PDA

View Full Version : UK's only flying B-17 is grounded by EU Morons...



hotspace
05-09-2005, 07:19 AM
Don't know if this has been posted here already if it has I'm sorry.

http://sallyb.dcgservices.com/news_frameset.php

This world is run by morons and for the people who vote these pratt's in.........SHAME ON YOU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Hot Space

arcadeace
05-09-2005, 07:32 AM
Big Bro EU... knows best for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

han freak solo
05-09-2005, 07:49 AM
Why did the Lancaster get to fly then? Wouldn't they be in the same weight class? Or, did someone pony up the insurance money for the Lancaster anyway?

hotspace
05-09-2005, 08:08 AM
The Lancaster in the UK is flown by the RAF m8. They can afford it I guess or don't have to pay because it's under Military Authority.

Hot Space

CKY_86
05-09-2005, 08:13 AM
then why dont the person who owns sally b give her to the raf

T_O_A_D
05-09-2005, 08:17 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8641088713

hotspace
05-09-2005, 08:22 AM
I guess it had to be posted somewhere here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Hot Space

Aaron_GT
05-09-2005, 08:40 AM
Is it definitely an EU issue, or is it like the straight banana directive, just press puff with no basis in fact? Or is it an unintended consequence for which there may be now, or in the future, some exceptions?

JoachimvMayern
05-09-2005, 08:50 AM
What if a consensus was reached in England and every one in that country said to hell with the EU, we'll fly this anyways. Who the European regulators to tell someone about insurance, and what to fly? Screw em.

ploughman
05-09-2005, 08:58 AM
Now that would be rebellion Joachim, there's a directive against that sort of thing.

bazzaah2
05-09-2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by JoachimvMayern:
What if a consensus was reached in England and every one in that country said to hell with the EU, we'll fly this anyways. Who the European regulators to tell someone about insurance, and what to fly? Screw em.

Unfortunately civil servants here are doubtless rubbing their hands in glee at yet more EU regulations to enforce with all the diligence pedantry and lack of imagination that only the truly stupid can muster.

woofiedog
05-09-2005, 10:49 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif A sad day indeed! Can't you guy's over there write to your State Representatives or etc to change this!

Taylortony
05-09-2005, 12:07 PM
Fraid the CAA is no longer a governing body so they are powerless its some muppet in Europe that has done this.........

BTW this aint the only one i know of more that are grounding em

F4UDash4
05-09-2005, 01:32 PM
A consequence of ceding UK sovereignty to the EU.

hotspace
05-09-2005, 01:43 PM
They should take "Sally B" and bomb the hell out of the EU Commission in Brussels.....they might change their the stubborn minds then.

Hot Space

jeroen_R90S
05-09-2005, 02:54 PM
Any news on the French flown B-17? I've seen it last year on La Ferté Alais, but I assume it will be affected too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Jeroen

PBNA-Boosher
05-09-2005, 04:17 PM
If the EU will disrespect the people who helped form it, then I say they're out of league. Either replace the ungrateful Union, or get rid of it.

Atomic_Marten
05-09-2005, 04:27 PM
On the eve of the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the end of World War Two, new European regulations have grounded the UK‚‚ā¨ôs much-loved Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress, Sally B.

This is because of crippling new EU third party liability insurance requirements, based on aircraft weight, which have placed Sally B in the same insurance category as a commercial airliner. The effect is an increase in liability insurance of almost five hundred per cent, which is the equivalent of a staggering one thousand pounds extra per flying hour, on top of the already incredibly high running costs. But unlike a 737, Sally B operates for only twenty hours a year, is on a Permit to Fly, and can neither fly commercially, carry passengers, fly for hire and reward or fly over built-up areas.

I fail to see the problem. Other than money.

buffscrum
05-09-2005, 07:26 PM
Those of you in the UK are going to have a chance to do something about this really soon. If and when Blair has the guts to call a referendum on the new EU constitution, ignore the lies and scare tactics that are sure to come from Labor, and vote no. You've given more than enough of your sovereignty to Brussels as it is, and it isn't doing you any good.

darkhorizon11
05-09-2005, 08:13 PM
Ouch, thats right you guys are all one country these days I forgot.

