@ peter

That is one thing I have never understood about Europe. Virtually no one in the UK believes that if the EU never existed we'd have been fighting wars on and off for the past 50 years. To me, and most of us, it seems a complete nonsense. The lesson of history is that democracies do not war with each other. It is the democratisation of Europe, not the EU, that has starved warfare from the continent.

Yes true democracies never fight wars against each other. I add the word "true" here since I am sure that someone will give some example about when a formally "democratically elected Putin" (or some other dictator) started a war against some other democratic state.

But to your question now. I claim the existence of EU and the general wish to join it has been one of the strongest catalysists in the democratisation of the European national states.

To join you must respect all kind of minorities, political, ethnic, sexual or whatever... You also had/have to make lots of political reform in order to fit as a member in this fine club of civilised nations.

EU have had enormous importance in the democratisation of Europe. That is my firm belief.

I dont see how you can accept his comment about democratism and ignore mine... Blair was a firm centre rightist, by the way...

But of course there is one obvious thing more that contributes to the peace in Europe the last 50 years. And that is the potential horror of the nuclear disaster that everyone also the soviets realised could happen if there was a WWIII. So EU cannot claim all the glory, but still quite a lot of it I think.

What rot. Democracies don't fight each other? I guess the 1912 elections in Germany were just for show then? How about the UK's two wars with America? Which of those countries wasn't a democracy in 1775 or 1812? If democracy is such a blessing for peace then why did democratic Britain fight alongside the European monarchies against democratic France in the 1790s? Why'd they fight the government of the elected Volksraad in South Africa in the late 1800s? Somebody also should tell the Lebanese that "democracies" like Israel would never fight them. And the elected government in Gaza sure was reassuring to Tel Aviv as well.

The usual tactic is for people to simply claim that such and such government wasn't a "true democracy" whenever the litany of exceptions is brought up. It's a bogus theory. Countries fight wars when it is perceived to be in their interest of fight wars. There tends to be periods of peace after major cataclysmic wars. Europe had two of them last century. There was also a prolonged period of peace during the era of European monarchism in the 19th century after the Napoleonic wars. Nuclear weapons made the thought of another Europe-wide war especially scary. This still didn't prevent Europeans from arming themselves to the teeth after WWII, despite the European Economic Community and "democratization".

Spain also fought a war with America in 1898. Spain had rotating prime ministers from the Liberal and Conservative parties and had implemented universal male suffrage in 1890.

You can be bloody irritating when you make a decent point, Putin. Still, I will maintain that democracies, especially established ones, are far less likely to war against each other than other combinations of nations.

"Europe had two of them last century"

Yugoslavia was pretty bad.

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but in response to Octavious, that's because democracies tend to be self-righteous and impose their will upon all those "dictatorships" you speak of.

Europe spent much of the last century fighting with the newly independent governments of the Third World, regardless of their form. Much like how in the 19th century they fought in the colonies rather than each other directly. Certain established democracies happened to be military allies after WWII, and the most powerful country in Europe has been constitutionally prohibited from any non-defensive military engagement.

@ Hellanic Riot

"Do you really think JC is campaiging all that hard to stay in? I think his hand was forced on the issue to stop a massive party split; with him and McDonnell seeing there being more important fights to win. But Labour's EU in campaign has been directed by others - Corbyn has been very half-hearted on the issue"

Jeremy Corbyn today has today said there was "nothing half-hearted" about Labour's campaign and said he would continue to make the case for membership in the run up to polling day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36039925

So... Are you wrong, or is Jeremy Corbyn lying directly to the people? And if Corbyn is lying to the people, why is he doing it and what makes him think he can get away with it?

