Can it still be saved?

Can it still be saved?

Is there still hope?

Other urls found in this thread:

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1474587480730.webm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>hundreds of years ago
>south europe begins to be flooded with shitskins
>shitskin genes still seen to this day in iberia, greece and balkans
>even at the peak of nationalism in europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, they were still allowed to remain
>

Depends if you want a federal Europe or not.

If you do, then yes there is hope because that's what you're getting now that the UK is going to leave.

If you want a fairly loose union and want to retain your sovereignty, there is no hope for you now. Unless you leave. Which you won't.

In the long term, if the EU continues as it is now, then no.

The Euro was introduced in 2000 and for almost 17 years now we have been told "It's just about to collapse guys any minute now"

The collapse of the Euro and the EU is a meme

I want EU to turn into federation and have one federal gov't. Poles can't rule themselves - every next gov't is worse than previous, and now those stupid polacks elected literal communist party to rule this country.

>countries keep saying they are going to leave since its inception
>none never do

what exactly are you saving it from? it just grows in power constantly

Name a nation which can rule itself!

Success is a function of pure luck, not talent or hard work

It will work after UK politicians decide to leave.

Imagine leaders as stupid as our government, but being practically Olymp gods, the intouchables.

UK

How come it lost all its colonies save for a few isles here and there?

They developed into full fledged nations of their own. Some even surpassed our own. They still love us however. We're the only colonial nation not hated by its ex colonies.

I want EU to implement a common monetary policy and a common foreign policy.

So what you're saying is you want to be as rich/important as Germany?

hmmmm, fuck off

Reading comprehension in your native language shouldn't be a problem, yet you fail.

No fuck the EU and its bullshit I can't wait to see it crash and fall apart. I will feel so proud about the fact voting leave contributed to it.
>They developed into full fledged nations of their own. Some even surpassed our own. They still love us however. We're the only colonial nation not hated by its ex colonies.

Correction: We aren't hated by the ones we actually still give a shit about. I.E the anglo colonies.


Anglo union when?

He is an anglo.
They are not the brightest of chaps.

>Anglo union when?
Why would you want to be the 51st state? Just stay independent

Yeah.
If the Krauts of the Frogs want to be the leaders of this Union let them be but they have to be decisive.
The problems should be solved the moment they arise.
And most importantly this unions main goal must be the wellbeing of its citizens

Deutscher Bund, wann?

>Can it still be saved?
No
Is there still hope?
No

/Thread

>Anglo union when?
>England left so it can keep its sovereignty(this is the lies that anglos tell themselves)
You so funny.
Anglos are mentally deficient. Don't go looking for logic when there is none. What they want in their very small brains is to have an empire and to order everyone around.

Deutschland vond der Karte streichen, Polen soll bis Frankreich reichen!

It never had a chance to begi with tbqh

>make an EU thread
>it gets filled by butthurt anglo posters
Like clockwork.

Hopefully. As long as Germany stops trying to destroy it, things should be fine.

>thinking Germany would stop trying to destroy Europe

How naive!

>drop few nukes on germany
>few thousand nukes on sweden
>europe saved
what could possibly go wrong?

Drop a few nukes on Turkey too, they are the ones pushing the rapefugees towards us.

It could be saved but it won't be. The EU commission is so out of touch and power hungry it will eventually end I imagine.

Maybe people will vote for stuff like an EU army, I don't know. If they do they have only themselves to blame.

>i'm so anally ravaged as a result from rancorous envy because an island nation full of inbred wonky toothed retards were able to make scientific advancements, produce great works of art and literature, create music the world loves, and establish an empire. whilst i, a citizen of bulgaria — a country that's known for its fine men of erudition — has achieved nothing.

Seriously tho, every time I see a Bulgarian post here, the content is usually full of impotent rage against Britain.

You're a joke.
Your country is a joke.

Find something better to do with your time

doesnt turkey work very nicecly with bulgayria? last i heard your countr is sucking up to turkey

this
/thread

>We aren't hated by the ones we actually still give a shit about.

How about Cyprus?

Nope

Not really. Us acting politely so we don't anger their delusional dictator that we share a border with has nothing to do with working nicely.

And the moment the money the EU is paying them stop they will unleash the hordes in full force on us.