Pirschjaeger
05-09-2005, 08:37 PM
Um, it's possible this issue was brought up at the last moment, before anything could have been done? Maybe the operators of "Sally" should have lookied into this at an earlier date.

Is it possible the high insurance rate is due to the condition of the plane? They were not built to fly 60 years later. Also, it seems every year some morons decide they have to fly these antiques at shows and therefor crash them. That doesn't help kep the rates down.

How would it look if "Sally" crashed into a large group of people durng a 60 year ceremony?

I think the information given in the article wasn't enough to decide who was a moron, if anyone. It seems some information is missing. Don't let the press lead you by the rings in your noses.

Fritz Franzen

Tooz_69GIAP
05-10-2005, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Um, it's possible this issue was brought up at the last moment, before anything could have been done? Maybe the operators of "Sally" should have lookied into this at an earlier date.

Is it possible the high insurance rate is due to the condition of the plane? They were not built to fly 60 years later. Also, it seems every year some morons decide they have to fly these antiques at shows and therefor crash them. That doesn't help kep the rates down.

How would it look if "Sally" crashed into a large group of people durng a 60 year ceremony?

I think the information given in the article wasn't enough to decide who was a moron, if anyone. It seems some information is missing. Don't let the press lead you by the rings in your noses.

Fritz Franzen

From what I gather from the info given on the site, Sally B is of a certain weight that places her in the same category as an airliner, and as airlines tend to have quite a bit of cash lying around to pay these crazy insurance premiums, it's no big deal to them, but to a privately owned 60 year old memorial aircraft, I can see how a 500% increase could cripple their operation.

You saw that the guy said that for every hour of flight time for Sally B costs them ‚£1,000 extra due to these premiums? That is getting close to around $1,900 USD or more, on current exchange rates. That's PER HOUR!!! That ain't chump change!!

The EU is a mess, and Britain is a mess, trying to adhere to two sets of laws, which are often in opposition to each other.

Take another regulation recently brought into effect regarding hunting, and more specifically the culling of deer in the UK. The EU has stipulated that it is illegal for hunters to shoot deer during the culling periods without the use of a silencer, as they believe that peoples heraring may be affected by the gunshots. BUT, it is ILLEGAL to use a silencer in the UK!! Therefore, the hunters who cull the deer in the highlands, and everywhere else are unable to do anything about it. And this will mean a major surge in the deer population, which will cause untold strife for farmers in the next year or so, because deer are a nuisance if left to grow to large numbers.

The EU sucks.

Tooz

Pirschjaeger
05-10-2005, 07:30 AM
ha ha ha, Tooz, although what you say is true, it's also very funy.

I cannot imagine how the E.U. will ever be complete, especially considering England. The idea of creating the EU is good but it's no small undertaking.

It kinda reminds me of IL-2 and it's evolution. Play IL-2 box version and you'll be amazed at how far it has come today. I'll be patient and wait for the patches to fix all the bugs in the EU(2 weeks) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'm not very good in American history but I have a feeling a similar situation was going on at the beginning, before the constitution was formed. Maybe Texas would have been what England was today? I don't imagine it was a smooth transition for the forming of the USA.

If I'm right about my comparison(I hope someone can help me)then maybe we can see a repeat of political history, only this time there are many more people involved.

I still cannot imagine how complicated it must be to complete the EU. I'lll stick to counting all the stars in the universe, I think it's easier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz Franzen

Aaron_GT
05-10-2005, 08:05 AM
BUT, it is ILLEGAL to use a silencer in the UK!!

