IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Sovereign State vs Federal State, Which is bestist?
Andy Capp
post Jul 12 2016, 07:17 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,883
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I see some argue for either, but what would you say are the pros and cons?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Jul 12 2016, 07:34 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,030
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 12 2016, 08:17 PM) *
I see some argue for either, but what would you say are the pros and cons?


Sovereignty. Control over currency and border control. No brainer for me. Others may prefer the federal option of being ruled by Germany by the EU. Cos whether people want to believe it ir not Merkel is the leader of Europe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 12 2016, 08:32 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 12 2016, 08:17 PM) *
I see some argue for either, but what would you say are the pros and cons?

The UK is of course a federation of states already with a degree of power and autonomy delegated from the UK federal government to the constituent state parliaments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and within England other powers are devolved down to local government. We are also already in a federation of sorts with the European Union in that Directives control matters such as employee rights, environmental protection, state subsidised industry, health and safety, consumer rights, and civil rights.

If the question is one of the pros and cons of formal federation with Europe you have to specify the terms of that federation because a federated Europe could look exactly as it does right now with no additional powers ceded to the federal government.

So having a guess at what might change:

A federated Europe might well organise defence at a national level. That's not really much different from now because our membership of NATO already obligates us to defend our NATO allies as we would the UK itself, and as the rest of Europe are generally more reticent than the UK to use military aggression we might not kick quite so many hornets nests if the UK military was under the supreme control of the European Federation. It would be good to think that a European Federation would also unilaterally put its nuclear weapons beyond use.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Jul 12 2016, 08:46 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,030
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 12 2016, 09:32 PM) *
The UK is of course a federation of states already with a degree of power and autonomy delegated from the UK federal government to the constituent state parliaments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and within England other powers are devolved down to local government. We are also already in a federation of sorts with the European Union in that Directives control matters such as employee rights, environmental protection, state subsidised industry, health and safety, consumer rights, and civil rights.

If the question is one of the pros and cons of formal federation with Europe you have to specify the terms of that federation because a federated Europe could look exactly as it does right now with no additional powers ceded to the federal government.

So having a guess at what might change:

A federated Europe might well organise defence at a national level. That's not really much different from now because our membership of NATO already obligates us to defend our NATO allies as we would the UK itself, and as the rest of Europe are generally more reticent than the UK to use military aggression we might not kick quite so many hornets nests if the UK military was under the supreme control of the European Federation. It would be good to think that a European Federation would also unilaterally put its nuclear weapons beyond use.


You make a reasoned argument Simon. Personally I have a problem with giving up a deterrent that has kept us out of another world war without discussing it with other Nuclear powers. Especially with Putin at the helm in Russia. Unilateral disarmament although a decent thing to do would put us in a very weak position.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 12 2016, 09:34 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 12 2016, 09:46 PM) *
You make a reasoned argument Simon. Personally I have a problem with giving up a deterrent that has kept us out of another world war without discussing it with other Nuclear powers. Especially with Putin at the helm in Russia. Unilateral disarmament although a decent thing to do would put us in a very weak position.

Nuclear weapons have been a deterrent, but only just. We've taken a step back from the brink, I'd like to see us take a few more paces still. I don't see that as weak, I see it as pragmatic and conciliatory.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
x2lls
post Jul 12 2016, 10:22 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,597
Joined: 25-November 09
Member No.: 511



A European federation does not give us the chance to get shot of those at the top, whereby the UK 'federation', as you put it does.


--------------------
There their, loose loser!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Jul 12 2016, 10:56 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,404
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 12 2016, 10:34 PM) *
Nuclear weapons have been a deterrent, but only just. We've taken a step back from the brink, I'd like to see us take a few more paces still. I don't see that as weak, I see it as pragmatic and conciliatory.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick".Good advice, ,Corby should heed it.


--------------------
QUOTE (newres @ Jan 25 2019, 06:47 AM) *
Isn’t it obvious? She's just an uppity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 12 2016, 11:19 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



Soverign state v Federal state is meaningless - a Federal state is a sovereign state. The issue is somewhat different - would we be better or worse off as a region in a larger state or as we are (and as the EU accepts we will stay).

Today we live in an increasingly federalised state with 4 distinct regions, 3 with regional governments - it's not perfect, but it's not so bad. Nor would a federal European state be so bad. We'd have different people in charge, but they wouldn't be so different from the lot we have at present. Who would I rather have in charge - Merkel or May - it's a bit early to tell about May but if I had to vote today I'd opt for Merkel.

People talk about getting back sovereignty - so we can decide, as if we ever get to decide.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 12 2016, 11:23 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (x2lls @ Jul 12 2016, 11:22 PM) *
A European federation does not give us the chance to get shot of those at the top, whereby the UK 'federation', as you put it does.