"Labour Party members, supporters and fellow members of Parliament are overwhelmingly convinced that we can best make a positive difference by remaining in Europe" - Jeremy Corbyn

"Britain needs to stay in the EU" - Jeremy Corbyn

"The fact Labour are not campaigning either way is a good thing in my eyes" - KvoKB ;)

Well, my thoughts are that EU was useful before. But now it has fallen into decline, and unable to reform itself. The EU will be the cause of instability and social unrest, if it remains in place. Reforming it without breaking it up is not possible. Breaking it up will also likely lead to instability and social unrest. But I think that would be a lesser problem, than if EU is allowed to plough on in its current course.
Therefore, Britain should exit – as one step on the process for a fully reformed, or rather, rebuilt EU.

@Octavious

Taken him long enough though; hasn't it? Up til now he's been entirely in the background; focusing on the things that matter. I think he's a soft eurosceptic - his entire parliamentary history backs that point up. He's pretty on the fence on the EU. I think McDonnell is a lot more anti-EU but he's curbed that pragmatically to keep the party together. Both are Bennites; and Tony Benn was one the most outspoken people AGAINST joining the EEC & the EU in the 70s and 80s. Protectionists like myself are never really going to support an EU that is constantly striving to knock down tariffs for no reason other than the fact they're tariffs.

And there I was thinking Corbyn was part of a new era of straight talking honest politics, of principles above convenience. It is remarkable not only how quickly he has apparently returned to saying one thing whilst meaning another, but nowhere near as remarkable at how indifferent you are to the fact.

Here comes the new boss, just like the old boss.

Politicians need to be pragmatic. I never championed him because of that - I like him because of his policies and because he can shift the Overton window definitely leftwards in the UK with the biggest ideological shift since Thatcher.

You may not have valued that too strongly, but for many Corbynistas it is a really big deal. I rather liked it about him myself. With this and the awful tax return story in the Daily Mirror, it's not been a great week for him.

And yet... Latest YouGov/Times Polls

YouGov Times poll Lab 34 C 31 Ukip 17 LD 8 Other 11

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0e3b4904366ee2ada2874af92e58eecb10e7c7f0/0_0_748_637/master/748.jpg?w=700&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=762 159fb085862deeb1ce052b437e42

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/1cf5039f2b041e0f73700d6b74c1766d5125c340/0_0_774_646/master/774.jpg?w=700&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=adb666ce736775b20087a320ebcc7fbb

Been rather a trend of Labour taking the lead in polls lately; Osborne has been looking worse by the day, and Cameron's popularity has been plummeting too. That tax return story will be forgotten pretty quickly. Will Cameron's inheritance tax dodge or offshore company?

What inheritance tax dodge? Cameron has been shown in the clear, and the only people who seem determined to stay excited by the non story are the pigsex brigade. More importantly, Cameron doesn't intend to try and get elected in 2020. Corbyn does, and tax returns that show him to have zero savings despite earning more than most people dream of are a huge weakness on the financial credibility front.

Cameron's tax dodge is a non story but Cornyn is bad because he has no savings? Wow.

Corbyn

@ Putin

Does it not raise any eyebrows for you? The man has enjoyed an MPs salary for decades. I don't understand how it's even possible not to have savings in such a situation. If a member of my family was in the same boat I'd be horrified.

But if a member was a tax cheat you'd be fine with it?

I really think this is nothing but blatant party hackery. You're looking for whatver you can to bash Corbyn, so lets ding him for party discipline and not having savings, what on earth...its like conservatives are allergic to substantive critiques .

Cameron's not a tax cheat. He has done nothing to cheat the taxman. The tax system is designed to promote certain kinds of financial behaviour, and the way the Cameron family inheritance was handled was in keeping with that design. It is no more controversial than an ISA

"Cameron has been shown in the clear"
"Cameron's tax dodge is a non story"

'Scuze my ignorance but I'm not sure I understand? Technically, what was the difference between what Blairmore Holdings did and what Jimmy Carr did?

You seem to be missing the £300k 'gift' Cameron's mother gave to Cameron a few years ago ago so that as long as she didn't die within 7 years; it wouldn't be liable to inheritance tax.

@ Hellenic

You genuinely see that as questionable? Martin Lewis said an excellent piece about it which is well worth looking up. I see no problem whatsoever with the gift. It is part of our tax system's design.