For pest control it is legal to use a silencer in the UK. In fact the law in the has been changed to make it easier to obtain a licence for a silencer for deer control precisely to prevent deafness in shooters.

http://www.deerland.co.uk/html/fac.shtml

jeroen_R90S
05-10-2005, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I still cannot imagine how complicated it must be to complete the EU. I'lll stick to counting all the stars in the universe, I think it's easier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Fritz Franzen

hehe, Mikhail Gorbatschov said this some time ago, in regard to the new European constitution and the way it is organized:

'I am puzzled as to why the Europeans are trying to re-instate the old Soviet system of one Upper Soviet and sattelite states'

I think that says enough!

Jeroen

Aaron_GT
05-10-2005, 08:42 AM
Silencers are legal for hunting and when killing vermin. The UK law has been ammended to make silencers easier to obtain on firearms certificates precisely to reduce the potential for deafness in hunters.

Aaron_GT
05-10-2005, 08:49 AM
'I am puzzled as to why the Europeans are trying to re-instate the old Soviet system of one Upper Soviet and sattelite states'

It doesn't really compare to the Soviet system which had one dominant state and a number of satellite states. Whilst some nations in the EU have more clout, it is not really the same animal. The EU is more of a very loose federal system. Other federal systems include the USA, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, etc.

The reason why you'd want to have a federalised Europe is because it is an increasingly globalised world and relatively small countries will find it hard to stand up to this without banding together. Being part of the EU means trading of some sovereignty to Brussels but in the hope of gaining strength against these forces at a higher level.

This having been said I think the Commission has too much power. As to whether the Council of Ministers ot the Parliament should have more power it depends. The former makes it a collection of nation states, the latter explicitly more federal.

I wish the EU constitution could be a well written and relatively succinct document like the US constitution, though, not the tome it is.

JamesBlonde888
05-10-2005, 09:05 AM
Maybe Sal got banned because too many 80 yr old Berliners soil their trousers whenever someone mentions the word Fort or B-17. Lanc should be okay because they operated mainly at night.

reverendkrv1972
05-10-2005, 12:01 PM
It's not a bloomin' airliner LOL surely they can differentiate between the 2...
Its dreadfull to think I might never hear Sally B Purring past http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
It'll push airshow admission prices up,and mean people from the public putting their hands in their pockets for more cash to donate,whilst some fatcat makes even more cash than they need out of it.
When I used to visit Duxford (every airshow in the year)I always donated a bit towards keeping these aircraft up there...

I suppose now,If they we're remotely close to getting the Vulcan back in the Airshows,I'ts no doubt set that back about 10 years,or made it unfeasable.

not a good situation atall,Greedy Humans! Grrrr!!

Rev

|CoB|_Spectre
05-10-2005, 02:08 PM
While it is truly sad when such regulatory antics tread on the freedoms and pursuit of happiness of those denied, it is interesting to note one thing. That being, with all the negatives leveled at the U.S. over things like corporate trademarks, it just goes to show we Americans have no corner on the "stupid decisions" market. At least, so far, thanks to organizations like the Collings Foundation, the EAA, the Commemorative Air Force (formerly known as the Confederate Air Force) and a myriad of independent flying museums, we can still see these magnificent machines in the skies over the U.S. of A. I guess we each have our own brands of curses. We have a litigious society and you've got a growing regulatory body that seeks to uniformly codify everything that made you unique. Which one is worse?

Capt_Haddock
05-10-2005, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
It kinda reminds me of IL-2 and it's evolution. Play IL-2 box version and you'll be amazed at how far it has come today. I'll be patient and wait for the patches to fix all the bugs in the EU(2 weeks) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Same here. I'm convinced it's just a question of being patient. And the current Beta EU (will it be v1.0 after the constitution?) is not doing too bad considering that 60 years ago we were killing eachother... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's really sad for Sally-B, but I've got the feeling Brussels simply didn't know about these special cases. They certainly could have been more open-minded but I'm sure they'll find a solution once they are made aware of the implications for historical aircraft. After all, if one thing is strong in the EU, is the interest in preserving our cultural heritage.

http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19bannerh2.jpg

Pirschjaeger
05-10-2005, 07:19 PM
I agree Capt Haddock. I think it's was just an unseen formality that couldn'y be fixed in time.

