Witzkatz wrote:I'm guessing the points "without internal borders" and "cohesion and solidarity" could be seen as code for "ever closer political union", but it's a stretch to me to see this as a mission statement that is a "clear threat" to sovereignity and independence.
On the other hand there's the "respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity" part (that you mentioned) that's about keeping local or regional culture alive. I think the EU even protects some local foods against copycats and helps financially with upkeep/restoration of historically important buildings (that would otherwise not survive), stuff like that.
welshhoppo wrote:It might be different on the mainland.
At least that the way I've heard it.
Can any Europeans comment on it? I'm legitimatly curious. How often will someone respond with I'm European rather than their nationality. Or their local nationality I.e Welsh or Barvarian?
The only people I know of who attach importance to "European values" as a singular thing are US based alt-right/Neo-Nazi doofuses who think there is some sort of white homogeneous culture or identity in Europe instead of hundreds (or thousands?) little groups that sometimes made alliances but were, until recently, regularly very angry with each other.
Personally it's "German" when talking to people outside of Germany and "Bavarian" when talking to people inside of Germany but outside of Bavaria, and "Münchner" to people inside Bavaria but outside of Munich, and so on.
Witzkatz wrote:On the other hand, I have met tons of Germans happily engaging in semi-friendly rivalry between Bavaria, the North, West and East and whatnot else.
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.
The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?
Well that's personal opinion, hence why we are arguing over it.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does.
I disagree, it should be considered 'deferral' rather than 'primacy'. A lot on the Leave side point to that EU courts hold more power than UK courts, but they do not (and get bees in their bonnet about how we hence don't have control). But the reality is you can't have an international set of laws and have decisions made at the state level as that leads to different interpretations across the EU which is against the principles that these laws apply equally across the different states. All they do is make decisions on EU law. The UK courts are bound to UK law which for some areas transcribes EU law. The UK is meant to implement EU legislation directly and Directives indirectly (in how the UK sees fit). However that can leave issues in how it is interpreted. The ECJ then makes judgements on the interpretation of EU law which can then apply to all states. the reason that the ECJ is usually the last to be called on for certain aspects is because of the relation of EU law to UK law. As I've pointed out the ECJ does not have deferral rights on things like burglary because there is no EU legislation or directives on such things.
It is also not like that there aren't other international courts and laws that we also defer laws to (e.g. the Hague). That is because they deal with issues that are wider than individual countries. Yet out courts also defer certain decisions in that regards. From some of these arguments put forward about 'primacy' these same people should also be arguing that we leave the international court of justice, but there is no mention of this. Hence it is just another 'excuse' to leave the EU without really detailing why. There are no examples that have been provided as to why the ECJ is a bad idea. I can put forward a recent example on UK surveillance laws that effectively allows the government to access everything you might do regardless of whether there is any suspicion or not. It was deemed illegal by the ECJ due to EU law. This was a good decision for the populace - yes there are bad people out there but mass surveillance is not the solution and reduces the ability of any individual to run their life privately (and lets face it the Tories are likely to start using the information for other things). However I have yet to see someone come forward with an example of why the ECJ is a bad idea and should be opposed.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
Then you would agree then that the Wrexit vote actually means nothing and was advisory only and the MPs should have decided (and should always have been decided) about the EU (and not a daft politically motivated referendum).
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.
The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?
Well that's personal opinion, hence why we are arguing over it.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
I think this illustrates the problem quite well. Folk are getting a bee in their bonnet about being asked the same question but the answer to it is always insufficient. The answer to 'why does it matter if the ECJ can overrule British law?' is simply 'because our parliament should be sovereign'. That's not an answer to why unless you set out why our parliament's sovereignty is the priority, and how exactly our parliament's revocable decision to adhere to another authority constitutes a loss of sovereignty.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Marr: "What was Zaghari-Ratcliffe doing in Iran?"
Gove: "I don't know"
How can Gove go on Andrew Marr without being briefed on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliff? Genuinely astounded. But hey, it's a fitting day for a British government to keep chuckling its citizens under the bus, eh?
Exactly. We're trying to understand *why* it's actually an issue. We know leavers think it's a problem.