There is no European, but if there was and we were in it would be run by a federal goverment elected by the people of the federation - we'd have regular chances to 'get shot of those at the top'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Jul 13 2016, 05:10 AM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,028
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 12 2016, 10:34 PM) *
I'd like to see us take a few more paces still. I don't see that as weak, I see it as pragmatic and conciliatory.

That's all very well but it MUST be unilateral.
How that can be achieved all encompassing question to which no-one has yet found the answer.
For one major nuclear power to disarm would create a dangerous imbalance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 13 2016, 08:55 AM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jul 13 2016, 06:10 AM) *
That's all very well but it MUST be unilateral.
How that can be achieved all encompassing question to which no-one has yet found the answer.
For one major nuclear power to disarm would create a dangerous imbalance.

Unilateral is simple - just get rid of Trident.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 13 2016, 08:56 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



Duplicate
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 13 2016, 10:01 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,883
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 13 2016, 09:55 AM) *
Unilateral is simple - just get rid of Trident.

I guess he meant multilateral.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post Jul 13 2016, 11:18 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 13 2016, 09:55 AM) *
Unilateral is simple - just get rid of Trident.


You think that Trident is our only nuclear weapon...?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 13 2016, 12:39 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Jul 13 2016, 12:18 PM) *
You think that Trident is our only nuclear weapon...?

You think it isn't??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 13 2016, 03:15 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,883
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Jul 13 2016, 12:18 PM) *
You think that Trident is our only nuclear weapon...?



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 13 2016, 01:39 PM) *
You think it isn't??


Wiki says: "The UK is thought to retain a stockpile of around 225 thermonuclear warheads, of which 160 are operational, but has refused to declare the exact size of its arsenal. Since 1998, the Trident nuclear programme has been the only operational nuclear weapons system in British service."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 13 2016, 03:40 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 13 2016, 04:15 PM) *
Wiki says: "The UK is thought to retain a stockpile of around 225 thermonuclear warheads, of which 160 are operational, but has refused to declare the exact size of its arsenal. Since 1998, the Trident nuclear programme has been the only operational nuclear weapons system in British service."



I wonder if they are stored in West Berkshire, we aren't very good at counting important things..


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 13 2016, 04:28 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jul 13 2016, 06:10 AM) *
That's all very well but it MUST be unilateral.
How that can be achieved all encompassing question to which no-one has yet found the answer.
For one major nuclear power to disarm would create a dangerous imbalance.

Not really. For starters Blighty isn't a major world power and of all of the nuclear states our unilateral disarmament would hardly raise an eyebrow. Much the same with France. If Israel were to disrm that might potentially embolden Iran, though of all the nuclear powers I worry most that Israel would use them. India and Pakistan are also worryingly bellicose and I'm not sure that now would be the best time for one of the to unilaterally disarm. America could certainly disarm without destabilising anything, as could China and Russia - I don't believe they face any potential aggressor for whome nuclear retaliationis a deterrent. If South Africa hss nucs I have no idear why and they certainly don't need them. That leaves North Korea who may possibly have a weaponised nuclear war head, and while I think the US would like to invade I'm not sure they're crazy enough to provoke the world's largest standing army and their Chinese allay.

So for Blighty then I see nothing at all to be gained by keeping Trident as it provides no deterrent to any credible aggressor and all the while we have it attracts hostility and raises tension that is wholly unhelpful.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Jul 13 2016, 05:16 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,028
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 13 2016, 11:01 AM) *
I guess he meant multilateral.

I did.
It was a bit early in the morning! wacko.gif rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 13 2016, 05:32 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,883
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 13 2016, 05:28 PM) *
Not really. For starters Blighty isn't a major world power and of all of the nuclear states our unilateral disarmament would hardly raise an eyebrow. Much the same with France. If Israel were to disrm that might potentially embolden Iran, though of all the nuclear powers I worry most that Israel would use them. India and Pakistan are also worryingly bellicose and I'm not sure that now would be the best time for one of the to unilaterally disarm. America could certainly disarm without destabilising anything, as could China and Russia - I don't believe they face any potential aggressor for whome nuclear retaliationis a deterrent. If South Africa hss nucs I have no idear why and they certainly don't need them. That leaves North Korea who may possibly have a weaponised nuclear war head, and while I think the US would like to invade I'm not sure they're crazy enough to provoke the world's largest standing army and their Chinese allay.

So for Blighty then I see nothing at all to be gained by keeping Trident as it provides no deterrent to any credible aggressor and all the while we have it attracts hostility and raises tension that is wholly unhelpful.

Yes I think the UK could get rid of its arsenal without affecting its security, but it seems unfair to leave it to others to give us a nuclear shield; however, it's that 'could' word (in bold type) that undermines your argument. Replace it with 'have', then you might have a better argument, but who's to say the world would be more peaceful with larger multilateral conventional armies carrying no nuclear threat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 7th December 2019 - 02:19 AM