So much for international diplomacy

EU institutions are far from perfect. They can appear remote and rigid. They have an infuriating habit of delaying crucial decisions until confronted with a sense of impending doom. And yet, by the standards of international diplomacy, the EU is both efficient and democratic.

If the EU’s as good as it gets then perhaps this international diplomacy gig is something we should ignore?

13 comments on “So much for international diplomacy

  1. Absolutely false, lying, deceitful Remainiac shite.

    The EU is one of the most bent, corrupt and obnoxiously oppressive political and bureaucratic turd-clusters on this benighted planet.

    Any willing servant of it needs–at minimum–to have the living shite beaten out of them. And a number deserve to be tried and hanged for treason to their nations and to the cause of human freedom and prosperity. Which two are inseparably linked.

    Death to the EU.

  2. Fucking right, Ecks, on all counts.

    EU democratic? Jesus H Christ on a pogo-stick, the Parliament – the only bit you could say is democratic – is not a legislative body and can only tweak legislation, effectively a rubber-stamping exercise. The ones with the real power to make and stop legislation – the eurocrats in the commission (and the council of ministers) – are never as a whole up for election. And the whole lot of them revel in this orgy of power while getting paid massive salaries, tax-free. From our money. Jesus, what Orwellian fuckers these people are.

    I had this out with some EU supporting nit-wit on Friday. He said the EU is democratic. I pointed out the above. He then went on to say that, regardless, the people of Southern Europe were grateful for the EU – the reason being that they were being ‘bailed out’. He seemed to know not-one-jot about the fact that being stuck in the Euro has caused the economic issues they no longer have the power to deal with themselves, and know not a thing about the massive unemployment and the ignoring of democratically elected governments to bend to the will of the EU / Germany. Not a bit of it.

    And we’re supposed to be the thick ones!

  3. And yet, by the standards of international diplomacy, the EU is both efficient and democratic.

    Discuss with specific reference to the intervention in Libya.

  4. The EU’s intervention in the Ukraine was even more spectacularly cack-handed. Basically the EU interfered in the Russian near abroad, sucked in the Yanks and then vacillated on policy.

  5. What would be really interesting is if Brenda refused to sign any treasonous bills on Brexit presented to her by Parliament on the grounds that they did not reflect the clearly expressed wish of the electorate in the referendum.

    She has the power, theoretically.

  6. “The EU’s intervention in the Ukraine was even more spectacularly cack-handed. Basically the EU interfered in the Russian near abroad, sucked in the Yanks and then vacillated on policy.”

    Add to that expanding the EU and NATO right up to Russia’s border, against the promises made to Gorbachev, and it was always going to lead to problems. Tim Marshall explains it well in Prisoners of Geography and reckons the the West has started a new cold war.

  7. Wonder if anyone thinks that’s Trumps advice not to bother trying to negotiate and just go to court/arbitration was actually a reasonable assessment of trying to deal with th EU

  8. Bloke in North Dorset – “Add to that expanding the EU and NATO right up to Russia’s border, against the promises made to Gorbachev, and it was always going to lead to problems.”

    Well no it wasn’t. It depends if Russia accepted that its former colonies were independent or not and whether or not Russia was determined to view the West as a threat.

    Whatever Putin and his lapdogs in the West say, the Russian government does not see NATO expansion as a threat. At the height of the Cold War the Soviets kept 10 armoured divisions in East Germany alone. Over 40 of them altogether. Before 2008 Russia had all of three armoured divisions. Which they then reduced to four armoured brigades. Then in 2013 they reformed one tank division – The 4th Guards “Kantemirovskaya” Tank Division.

    Now Russia could maintain 10 armoured divisions if it wanted to. But it doesn’t. Because it does not feel threatened. It has one plus three smaller brigades. Which is a lot more than Britain admittedly. But it is not what people do when they fear attack.

  9. I think that they are comparing it to Comecon and the Greater East asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

  10. SMFS says: depends if Russia accepted that its former colonies were independent or not and whether or not Russia was determined to view the West as a threat

    Well, why are we extending guarantees to fight WW3 over the territorial integrity of Estonia, Ukraine and Georgia? For peaceful purposes? What’s in it for us? Retronostalgia for the days when THREADS was a plausible future?

    Now Russia could maintain 10 armoured divisions if it wanted to.

    Maybe if they were at war. A country with a similar GDP to Italy – plus the existing financial burden of maintaining its own nuclear force while trying to modernise its conventional forces – needs to be more choosy.

    And you’ve grasped the wrong end of the stick. If Russia isn’t actually threatening us with a military buildup, why the flying feathered fuck do we need to establish a military alliance with several semi-retarded ex-Soviet potato states on Russia’s borders?

    What’s the upside of this plan? The Macedonian army will come to our rescue on its tandem bicycle? If London was subjected to a foreign invasion, how would we tell?

  11. @ Steve
    First they came for the Communists and I did nothing because I was not a Communist, then they came for the Jews and I did nothing because I was not a Jew, then they came for the Trade Unionists …..

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.