As I see it, the minor loss in sovereignty is just something you need to do in order to be part of a bigger relationship. The only things we defer to the eu on are the things that are required to provide the level playing ground for a free trade bloc. Environment, safety, workers rights and contract law.
The other thing is that to maintain access to this massive market we're going to have to adhere to their standards anyway. So leaving loses us more sovereignty than we gain. At least in the EU we can help set the standards.
When I got married, I lost some amount of personal sovereignty; what I do on my days off, what I have for dinner, how long I can get out of a pair of underwear. Do I mind? Hell no; the tiny loss us nothing compared to the gains.
Herzlos wrote: Exactly. We're trying to understand *why* it's actually an issue.
I think that you will never obtain what you feel to be a satisfactory answer, primarily because you have different preferences and priorities to other people. Like all things in life, really. If other people processed and catalogued information in precisely the same fashion as you do, they would have an identical opinion on things. This question ultimately boils down to 'At what level do I prefer my various differing governmental responsibilities to be allocated', and people will have different thoughts and feelings on the subject. As you have your own opinions, you'll only be able to empathise with those holding priorities similar to your own. Anything else you'll naturally discard, because if something was a priority to you, it would already have been included in your own opinion.
In other words, you ain't got a hope of understanding the other side Jack, any more than they do you.
It's a smaller scale version of why we boggle at Romans for taking citizenship and public standing so seriously, old school samurai for committing seppuku in shame, the current Chinese cultural emphasis on 'face'. You can grasp that people hold values differently to you, but their reactions and their reasons for doing so are inherently alien. Their mentalities and priorities are just different to yours. It's the same on this particular subject to a smaller degree. All you can ultimately do is just accept that people have different thoughts and motivations to yourself. You're free to think it silly, in the same way you might regard a Chinese person who goes out of their way to appear poor for reasons of face as daft. At the end of the day though, it would be a rum old world if we all thought the same.
Tony Benn's famous letter from 1975 eloquently presents the case for leaving the EU. It's in the spoiler tags and worth a read if you haven't read it before.
I'm happy to admit that it was an influence on my personal opposition to the European project.
It's a response to people who think that the ECJ having a say in internal British affairs is no big deal...
Spoiler:
In 1975 you will each have the responsibility of deciding by vote whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Common Market: or whether we should withdraw completely, and remain an independent self-governing nation. That decision, once taken will almost certainly be irreversible.
In both the 1974 general elections I fully supported our manifesto commitment on the handling of the Common Market question. The present Government is now engaged in renegotiating the terms of entry along the lines set out in those Manifestos and is solemnly pledged, whatever the Outcome of those negotiations, to see to it that the final decision will be taken by the British people.
But we must recognise that the European Community has now set itself the objectives of developing a common foreign policy, a form of common nationality expressed through a common passport, a directly elected assembly and an economic and monetary union which, taken together, would in effect make the United Kingdom into one province of a Western European state.
Britain’s continuing membership of the Community would mean the end of Britain as a completely self-governing nation and the end of our democratically elected parliament as the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom.
I am writing, not to argue a case, but to explain — as best I can — what effect British membership of the Common Market has had upon the constitutional relationship between a member of Parliament and his constituents. The Parliamentary democracy we have developed and established in Britain is based, not upon the sovereignty of Parliament, but upon the sovereignty of the People, who, by exercising their vote lend their sovereign powers to Members of Parliament, to use on their behalf, for the duration of a single Parliament only — Powers that must be returned intact to the electorate to whom they belong, to lend again to the Members of Parliament they elect in each subsequent general election. Five basic democratic rights derive from this relationship, and each of them is fundamentally altered by Britain’s membership of the European Community,
First: Parliamentary Democracy means that every man and woman over eighteen is entitled to vote to elect his or her Member of Parliament to serve in the House of Commons; and the consent of the House of Commons is necessary fore Parliament can pass any act laying down new laws or imposing new taxation on the people. British Membership of the Community subjects us all to laws and taxes which your Members of Parliament do not enact, such laws and taxes being enacted by Authorities you do not directly elect, and cannot dismiss through the ballot box.
Second: Parliamentary Democracy means that Members of Parliament who derive their power directly from the British people, can change any law and any tax by majority vote, British Membership of the Community means that community laws and taxes cannot be changed or repealed by the British Parliament, but only by Community authorities not directly elected by the British People.