In my honest opinion, and I know many won't agree, I would rather "Sally B" didn't fly. It's an important piece of history, and once it's crashed, it's gone. It seems every year we are losing these beautiful antiques.

Make videos, make replicas, do whatever, just don't fly them. My grabdchildren might want to see them in real one day.

Besides, everytime they crash one of these the insurance adjustors adjust the insurance rates, henceforth, this thread.

Fritz Franzen

depalmer
05-10-2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Ouch, thats right you guys are all one country these days I forgot.

The Antichrist lives in Brussels I swear.

hotspace
05-11-2005, 06:23 AM
No those are just the Mods here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hot Space

ClnlSandersLite
05-11-2005, 07:10 AM
I'm not very good in American history but I have a feeling a similar situation was going on at the beginning, before the constitution was formed. Maybe Texas would have been what England was today? I don't imagine it was a smooth transition for the forming of the USA.

If I'm right about my comparison(I hope someone can help me)then maybe we can see a repeat of political history, only this time there are many more people involved.

Ok, a bit of american history for you then...

Texas: Texas bacame part of the US long after the constitution. This is infact the case with 75% of the states (not an exact number). Most of the states in the US where unsettled/sparsly settled for quite some time after the federal constitution was ratified. Texas was in fact it's own country at one time. It fought mexico in a war of independance and won. A few years later the war debt became too burdonsome so texas merged with it's creditor (the united states of america).

While you where wrong about Texas, there is a fine example in history: The american civil war.

While it's popular belief that it was fought over slavery, that's honestly not the case. Basically, the federal government said "this is how we are going to handle the following issues:"

One of the largest of these was slavery, btw, this is where that misconception comes from.

Anyways, the southern states (many of which are the size of some european countries , don't forget) decided that the federal government had no business telling them what to do as they where (in their eyes) fully capable of making their own laws. The north then decided to restore order by force. The south again decided that the federal government had no authority to invade them, and so a war was fought.

So, if there is a crisis where a group of EU countries decides to say, "screw you guys, we're going home": (I'm willing to bet that would be eastern and western europe going at it) Watch for the more agressive side to deploy troops. If that happens, WW3...

Aaron_GT
05-11-2005, 07:45 AM
It's really sad for Sally-B, but I've got the feeling Brussels simply didn't know about these special cases.

Indeed. I suspect the legislation is intended to address adequate insurance for private aircraft and commercial passenger-carrying aircraft and it didn't cross anyone's mind that there were a few (and it is only a very few in this class) privately-owned large historic aircraft that fly. Mostly such large historic aircraft are managed by the commemorative flights of airforces and this one probably just fell through the net. Writing to the local MEP is probably the way forward.

Pirschjaeger
05-11-2005, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not very good in American history but I have a feeling a similar situation was going on at the beginning, before the constitution was formed. Maybe Texas would have been what England was today? I don't imagine it was a smooth transition for the forming of the USA.

If I'm right about my comparison(I hope someone can help me)then maybe we can see a repeat of political history, only this time there are many more people involved.

Ok, a bit of american history for you then...

Texas: Texas bacame part of the US long after the constitution. This is infact the case with 75% of the states (not an exact number). Most of the states in the US where unsettled/sparsly settled for quite some time after the federal constitution was ratified. Texas was in fact it's own country at one time. It fought mexico in a war of independance and won. A few years later the war debt became too burdonsome so texas merged with it's creditor (the united states of america).

While you where wrong about Texas, there is a fine example in history: The american civil war.

While it's popular belief that it was fought over slavery, that's honestly not the case. Basically, the federal government said "this is how we are going to handle the following issues:"

One of the largest of these was slavery, btw, this is where that misconception comes from.

Anyways, the southern states (many of which are the size of some european countries , don't forget) decided that the federal government had no business telling them what to do as they where (in their eyes) fully capable of making their own laws. The north then decided to restore order by force. The south again decided that the federal government had no authority to invade them, and so a war was fought.