It is easy being on the inner side of the EU.
We are the ones that share a boarder with a muslim shithole filled with rapefugees, Turkey is barely hold together by it's crazy dictator.

And those shitstains in Russia and America are splitting up the oil in Syria.

>Anglo union when
In what sense?

i heard that turkey is taking back refugees from bulgaria for no money and its also not part of the EU deal

You heard wrong. They are giving them boats so now they are coming from the black sea too.

Could you remind me why we gave the Krauts complete control over the EU ? Also it should have stayed small (original 6 + maybe Spain and Portugal ) and only trade based, I dont understand why people are so wanting of a political union.

We didn't. The one who has the most money and the biggest industries also holds the power. Seems like It's a new kind of trade war.

Who said anything about America? Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a separated Britain with directly elected domestic parliaments and confederation parliaments and an upper house with equal representation from each state so no one over powers the others.


says one of the most useless irrelevant countries in the world who has to suck up to everyone else. Better lube up that arsehole the EU commission is coming for the remainder of your pride and sovereignty. Don't worry they will pay you like the whore your country is.

It is the same old trade war but in new clothes.
We need to start killing off the rapefugees btw.

no matter what you say i believe in our chancellor
we can do this

...

>How come it lost all its colonies save for a few isles here and there?

Wrong question to ask. The correct question is how the hell does a country with a small population and tiny army manage to rule over a quarter of the world's population in an empire so large that most of the soldiers maintaining said empire are not British?

A perfectly-governed country with double the population and an army triple the size couldn't sustain such an empire forever.

At any rate you wasted your post by bringing up the empire, which is totally irrelevant to how well the UK itself is governed. There's a good argument for the UK being one of the best-governed countries in the world during the period its existed (1707 to present day).

The blood will be purged

>t. France
>the 5th French Republic since 1792

UK existed since 1707 and has been conquered 0 times and the British capital and its governing institutions have never been overthrown by foreign or domestic forces

France was defeated in war and its capital occupied by foreign armies in 1815, 1871 and 1940. In addition it has experienced several revolutions by the people.

5 Republican constitutions, and reversions back to monarchy and empire.

And you are laughing at the UK's ability to rule itself?

Enjoy being ruled by fucking Belgium m8 lmfao.

No. Its establishment is way too firmly rooted and connected to today's politicians to be ever ousted and too indoctrinated and self-assured to ever consider changing.

The Brits had the right idea. Better leave and insipre others to do so too than stay and try to stem the tide of regulation and centralization from inside.

>are splitting up the oil in Syria

But there isn't that much to be had in the first place.

More like being ruled FROM Belgium BY Germany

Which is even more embarrassing

You just had your revolution and restoration (and conquest) earlier, that's all.

If you mean 1688 that was before the UK existed, in fact it led directly to the creation of the UK.

However it was not a revolution like the French one. The governing English institution of Parliament was strengthened and stabilised.

There's also the frequency of conquests and revolution. If you are counting 1688 then that's the last time something happened to change the governing English/British institutions in a non-incremental fashion right up until the present day.

Then look at all the things that happened to France between 1688 and the present day.

I fucking hope you were never conquered, georgie, you are on a fucking island.

Despite being surrounded by ennemies all the fucking time, France has the highest win ratio of all Europe so I think we're pretty ok.

>I fucking hope you were never conquered, georgie, you are on a fucking island.

Other countries can't build navies and join forces and attack us with them? Because that happened quite a lot. Being an island doesn't protect us being conquered. Look at a map and look at all the islands and work out how many were conquered in the last 200 years.

>France has the highest win ratio of all Europe

Only if you back almost 1000 years and count all the tiny medieval battles during a period when France had a MASSIVE population advantage relative to every other European country.

If you look at the last 300 years then the record isn't that great. From the 19th century to the present day, the French capital has been occupied by enemy troops THREE times.

This triggers the Frog.

>Other countries can't build navies and join forces and attack us with them?

No because Europe was never united and you did a good job at sabotaging any attempt to do so [spoiler]until now[/spoiler]

>Only if you back almost 1000 years and count all the tiny medieval battles during a period when France had a MASSIVE population advantage relative to every other European country.

Wow it's almost like if you change the way to count the result change

> From the 19th century to the present day, the French capital has been occupied by enemy troops THREE times.

And I think that's not half bad compared to the other continental countries. You english stay on your island with your navies, waiting to choose the good side when you're sure to win and you still want a fucking medal ?

