Brexit now leading by 10 points

I thought you agreed, that's why I negged you.

No, my comment was meant to convey that only people who didn't know the difference between the two documents needed the Civil War to settle the question.

Well, the EU is increasingly deleterious, and as much as I want to stick it to them, I don't see anything good coming of the UK leaving.

It creates further instability in Scotland.
It makes Germany and France (particularly Germany) far too powerful within Europe.
It weakens the EU itself on the international stage.
It damages the UK economy, and strengthens right-wing tendencies within the UK.
It re-establishes a major international border between the UK and Ireland.

The EU needs to be reformed from within. It has been on the wrong path recently, but the principle is sound.

If the UK leaves the EU, will Ireland be strong enough on its own to resist joining the Schengen Area?

Given how Schengen is currently being flaunted by almost all others, I'm not sure that arises immediately. It's probably the least of our worries given all of the trade we do with the UK.

I imagine that the UK would use a lot of rewards and punishments to make sure Ireland didn't join Schengen because otherwise the UK/Irish border would become a huge problem, not to mention the result of an influx of a million Middle Eastern and African Muslims into Ireland and the inevitable ban on the production and consumption of beer and whisky.

The border has always been there. The Common Travel Area would likely still exist since it has nothing to do with EEA free movement, and the UK would also likely be compelled to sign up to Schengen in the event of Brexit.

Why would trade cease?

Ireland should or would be one of the first nations that a bilateral trade deal could be agreed with in the event of Brexit.

If the UK doesn't immediately join the EEA or obtain a trade deal (which could take years) there would be a need for customs on the border and so forth.

Well yes, but that's a relatively minor issue considering that those border checks already exist to account for foreign nationals traveling through the CTA.

I didn't say trade would cease. I said that there is lots of it, and obviously there are some risks to that.

The border checks barely exist right now. I cross the border most days, sometimes more than once and I've never been stopped.
Any increase is unwelcome.

Sorry, that's not actually what I meant. It was phrased badly, but what I meant was that the immigration laws of the UK and Ireland apply respectively whichever side of the border you're on, so if you're in the UK as a foreign national with a visa and use the CTA to go to Ireland, you're then subject to the Irish jurisdiction and their immigration controls, and thus, in theory, could legally be denied entry if Ireland decided to put more staff on the border (and vice versa) and you didn't have a valid visa.

How would the EU compel the UK to join Schengen when Schengen is probably a big feature of Brexit people's darkest nightmares?

I've for remain, but I have been getting tired of the tale of doom from both sides. The fact is that due to the strength of the British economy globally it would not be that long before trade deals were done. In fact, in the event of Brxist, I wouldn't be surprised if France and Germany mooted the possibility of further treated reform.

I never said the EU would compel it. I believe circumstances would.

Daily Mail reading fools like you just suck up the soundbites. I'm trying to look at the issue beyond the spin.

I thought traveling to Britain and Ireland was handled like Disney World and Universal Orlando Theme Park. You get a package that covers both, often including Sea World and LEGOland.

You thought wrong. As usual.

And please, your "jokes" just aren't funny. They're painful to read.

Pretty simple. Want in on the common market? Sign here. No, we will not talk about this.

Switzerland had to agree too. They cried a lot. Then they saw that there are a LOT more advantages than disadvantages. Populist asswipes create panic and fear and advertise splendid isolation. Reality shows that openness works better. As I said, lie, lie and lie some more.

The future doesn't rest in the common market, it lies in the upscale market.

^ Always the same. Look at who votes for populist partys and you can just take this kind of charts, rename them and they'd still be correct.

But let's not make the mistake to lament those people's stupidity. That's the social classes who don't have a perspective. Who are being hit hard by automation, immigration and austerity measures. It's their way to try and defend themselves against the world. It's a less extreme defense than, say, joining the IS. But the thoughts behind it are the same. Fuck the world, it doesn't do anything for me and this is how I try and take what I want.

They never ever learn that they're just being playthings of power hungry people. Be it populist leaders, be it the upper IS echelon, there are examples from all over history. They are means for the purpose and/or cannon fodder. They are getting the shaft again but at least they might have a better gut feeling about it.

Most depressing post of the day! Too much inconvenient truth in it.

Western Europe would not lift a finger to help the Baltic States without the United States forcing the issue. Western Europe is mentally weak.

Eastern Europe would be more receptive to responding because they lived as slave states under the Russians. They know what the Russians are like and they fear that if Russia gobbles up the Baltic States the Bear would eventually turn it's hunger too them.

I do think the US would respond. Even Obama would have to respond as he would face tremendous pressure from the military, Republicans, and even Democrats who have enough sense to realize that if they don't respond then Russia might decide to make even more land grabs and walk us right into the WWIII door.

but responding in force can mean WW3 to. easily even.

I think we need to recognize that a Russian move in the Baltics would lead to World War III one way or another. We stay out, and Putin becomes more emboldened. It's one thing to argue regarding Ukraine that they aren't an ally and not a strategic interest. But that's no longer the case with a NATO member. Putin might see a need to be careful right now, but he won't see that at all if we limp wrist respond to a crisis in Estonia.

Direct Russian action in the Baltics is highly unlikely. They won't just roll in in force and take it because that would certainly trigger a response. If Putin tries something it'll be the Ukrainian hybrid tactic. There are sizeable Russian minorities in the Baltics and there is the enclave of Kaliningrad. Look out for 'unrest' among those 'ethnic Russians' (as Putin calls them and has vowed to protect from whatever). That'll be the sign.

This has two huge advantages: 1. A squabbling NATO can turn a blind eye and say it's an internal thing. It most likely will and this time there won't be a smoking gun. Secondly, such action poses no direct threat to any other country. The Poles might start to panick even more but a Russian incursion into Poland is best left to Tom Clancy novels. If the Russians wished for such suicidal action, they'd just roll through the Baltics. But for what? There's a more interesting route to consider:

I mean, watch out, Azerbaijan. Plenty of ressources there. Once that's gobbled up and brought home into the rodina along with little Armenia, it's a free ride through their friend Iran into the Middle East. Now take a look at a map. Armenia and Iran to the east, Crimea to the north and Syria in the south. Pissed off Kurds who want their own state in northern Iraq. Turkey seems kinda surrounded there, doesn't it.

Russians are chess players. Putin isn't stupid. If he wants more (land, ressources, whatever) he'll go south. In the Baltics or even in Poland, his end awaits. Central Asia? Who cares aside from the oil companies. The US won't risk a war for oil there and the Europeans will look away as usual. Sell it as an action against islamist terrorists and it's all good

Well, maybe. It is certainly part of the reason we are working toward warmer relations with Iran. But even in Central Asia, I could see a great powers deal that "gives" some of the oil rich former SSR states to Russia in return for better behavior in Europe. But I don't see Iran wanting a part in facilitating that. If anything, such a move by Russia would push Iran more toward a US détente, maybe even a quasi alliance as we had during the first phase of the Afghanistan war.

Why, we could have peace in our time!

They are fighting us with more boldness than they have since the Iranian revolution, so apparently the work isn't going well.