So, if there is a crisis where a group of EU countries decides to say, "screw you guys, we're going home": (I'm willing to bet that would be eastern and western europe going at it) Watch for the more agressive side to deploy troops. If that happens, WW3... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx Saunders,

I did know about the war and the reasons. I knew Texas used to be a separate country. I just didn't know the details.

Interesting addition would be an old map I saw where Quebec used to be very big and stretch way down into the modern day states. Don't know the details though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What you mentioned about an east and west split in the EU, resulting in WW3, is interesting and IMHO would really depend a lot on the roles played by Russia and the US. The cold war is more or less over and as long as it stays that way, I don't think we'll see the possiblity of WW3 in our time. But I also imagine people had similar feelings after WW1. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Still, I think the difficulties of uniting the EU can be relatively compared to the uniting of the United States of America, only much more complicated and many more people. They'll be ok after a few patches. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz Franzen

|CoB|_Spectre
05-11-2005, 01:59 PM
One addendum to ClnlSanderLite's abbreviated history to underscore the fact that the U.S. Civil War was not fought over slavery, but rather, states' rights:

President Abraham Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" only outlawed slavery for those "states in rebellion". There were numerous "border states" (Union states bordering Confederate states) that allowed slavery, but Lincoln's famed document did not apply to them. The issue of emancipation did not become a focal point until about halfway through the war when stalemates caused many Union troops to consider going home and the President needed a moral imperative with which to rally the troops. Sorry if this wanders somewhat off topic, but you seemed interested.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-11-2005, 03:17 PM
I read about this in one of the aircraft rags at the weekend and forgot to post about it.

I dunno..it seems to be purely an insurance issue which is fair enough for the most part as it would cost a lot of money to mop up the bodies/wreckage should this aircraft come down on a populated area or motorway etc. That said, I'm no fan of the EU jobsworths either.

Best thing to do would be to give it the DM of the in-game B25. It wouldn't need any insurance then because it would be virtually indestructable.

Cheers,
Norris

cmw1980
05-11-2005, 04:28 PM
I think the time is coming to rise up and reject anthony blair and the e.u. Short of terrorism, there must be a way, and more effective than a peace protest.

Aaron_GT
05-12-2005, 03:27 AM
reject anthony blair

The chance for that was LAST week!

ClnlSandersLite
05-12-2005, 04:02 AM
Interesting addition would be an old map I saw where Quebec used to be very big and stretch way down into the modern day states. Don't know the details though.

I believe you are talking about north america prior to the lousiana purchase. All that land was owned by france but only really settled in the north and south (modern quebec and lousiana). Napoleon needed to pay for his wars in europe so he sold quite a bit of that for VERY cheap. In fact, I believe it was the cheapest land purchase (per acre) in recorded history. It is commonly believed that this is in large part due to napoleon's designs on north america after he had taken europe. Basically, he figured that he'd just swing on by after england and russia where finished and retake it.


Anyways, what we're seeing is the exact same thing. The EU is a fledgling Federal system. Right now, it's really pretty loose. In the next 100-150 years? It'll probably start getting pretty tight. Even to the point where the EU will be thought of as a nation and what are nations now will be considered to be akin to states/provinces. Believe me, if there is already this much flak about the EU, it's likely to only get worse. Hell, in this thread alone there are more than a few anti-EU sentiments expressed.

The simple fact is that once such a system starts getting tight, one group or another starts feeling left out. The reason I figure east/west in this scenario is the abyss between those two group's mentalities.

The question is: will it result in a departure like in the american civil war? If so, will the departure result in the deployment of troops.

Bo_Nidle
05-12-2005, 05:55 AM
This is another reason to get the UK the Hell out of Europe.

I can only imagine the anti-warbird lobby rubbing their hands as another piece of living history is reduced to a static exhibit to gather dust and be passed by by the uninformed with barely a glance.

I had the pleasure of being shown around the interior of "sally B" a couple of years ago. What a fantastic machine!

I saw a suggestion by someone about donating her to the RAF BBMF.The only problem with that is the BBMF is engaged in a constant battle for survival against being axed by "Blairs Junta" together with the Red Arrows!