Third: Parliamentary Democracy means that British Courts and Judges must Uphold all laws passed by Parliament; and if Parliament changes any law the courts must enforce the new law because it has been passed by Parliament Which has been directly elected by the people. British Membership of the Community requires the British Courts to uphold and enforce community laws that have not been passed by Parliament, and that Parliament cannot change or amend, even when such laws conflict with laws passed by Parliament, since Community law over-rides British Law.
Fourth: Parliamentary Democracy means that all British governments, ministers and the civil servants under their control can only act within the laws of Britain and are accountable to Parliament for everything they do, and hence, through Parliament to the electors as a whole. British Membership of the Community imposes duties and constraints upon British governments not deriving from the British Parliament; and thus, in discharging those duties Ministers are not accountable to Parliament or to the British people who elect them.
Fifth: Parliamentary Democracy because it entrenches the rights of the people to elect and dismiss Members of Parliament, also secures the continuing accountability of Members of Parliament to the electorate, obliging Members of .Parliament to listen to the expression of the British people’s views at all times, between, as well as during, general elections, and thus offers a continuing possibility of peaceful change through Parliament to meet the people’s needs. British Membership of the Community by permanently transferring sovereign legislative and financial powers to Community authorities, who are not directly elected by the British people, also permanently insulates those authorities from direct control by the British electors who cannot dismiss them and whose views, therefore, need carry no weight with them and whose grievances they cannot be compelled to remedy.
In short, the power of the electors of Britain, through their direct representatives in Parliament to make laws, levy taxes, change laws which the courts must uphold, and control the conduct of public affairs has• been substantially ceded to the European Community whose Council of Ministers and Commission are neither collectively elected, nor collectively dismissed by the British people nor even by the peoples a all the Community countries put together.
These five rights have protected us in Britain from the worst abuse of power by government; safeguarded us against the excesses of bureaucracy; defended our . basic liberties; offered us the prospect of peaceful change; reduced the risk of civil strife; and bound us together by creating a national framework of consent for all the laws under which we were governed. We have promised a ballot box decision because all these rights are important, and none should be abandoned without the explicit consent of the people.
I am, of course, not here addressing myself to the general political or economic arguments for or against entry, nor commenting on the view that the advantages of membership might outweigh the loss of democratic rights that I have described. But no one who votes in the ballot box should be in any doubt as to the effect British membership has had, and will increasingly continue to have, in removing the power the British people once enjoyed to govern themselves.
Having campaigned so long to win for you the right to have a referendum I am proud to serve in a government that has promised that the final decision will be made by all the electors through the ballot box. The whole nation, and all political parties, are divided on the Common Market question. We must respect the sincerity of those who take a different view from our own. We should all accept the verdict of the British people whatever it is, and I shall certainly do so.
But from now, until that decision is taken, we all have a responsibility to discuss the issues openly, calmly and seriously, and it is in this spirit that I am writing to you as your Member of Parliament over the last twenty-four years.
Analysis by the SMMT suggests that under WTO tariffs, the UK motor
industry faces a £4.5 billion tariff cost for cars alone, which could add at least an annual £1.8
billion to exports and £2.7 billion to imports
... most of it ain't pretty.
You'll be astonished to discover they want .. wait for it .. a special deal !
along with every single other fething industry in the country -- with the exception of Blue passport manufacturers.
Headline writers dream of course :
Guardian: Car industry says: Brexit stalls
Times: Motor Giants demand Brexit gear shift
Express: Can Diana Memories Cure Cancer !?
There's a growing concern in the catering industry, which employs a lot of EU staff, who are leaving faster and joning slower than before the referendum.
It's a lot easier to train waiters and chefs than nurses and surgeons, of course, so this might end up being a good thing in the medium term.
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.
The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?
Well that's personal opinion, hence why we are arguing over it.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
What did you think of May's attempt to declare Article 50 without reference to Parliament?
Newton's apple being one of the ones descended from the ones brought over & cultivated by the Romans and their free trade nonsense.
Stephenson of course consulted on the developments of railways in both Belgium & Spain and who oversaw the exporting of the standard gauge to both Europe and the USA in order to maximise trading options.
