could be to hight) is not correct. Still - as seen in that poison-killtry in UK there exist a lot common sense, but the politicans in the EU are no "dreamers". My personel hopes or wishes have nothing to do with that. But that the EU will change after UK has left, esp. the very strong US-connections will be weakened (we have not factored the "Trump-effect") seems clear to me. In the same time the fear about the russian bear hanging around the east european borders could cause interesting changes, too. About the "old france" - we need to agree to disagree again. France 1870 was quite antibritish, the crimea-war had nothing to do with this. Not to fight about something, but in the people, esp. the commoners, the british still were "perfidious albion"... something that changed only 30 years later, after 1907. With france looking at germany, this germany (that got crippled, lost "prussia" and is fully included - peacefully - in the EU that in the same time offers billions of euro as support to (re)build the state, that has full (100%) support by the foreigner french that have the nuclear power) is another fish to fry. As i wrote, the french wouldn´t love that their former empire has blown appart, but the whole technological stuff would be enough. No nation would work with Napoleon, he was a despot. Not even the british, knowing how mad Nappy was otl (that hadn´t changed...?) about a war would want him having nukes. So the scenario i described is the most realistic one. There is some demonstration, some helicopters bringing in some armed special forces, propably french ones (! they train in germany, right) and remove the old government (either by a 9mm bullet or get em unhurt) and a new, democratic french exile-government will help to build up the country, fueled by european money from the EU. That will not be a paradies, but the alternatives are much worse (the british government hoping to influence the french could offer what? They lack the money, support or manpower to really build up france. Only the EU could and would do it. Nobody else is able to achive this. It is ironically that the germans and belgians have the best opportunity, cause they have the most french speaking people who could teach reading and writing to the illiterate french commoners. (for 1870-level that was very good, for 2018 it is bad, seriously bad). But we face a country that suddenly has to accept Computers Nuclear power plants submarines cars trucks, airplanes container ships, terminals, the whole worldwide communication system. All in the same time with no "new french" of 1870 able to really understand this. By the way, woman are equal, gays are normal... this alone could tear a traditional1870-country appart. Could you explain why you "ignore" my last section? Everything is "OTL-politics", because these influence the whole scenario. Again, i wish no negative communication or negative feelings. Things we disagree about are not worth to get heated discussions... greetings Steffen Can we area that everybody has its own views and lets keep this thread on topic. Thus i would like to know, are there any people of 1870 France we like to meet. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 19, 2018 15:56:33 GMT
Hi, thats okay for me. I did not want to start some negative discussions.... well, i think there are a LOT interesting people from 1870 france.... just some artists Eugène Boudin (1824–1898) Marie Bracquemond (1840–1916) Louis Édouard Joseph Braquaval (1854–1919) Gustave Caillebotte (1848–1894) Paul Cézanne (1839–1906) Edgar Degas (1834–1917) Paul Gauguin (1848–1903) Eva Gonzalès (1847–1883) Armand Guillaumin (1841–1927) Jacques Lalande (1921–heute) Édouard Manet (1832–1883) Maxime Maufra (1861–1918) Claude Monet (1840–1926) Berthe Morisot (1841–1895) Camille Pissarro (1830–1903) Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841–1919) Alfred Sisley (1839–1899) these are just some... don´t ignore August Rodin... maybe the greatest of this time... or the scientists... the lists are long, very long, extreme long. France of that time was full of very good, highly educated people that brought us (all humans) very important or good things. Having a knack for Impressionism i did that french list... because it would be great to see em react to fotorealism on computers... or think about Rodin working with 3D-printers... we do not even touch literature.... or science Henri Moissan (1852–1907) or Gabriel Lippmann (1845–1921) would be interesting people to contact. Also a lot more other designers, ship builders, car manufacturers... in their younger days... if you move a country from 1870 to 2018 that had such big impact into the culture of human beeings this will cause a lot of (positive) impact... at last that is my impression about that... |
|