Blair and his cronies have a 60's anti-establishment hatred for the Military,the Police,the Monarchy, in fact anything that reminds people of what this country used to be proud of.Thats why Rolls Royce is now German! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

The UK needs a referendum on staying in Europe now.But Blair knows he'll lose so he's fighting it!

Keep "Sally B" flying! We have enough lifeless relics in our museums!

By the way for the record: I am NOT European!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I am BRITISH!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Proud of what we once were but ashamed of what we have become!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Aaron_GT
05-12-2005, 08:27 AM
The options are:

1. Stay in the EU and get screwed one way.
2. Leave the EU and get screwed a different way.

Seriously, we have more chance banding together than being a small nation up against the rest of the EU, USA, China, and India.

I can't see that Blair is particularly anti-Establishment, having barely reformed the Lords, not done anything to the Monarchy, increasing police numbers, getting involved in two wars and wanting to introduce identity cards. Hardly loony-left hippie-liberal stuff. His policies are mostly those of the Conservative party.

With regard to Rolls Royce, it was privatised in 1987 by the Conservatives which left it at the mercy of the market. To have prevented BMW buying it would have been an example of old Labour government intervention.

bazzaah2
05-12-2005, 08:32 AM
leaving the EU would be daft. Mostly.

But we sure as hell need to do something about the Commission and all those gravy-trainers in the European Parliament. They are just a waste of money and time. All the EU needs to be is a single market, all this bureaucratic superstructure is just pure taxpayers money wasting b/s.

Aaron_GT
05-12-2005, 12:03 PM
But we sure as hell need to do something about the Commission and all those gravy-trainers in the European Parliament.

The Parliament is better than the Commission. At least the Parliament is opposed to software patents. An overall structure can be good in terms of fostering research and development that will help the EU economy as a whole. (e.g. A380) Does the EU need a lot of reform though? Absolutely - the Commission is insufficiently accountable, there is corruption and the CAP is a disgrace.

Sharkey888
05-12-2005, 03:16 PM
Back in 2001 I got to fly in the Colling's Foundation's B-24 "Dragon and his Tail". It was one of the most memorable experiences in my life. For a 45 minute flight it cost $350-which is tax deductible!

We were able to move into the nose turret, bombadier's station, between the pilot's, through the bombay, swing the side guns out the windowless gunner stations and go in the tail turret.

It would be a shame if future generations could not see these planes fly again!

Aaron_GT
05-13-2005, 04:26 AM
I'm trying to get my father-in-law the same sort of flight experience, but in a B17 (which his father before him flew with the 8th AF).

Pirschjaeger
05-13-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Interesting addition would be an old map I saw where Quebec used to be very big and stretch way down into the modern day states. Don't know the details though.

I believe you are talking about north america prior to the lousiana purchase. All that land was owned by france but only really settled in the north and south (modern quebec and lousiana). Napoleon needed to pay for his wars in europe so he sold quite a bit of that for VERY cheap. In fact, I believe it was the cheapest land purchase (per acre) in recorded history. It is commonly believed that this is in large part due to napoleon's designs on north america after he had taken europe. Basically, he figured that he'd just swing on by after england and russia where finished and retake it.


Anyways, what we're seeing is the exact same thing. The EU is a fledgling Federal system. Right now, it's really pretty loose. In the next 100-150 years? It'll probably start getting pretty tight. Even to the point where the EU will be thought of as a nation and what are nations now will be considered to be akin to states/provinces. Believe me, if there is already this much flak about the EU, it's likely to only get worse. Hell, in this thread alone there are more than a few anti-EU sentiments expressed.

The simple fact is that once such a system starts getting tight, one group or another starts feeling left out. The reason I figure east/west in this scenario is the abyss between those two group's mentalities.

The question is: will it result in a departure like in the american civil war? If so, will the departure result in the deployment of troops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's quite interesting. I wish I could fast forward to see what happens http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hey, thanks for the history lesson. I have so many things I'm trying to study now but so many more I want to learn. North American history is somewhere on the list. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen