Messages

46

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 07:35:45 pm »

My point is that the EU is taking on the trappings of statehood and the EU will likely federalise. So Europhiles should stop denying their union and admit the EU will become a state.

47

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 07:24:07 pm »

Hi, I study European Law. VonBergens 2 points are right. I've explained this before in a fucking 2k word post on some other thread. But the EU can only act on certain fields of law if that power is given to them by the member states.
Also, you don't need a law degree to make a statement about the EU. But an educated statement based on facts is worth more than your opinion on the matter. You can have your opinion, however that does not mean you are right. On the other hand, facts are facts and when they are laid down in law there is no denying their existence, no matter your opinion.

Couldnt +1 more

I never doubted your knowledge of EU law or challenged it. I simply questioned why you think doing EU law makes you more qualified on the question of "the EU taking on the trappings of statehood".

 I simply said the EU is taking on the trappings of statehood. That is an opinion that millions of people share. You bogged yourself down mentioning EU law.

Your own defense to this argument is that the EU does not have sovereign *yet* which is of course true. The EU is not yet a state but that doesn't mean its doesn't have the whole mark characteristic of statehood. Anthem, courts, flag, political system, currency, citizenship, laws, borders etc.

Regardless, the EU will likely federalise in the future so this whole argument is pointless. The question that EU supporters like yourself have to ask yourself is whether you support federalisation or not.

48

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 07:15:02 pm »

Hi, I study European Law. VonBergens 2 points are right. I've explained this before in a fucking 2k word post on some other thread. But the EU can only act on certain fields of law if that power is given to them by the member states.
Also, you don't need a law degree to make a statement about the EU. But an educated statement based on facts is worth more than your opinion on the matter. You can have your opinion, however that does not mean you are right. On the other hand, facts are facts and when they are laid down in law there is no denying their existence, no matter your opinion.

Well done for pointing out the obvious

49

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 05:28:53 pm »

I spent two Semesters studying about the question wether the EU is a statelike/souverign construct or not. One in cologne and one in Amsterdam. With all warm heart i Suppose neither you kaide, nor you tylerus are law Students (pls correct me if i am wrong), so i will break it Down to the two main reasons why the EU is not taking on the fundaments of statehood (yet):

1. It Got no so called "competence-competence", meaning the EU is not able to take or gain political Power on its own. Everything the EU is allowed to regulate, every Action it imposes through its institutions, it can just do because the Member States gave the regarding Power to the EU. The EU is not able to take This Power on its own. The flag, the anthem, the borders, the currency etc, all of This was put in place by the Member states, not the EU itself. A State on the other Hand seizes its Power from inside itself.

2. Every Member State can leave the EU at any point, as we all now dramatically Got to know. If the UK wanted and the EU did not gave a fuck, the UK could have left the EU the day after the Referendum, and neither the EU, nor the MS could have done anything about it. In a State, even if it has a federal structure, no single Region can just leave the bigger construct. Texas could not just leave the US, NRW could not just leave Germany and as we could See catalonia could not just leave spain (even though it wanted to). Yes the MS gave some competences to the EU, still every MS is still souvereign. As long as that is the case, the EU can not even be called close to a State.

No I didn't do law but I do study History and Politics at university alongside being in the British Army. So what's next, you can't make statements about the military? Such a stupid comment lol.

I am sorry to tell you this but you don't need a law degree to make a political statement on the EU. The fact that my argument is that the "EU is becoming a state" and you claim to of studied  "EU Law" actually supports my statement. The EU has it's own legal system  = supports my argument.


As a law student I am surprised that you didn't know that
regions of countries can secede from their parent nation.

The UN makes it strictly clear that national self-determination is a key cornerstone of the UN and it is apart of international law and diplomacy.

Germany and the USA are signed up members of the UN and would be expected to comply with UN resolutions that supports self-determination.

Yes, the Catalan people have been suppressed because they held an illegal referendum. However eventually Spain will have to hold a legal referendum.

Secondly Scotland can leave the UK but the UK is still a sovereign state. The UK parliament is higher then the Scottish parliament and can revoke the Scottish parliament at any time.

However, in the USA, the federal government cannot abolish the state. So you're tinkering on the edges of what a state is. Many people now consider the EU to be a state or at least close to becoming one. The UK gov and the Italian Gov being two examples. And it isn't just right-popularism.

50

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 05:07:21 pm »

Another factor that many people fail to understand is that many governments in EU states are apart of a liberal europhile metropolitan class. They won't consult the nations electorate about transferring more powers.

Look at Gordon Brown in 2008/9, he promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and didn't and then passed the Lisbom Treaty through the backdoor.

This harbours Eurospeticism because Europhiles won't admit what the EU is and what it's long-term aims are, and often don't give it's people referendums on EU matters.

51

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 04:47:28 pm »

Spoiler

The thing with Germany when it Comes to military is just: We  could do a lot, but we just dont want to. This has two main reasons: 1. Obvious historic Ones 2. Our participation in the NATO; German military has no need to be able to defend the Country on its own alone, because its Very unlikely we would be Attacked on our own alone. We are the 4. Biggest Economy in the World (our GDP is 1.2 billions higher Than the UK <3), we are the main payer in the EU, the most important trading Partner for dozens of countries, there are nearly 30 Million people in Germany theoretically being able to be put into military Service in case of war (while only about 22 Million in the UK). Just give us a reason and we would be able to go full scale Wehrmacht-Blitzkrieg again within a Few months. (The reason why i compare it to the UK is to Show that even though we dont practically are a World Power by kaides Definition, we could be easy.)

Exactly what I meant by a reluctant world power. However, as the EU continues to take on the trapping of statehood, we will soon talking of the EU as a superpower and Germany a mere state of the EU.

Speaking from a laywers point of view the EU is not more than a Brunch of treaties. In scale of international law we speak of a construct "sui generis" (of its own kind) and it will be no more until we get loose of the idea of nationalitys in europe, and until that point it will take decades, which the EU has to survive First.

That's just a simple perspective of de jure and de facto though isn't it? in practice the EU did not respect the will of the member states, even when it came to the agreement of said treaties. I do agree however that the EU may not survive to see the day that it's members merely become states, ( I hope) but it does appear to becoming more of a reality, especially when you look at how much contempt the EU treat's it's member's sovereignty, which is an enormous amount.

The dejure perspective is the defacto perspective when it comes to the EU. Defacto there is no such thing as "The EU", Every EU Institution consists either of Member States representatives or people elected by the Member states. Saying the EU with is treaties is not respecting its MS will is, sry for that, pure bullshit. Every Treatie defining the EU and its powers had and has to be ratified in every single national Parliament. In all core issues there is not even the possibility to make decisions with majority vote, but all Member states have to agree together. I can go way more into detail on This if you want, but for now let me just say the following: The wide known Image of the Power hungry and mighty decision making EU could not be more far from reality, it was just found by (mostly populistic) politicans trying to blame someone else for their Problems.

[close]

Why do you deny your European Union? The EU is taking on the fundamentals of statehood. You have a flag, an anthem, a citizenship, common regulations across the union, you have a shared currency and a parliament. Along with a EU border force, EU passport and a EU trade policy.

To deny that the EU is heading towards a centralised union is simply inept. You can argue about how EU nation states will have certain prerogatives and rights but in future years they will erode.

I mean the state of Texas in the USA has a huge amount of autonomy. They can even have the death penalty something EU nations cannot have.

You can be proud of the EU or against it but to deny that the EU isn't increasingly becoming more like a state is plain wrong. The EU  are alre

52

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 04:33:08 pm »

You are using the title of world power like its nothing special, maybe because GB was considered the third World power in the cold war and your post Cold war media still clings onto these memorys of grandeur. But there is a great difference between you and real world powers
for me a world power is a absolutely dominant power in their sphere. USA and China are basically unrivaled by other nations, they can just strongman themself into any theatre if they wish and will be a major point of consideration when you do any international moves in the world
Neither of the European powers hold such power, an United EU could though (which is one of the reasons why i consider an Brexit complete bs and political suicide)
So basically you missed my entire point and dedicated an entire post to one sentence which just meant to demonstrate your wonky definition

Germany isnt a world power because we lack the naval power and political influence outside of europe yes. We are a regional power constrained to continental politics due to our geopolitical situation
Germany is basically an EU Hegemon, especially when we continue our political alliance with france since no EU nation can rival the power of Germany and france combined

what do you mean with "trappings of statehood"? Didnt you get the memo of European decline? None of the EU states will be a significant global player when we keep on thinking inside the old box of nationstates. Until 2050, if we still live as a human race, Africa and Asia will overtake Europe as centers of economic activity, heck, asian powers like India and China have already overtaken us without the public noticing it

"They can just strongman themselves into any sphere".

Not true at all. China has one aircraft carrier that was previously a Soviet Union carrier, which was acquired not too long ago. You can't get to theatres without a blue water-navy. Something the Chinese have only started to develop. Unlike the UKs two new freshly built carriers. Though China is developing it's own carriers.

China in the modern area has never left it's own region. So we have no idea what a Chinese foreign conflict would look like.

China and the US are superpowers not global powers. China has close allies aside North Korea. Unlike France and the UK.

53

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 04:08:37 pm »

The thing with Germany when it Comes to military is just: We  could do a lot, but we just dont want to. This has two main reasons: 1. Obvious historic Ones 2. Our participation in the NATO; German military has no need to be able to defend the Country on its own alone, because its Very unlikely we would be Attacked on our own alone. We are the 4. Biggest Economy in the World (our GDP is 1.2 billions higher Than the UK <3), we are the main payer in the EU, the most important trading Partner for dozens of countries, there are nearly 30 Million people in Germany theoretically being able to be put into military Service in case of war (while only about 22 Million in the UK). Just give us a reason and we would be able to go full scale Wehrmacht-Blitzkrieg again within a Few months. (The reason why i compare it to the UK is to Show that even though we dont practically are a World Power by kaides Definition, we could be easy.)

Exactly what I meant by a reluctant world power. However, as the EU continues to take on the trapping of statehood, we will soon talking of the EU as a superpower and Germany a mere state of the EU.

54

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 03:51:16 pm »

So your definition of a World power is tied to a permanent seat in the UN security council?
So Taiwan was a world power up until 1971?
So france, who has lost any major influence outside of Europe and Africa is a world power?
Germany isnt a world power because we dont have a seat and no Nuclear weapons (which will never be used in a major military conflict because of MAD-doctrine)?
Please show the me the academics with so fucking wonky definitions of such a heavy title

All major European nations (Russia, Germany, France, UK) are influential and powerful in their own rights but none of these hold so much Power and Influence in any regards to be considered a "World Power"
Only PROC and the USA are able to hold Hegemonic power in the 21st century

But France has  global influence that Germany lacks. It has the Francophone alliance and a global navy and overseas territories that Germany lacks. Not to mention France has historic allies in Asia, South America and Africa.

In theory, if France wanted to invade Sir Lanka or South Africa it could,. It has a modern aircraft carrier, and a large navy and airforce to support an invasion.

I wouldn't consider Germany a world power, you could argue that it is a reluctant world power I guess. Though it has a weak military for a nation of its size and and economic wealth.

Not to mention Germany doesn't even play a leading role in NATO and has often been accused of not "playing it's part".

Germany lacks close allies outside of Europe and few overseas. Meanwhile France and the UK have a military presence in many key theatres.

55

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 03:41:05 pm »

Many worry that Prince Charles will not follow this convention and that may cause a constitutional crisis.

Perfect description on the role of the monarch btw. I do not believe that Prince Charles would go against the convention of the largest party being invited to form a gov't but he may get himself in hot water by speaking too openly about matters, something which has caused him a tad trouble in the past.

Yeah the Spider papers being a key example. Though, incase anyone didn't know the Monarchy and royal family have strong privacy laws that except them for press scrutiny.

56

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 03:29:31 pm »

I dont want to Insult anyone, and i actually Think monarchy is a good thing for representative issues for a Country. Just like the Bundespräsident in Germany, just with some more Flair. But arent the Royals today more like a family-buisness with some Kind of "we make you more shiny" Deal with the british State? Thats at least what it seems like sometimes for outsiders.

The British Monarchy (apart from the period involving Cromwell) has over a thousand years of unbroken tradition. It is the centre of politics in the United Kingdom and a direct heritage to our foundations as a people, country and later an Empire.

Those who have studied UK politics know that the monarchy exercises huge political and symbolic power. The military swear to her their allegiance and upon my entry into the British Army I swore my allegiances to the Queen and her heirs not the government.

The Queen also maintains the UK's relationship with the Commonwealth as she acts as its head. Not to mention she is a rallying point to British, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders, and as I mentioned with Trump, millions of people with British ancestry have huge amount of respect for her.

The Queen is also Head of the Church of England, and head of the British state and defender of the faith. She has ultimate authority but has continued the 20th century practise of following the government that can command the majority in the House of Commons. Ultimately for a bill to become law the Queen must pass her consent and sign it. There theoretically the Queen could refuse any law she didn't like and even refuse to sign a bill that called for a republic.
The Queen could easily refuse to sign a declaration of war and has issued resistance in the past.

Also, as British custom, every week the Prime Minister must report to the Queen in person, and inform the Queen how he/she is running the country and there reasons for it. In this private audience the Queen has the opportunity to be  'consulted, warn and advice' her minister.

Many worry that Prince Charles will not follow this convention and that may cause a constitutional crisis.

57

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 03:08:26 pm »

Let’s face it we have a monarchy that’s only use is to be a public figure and basically be celebrities so I’m not exactly sure how we can be proud of our monarchy with the state that it’s in, next you’ll be saying that Britain is a world power that could rival Russia in a war coz please let’s face it Britain = America’s bitch.
Also, Boris isn’t very democratic after what he’s just done with the prorogation of parliament which is basically not allowing parliament to have a voice on brexit so the Tory’s can control what happens with brexit. Finally, I would argue that Boris and the Tory’s are just as bad as Corybn and Labour coz the prorogation is just as much of a move that a dictator would take as Corybns beliefs and actions are communist.

You clearly lack any depth or knowledge of the British monarchy role. I shouldn't justify this with a response because it is a piss poor analysis but I will anyway.

Now the UK is a world power. You know next to nothing about the topic. You don't just measure world power status based of military strength - which of course the UK has a strong military. You also measure it of diplomatic power, allies, soft power, economic strength and the organisations that the countries are involved in.

The 5 countries that are permanent members of the UN security council are all world powers. Which include the USA, UK, France, Russia, China - all of which have nuclear weapons.


You clearly don't know what a world power is. Most academics consider the UK to be a world power. Due to a combination of its nuclear weapons, to its leading role with NATO and the Commonwealth. The UK has a very close military relationship with France, the USA, Canada and Australia.

Furthermore, Russia spends nearly 4% of its GDP on defence which is double the UK's which is at 1.9%. However due to the small size of the Russian economy that is only 20% larger then the British budget despite commiting double its GDP.

If the UK decided to match Russias GDP expenditure of 4% it would be nearly double the Russian military budget. Trying to predict a war between the UK and Russia is stupid. Both countries have shown themselves to be nearly unconquerable at land and sea respectively.

The statement about the UK being America's bitch is just poor silly. Theres many examples where the UK refused American requests. Vietnam and the request for American to remove its huge UK nuclear stockpile being historic examples.

The UK and the USA share very similar values so naturally our interests nearly always align. We are a junior member of the relationship. But so is everyone so theres nothing unusual about that.

58

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 02, 2019, 09:49:26 am »

We can't forget the German nobility and royalty in their role in creating the German state. The German Empire had gone from strength to strength under Bismarck. Turning the German people into world leaders in industry, science and technology. The lessons of the German wealthfare state was studied by the British Liberal and Labour Party.

Alas, under the German Empire the German people were  united from a frictionless divided confederation to a united centralised state. The Monarchy allowed for a united German state. From Prussia to the Rhine.

 Its just a shame Austria wasn't included into the German Empire.

Austria even tried to rename itself "German Austria" after WWI but were forced to drop "German" by the Allies.

59

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 01, 2019, 10:45:24 pm »

Nah, im with you on the German pride thing but Monarchy is a failed and ancient system in our modern world. Fuck the hohenzollerns they are the reason why we "cant have" some german pride so why would i even think about giving them (symbolic) power

Well without certain nobles like Otto von Bismarck there wouldn't have been a modern German state.

60

Regiments / Re: 23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

« on: September 01, 2019, 08:57:06 pm »

kaide i dont think you realise that germans really dont care about some kind of royal heritage. i mean we still have some hohenzollerns around but aside from them being dicks and trying to sue the state for some free real estate no one cares about them
I mean cool for boris if he has some german royal blood, it really doesnt say anything about him or his ability of being a pm

I mean Von Bergen mentioned Trump having German hertiage so clearly some people believe it's worth mentioning leaders with German ancestry. Nah boys Germany needs the Monarchy back to instill some much needed German pride.


Then again Kaiser Wilhelm II was a clown so probs better not.