Kek

>No because Europe was never united
Wow, you think you need all of continental Europe to unite to beat a small island? Actually you're wrong, other countries have joined forces to attack Britain's Royal Navy. For example, Spain and France and the Netherlands.

The Battle of Trafalgar was Spain and France vs Britain.

>And I think that's not half bad compared to the other continental countries.
It is bad considering France's population and wealth during that time.

>You english stay on your island with your navies, waiting to choose the good side when you're sure to win
Except that's not what happened. You're getting us confused with the USA.

Napoleonic wars, WW1, WW2, in all of them Britain was involved from the beginning to the bitter end.

>Multiculturalism

In fact if we "waited to choose sides" in WW1, France wouldn't even exist today because Germany would have beat you easily

Your knowledge of history is pretty bad

Being small has no importance when you have the navy and wealth to defend it. It's way more important when you have actual borders to protect

>It is bad considering France's population and wealth during that time.

Compared to what ? Germany became more populated than France during the 19th century with a lot of industry and they still got their asses kicked hard too

>Napoleonic wars

Kek, you literally didn't do jack shit except for defending yourselves and waited for the other powers to win on the ground

>WW1

You did pretty well, one can only admit

>WW2

If you forget you saving your asses at Dunkerque and abandoning us, yeah I guess

>n fact if we "waited to choose sides" in WW1, France wouldn't even exist today because Germany would have beat you easily

How ? The major war changing battles were won by France. The german offensive was stopped at the Marne in 14 and again in 18, with the big battles of Verdun and the Somme in between, mainly fought by France. You did fairly good for the numbers of troops you sent but the percentage of front you held was small. No what was the biggest contribution of UK in WWI was the naval blocade on Germany, which made them suffocate hard

>It's way more important when you have actual borders to protect
We have borders to protect. They're surrounded by the sea but they exist.

I don't get it, you're contradicting all the stuff you said earlier. You're admitting the importance of the British naval contributions when earlier you mocked it as "staying on your island".

You said we waited on our island until we were sure what side would win, when in both of the World Wars there was a British Expeditionary Force dying to defend French soil in the early days of the war.

You apparently don't think that Britain made a meaningful difference in WW1 and then you acknowledge the blockade.

I'll spell it out for you. Britain not taking part in WW1 means NO ROYAL NAVY to blockade the Germans for you. It means no British land army numbering 4 MILLION SOLDIERS at its height fighting in France and other places

You would have lost, no doubt about it.

It will probably exist for some time to come and more then likely federalize with in the the next 2 decades.

That being said without the UK in its not going to be really relevant outside its own sphere and probably more then anything be used as a tool for the US to force down unpopular "trade agreements" and "treaties" the whole of Europe at once without having to go through each individual government. Its a lot easier to lobby a handful of policy makers then a majority of parliament in a dozen countries.

Regardless of what happens it will all be good for Germany.

>4 MILLION SOLDIERS at its height fighting in France

Source on this. Because the BEF made only 70 000 men in 1914, user.

And since it seems you have trouble with what I'm saying, it's simple. UK did good during WWI but it was not on ground, the naval blocade was your biggest asset and contribution and it worked well.

Ever since the hundred years war, britain has always focused itself on the oceans rather than the continent and it worked. You always backed out the weaker dogs on the continent to avoid having a unified Europe against you and it worked.

YET, you've been essentially staying on your islands all this time. You never tried to expand in Europe again, and intervened only when it threatened your long term existence. You only stayed with France during the world wars because Germany unified in 1971, making you spill your tee when you realized the balance has changed.

You are wrong, we always focused on the Continent AND the Oceans. It was never one or the other except for a very short period of history when Britain was very powerful and got complacent, this was "splendid isolation".

The most obvious example that proves you wrong is the Battle of Blenheim and the War of the Spanish Succession. But in all the big Continental wars there was an English or British Army fighting somewhere on land.

You wanted more information on the British Army in WW1:

>Together, they formed the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), which was formed for service in France and became known as the Old Contemptibles. The 'second' army was Kitchener's Army, formed from the volunteers in 1914–1915 destined to go into action at the Battle of the Somme. The 'third' was formed after the introduction of conscription in January 1916, and by the end of 1918, the British Army had reached its maximum strength of 4,000,000 men and could field over 70 divisions. The vast majority of the British Army fought in the main theatre of war on the Western Front in France and Belgium against the German Empire. Some units were engaged in Italy and Salonika against Austria-Hungary and the Bulgarian Army, while other units fought in the Middle East, Africa and Mesopotamia—mainly against the Ottoman Empire—and one battalion fought alongside the Japanese Army in China during the Siege of Tsingtao.

Size of British Army over time

The maximum number of troops the british army reached in WWI was 2000 000 men in France and and Flanders. 4000 000 is the number of people having served during WWI

Remember what we were saying about the way to count things ?

>we always focused on the Continent AND the Oceans

Britain was never a continental player before the 17th century, with the exception of the hundred years war, and even then, your continental game always consisted in preserving the balance of power instead of trying to conquer all of Europe, which was the natural goal of the continentals

Are you trying to say that the only way to fight against the Germans in WW1 was by fighting in France? Do you not understand that it was a WORLD war with multiple theatres of conflict? Do you think the only place the Germans were attacking was France?

>Britain was never a continental player before the 17th century,
The UK didn't even exist before the 18th century, so what's your point?

>your continental game always consisted in preserving the balance of power instead of trying to conquer all of Europe
So the only fighting that counts, according to you, is fighting that aims to conquer all of Europe? That's fucking stupid.

You've gone from saying that Britain did nothing except for "wait on its islands", to conceding that British naval and land contributions actually mattered, but you're pretending that they don't count because we never bothered trying to conquer Europe. You are so dumb.

The British Army by 1918 was actually the largest land army in the WORLD and you're saying that Britain's land contribution wasn't a big deal. They invented the fucking tank for fuck's sake.

>Do you think the only place the Germans were attacking was France?

Well, and Russia but they got their asses kicked fast. Also the colonies but it was negligible

>The UK didn't even exist before the 18th century, so what's your point?

And English people didn't exist before either ?

>So the only fighting that counts, according to you, is fighting that aims to conquer all of Europe?

No, I'm saying you rarely ever fought to protect yourself because you're on an nice island with a solid navy, in a good corner of Europe

>You've gone from saying that Britain did nothing except for "wait on its islands", to conceding that British naval and land contributions actually mattered

The biggest concession I've made is on WWI, but if you want to warp what I'm saying to suit your opinions, go for it

>The British Army by 1918 was actually the largest land army in the WORLD

Yeah with a huge part of it in the colonies, big fucking deal

The council od Europe seems to be OK to me. But the organisation that stolen their flag might collapse.

>none never do

>And English people didn't exist before either ?

Scottish people existed too but I thought we were talking about the UK which didn't exist before that point

>No, I'm saying you rarely ever fought to protect yourself because you're on an nice island with a solid navy, in a good corner of Europe

Are you fucking kidding me. The only reason the navy is "solid" is because other European navies kept trying to destroy it so they could invade Britain, which WAS regularly invaded before the island of Britain unified politically. You seem to think that only land battles are important? For an island nation it's the naval battles of which there were MANY. If the Royal Navy loses badly then the UK is finished, it's a simple fact that you can't understand.

>The biggest concession I've made is on WWI, but if you want to warp what I'm saying to suit your opinions, go for it

We can talk about other wars? Napoleonic wars? World war 2? The Seven Years War? Austrian Succession? Spanish Succession? In none of these did the British or English just wait on our islands.

>Yeah with a huge part of it in the colonies, big fucking deal

Most was in France and Belgium. Most of the rest was fighting the Ottomans in Mesopotamia and against the Austrians in central/eastern Europe. Victory in both those places was vital, you just don't care because it's not France. But it was really important to put pressure on Germany and surround them.

Definitely was a "big fucking deal", especially the millions in France, without which you would have lost badly

>Sozialistische Räterepublik

I mean do you have ANY IDEA what would have happened at Verdun if it wasn't for the offensives at the Somme?

>muh UK

>Britain, which WAS regularly invaded before the island of Britain unified politically

I thought the last time Britain was invaded was in 1066 with Guillaume le conquérant ?

>For an island nation it's the naval battles of which there were MANY

Well no shit we've been talking about britain being a naval power since the beginning, were you not following ?

>For an island nation it's the naval battles of which there were MANY

We already did user, but usually it's the same tactics: waiting for the decisive hit to avoid too much fights on the ground

>Most of the rest was fighting the Ottomans in Mesopotamia

You mean the shadow of its former self empire who was on the verge of collapse for decades before the war ?

>But it was really important to put pressure on Germany and surround them

Well technically they were not surrounded anymore after they beat Russia, that's why the blocade was important.

>especially the millions in France, without which you would have lost badly

Men who were not there at the beginning of the war when the offensive were the most important

You mean the offensive where the majority of the troops were french ?

The one where the brits walked calmly to the german chainguns ?

I bet many people supporting Farage and Brexit happily used this picture not realizing its point

>I thought the last time Britain was invaded was in 1066 with Guillaume le conquérant ?

That's the last time it was conquered. The last time it was INVADED was technically in 1688 by the Dutch, despite how King Billy was invited by Parliament and how it increased English power and permanently destroyed Dutch power, it still counts as an invasion. Also the French invaded a few times in the 13th century, these invasions failed but they are still invasions.

>usually it's the same tactics: waiting for the decisive hit to avoid too much fights on the ground

But that's not Britain's tactics. Britain's land forces are usually involved early, such as the BEFs in both world wars. What's different is that they are SMALL land forces. Usually. Sometimes when there is no choice Britain has to field big armies.

In the Napoleonic wars, for example, the British army was constantly fighting in Portugal and Spain throughout the war, even when the Americans invaded Canada.In the War of Spanish Succession, Marlborough led the English/British armies all over Europe fighting the French.

>You mean the shadow of its former self empire who was on the verge of collapse for decades before the war ?

Yes, that one. If you think the British contribution there was worthless, it's a shame you can't experience the alternative history where there was no Britain there and the Germans were constantly importing supplies from the Middle-East to bolster their armies against France.

>Men who were not there at the beginning of the war when the offensive were the most important

The war went on for 4 years. Why was it necessary for Britain to do conscription for the first time in the history of the UK in 1916? If the French Army was sufficient to handle the Western Front, it wouldn't have been necessary.

The majority were not French see pic

>The one where the brits walked calmly to the german chainguns ?
Yes, that one

My bad I meant half of the troops. "Only" a third, my bad.
The Somme still started awfully bad for the brits and the French had to send this support, so half of what you had, to help you get out of the shit.

>What's different is that they are SMALL land forces
>our focus is continent AND ocean
>small land forces

Ok user

16.10.16

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1474587480730.webm

16.10.16.

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1474587480730.webm

16.10.16.

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1474587480730.webm

France rules the EU a lot more than Belgium (or le evil Brussels) does, because of their larger population. It's called representative democracy and the EU does that very well. But it's not surprising that a country with an unelected upper chamber (house of lords) and a retarded FPTP system couldn't recognize an actual democracy if they saw one.

>The Somme still started awfully bad for the brits and the French had to send this support, so half of what you had, to help you get out of the shit.

Uh huh, yes. But the French could not have done this huge offensive on its own. The entire point of the Somme was to take pressure off Verdun. Half a million British Empire casualties to make sure the French weren't overwhelmed at Verdun. Do you honestly, *honestly* think that the France could have held the line by itself? The German army was too big, they would have won.

>What's different is that they are SMALL land forces
>our focus is continent AND ocean
>small land forces

Nothing contradictory about that. A small, quality force in the right place under good leadership can make all the difference in the world.

Just look at Blenheim. The mostly English force, led by Marlborough, was the difference between total French domination of the Continent and French defeat.

>In February 1705, Queen Anne, who had made Marlborough a Duke in 1702, granted him the Park of Woodstock and promised a sum of £240,000 to build a suitable house as a gift from a grateful crown in recognition of his victory – a victory which British historian Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy considered one of the pivotal battles in history, writing – "Had it not been for Blenheim, all Europe might at this day suffer under the effect of French conquests resembling those of Alexander in extent and those of the Romans in durability."[96]

Proportional representation is a bad idea.

What it does is either put a grand coalition in power forever or give ridiculous amounts of power to extremist fringe parties by turning them into king-makers.

Other times, it's just impossible to form a government for years because the system becomes so fragmented.

If the Poole isn't posting about butthurt then he is surely praising cuckoldry in some form.

>hope
fuck the eu

>Can it still be saved?

no

>Is there still hope?

No.