He regarded nationalism as a ”disease" and wanted to see a world without borders, with one international government having power over individual states. Even during World War I, he supported the possible creation of “United States of Europe”, and was very much on board the formation of the League of Nations in 1919, and the subsequent United Nations, which came about in 1945.
He predicted limitations on the power of the U.N., which have proven to be correct. He saw an advisory organization that answers to national governments as ultimately being toothless, unable to stop wars or have significant power. Only a world government could have that level of impact
There's a narrative going on here that nobody, ever, in the entire history of the human race was capable of doing anything until the EU came along.
Which, of course, means you'll have no issue pointing out where someone is pushing that narrative, no? As in providing evidence for this claim.
Besides, what would Einstein or Newton know? They're EXPERTS , and I'm told the British people have had enough of those.
I'm not going to do all the work for you.
Check out this newspaper: theguardian.com It's pro-EU by the way. VERY Pro-EU
Start your search in the opinion articles from June 24th 2016 onwards.
A common theme occurs time after time: British people will lose working rights, trade union rights, human rights, abortion rights, maternity rights, environmental rights, travel rights, Brexit will destroy the world, Ireland will float off towards America, Coca-Cola will stop selling Coca Cola to the UK, British cows will stop producing milk, grass will turn from green to blue, aliens will invade Brexit Britain, Polish plumbers will be burnt at the stake, Russia will invade Britain, Hadrian's wall will collapse, and so on and so on....
And all of the above will occur because Britain is leaving the EU...
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.
The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?
Well that's personal opinion, hence why we are arguing over it.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
But our own courts do have power over Parliament, where parliament is not abiding by the law of the land. Hence that whole court case where our own, democratically elected government, was forced to hold a vote on article 50 when they didn't want to, because that's what the law says.
So the issue to me is around whether or not we have sufficient democratic input into those laws, not which judge tells you whether you have to obey them. Hence my "so what if the ECJ has primacy" comment; it's a red herring, trying to give the impression that the institution is an over bearing dictatorship, when all the ECJ does is tell you to obey the law as decreed by your politicians.
I'm reluctantly reaching the conclusion that some people won't leave the house in the morning unless they get a phone call from Brussels giving them permission...
Seems far more like you're gleefully casting aspirations given your posting history on the topic, constant refusal to support any statements, and enthusiasm for making as many reductio ad absurdum arguments surrounded by as many laughing emoticons as possible Do you fancy presenting some of the evidence that makes you feel that way (evidence a more more specific and useful than'read everything published in the Guardian in the last 18 month' or 'just look at this thread').
EDIT: lest someone be saddened by the most gentle of jibes.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm reluctantly reaching the conclusion that some people won't leave the house in the morning unless they get a phone call from Brussels giving them permission...
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.
You don't need to translate for other users. He was clear what he meant. Thanks
There's a narrative going on here that nobody, ever, in the entire history of the human race was capable of doing anything until the EU came along.
That might be what you've been hearing but it's absolutely not what anyone has been saying. A classic strawman.
The UK will not end outside of the EU. Life will undoubtedly be worse in the short and medium term. The resulting austerity drive will mean more of the poor, sick, disabled and elderly will die than they otherwise would.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.
You don't need to translate for other users. He was clear what he meant. Thanks
What I’m saying is, in the past DINLT (brexiteer) was told off for translating someone else’s post. Now that nfe (remainer) is doing the same, will he be told off as well?
The difference being that DINLT was making a blatant attack on the Remain side, while Killkrazy was outlining an argument that got willfully distorted.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The difference being that DINLT was making a blatant attack on the Remain side, while Killkrazy was outlining an argument that got willfully distorted.
Kilkrazy has nothing to do with this. His problem was actively ignoring Mad Dok Grotsnik’s ‘blatant attack’ on the leave side, a separate issue. But the two of them together along with Redsn8’s dig about us being cultists show that in this thread there isn’t a level playing field. Mods ignore or even contribute to general attacks on the leave side (I’ve reported them all to no avail) but come down like a tonne of bricks if a leaver says anything even remotely out of line.
To anyone in here who backs leave; if things don’t improve I strongly recommend we boycott this thread. How can we argue in good faith under those kinds of conditions?
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.
You don't need to translate for other users. He was clear what he meant. Thanks
In this quote Kilkrazy is making an argument and DINLT is twisting it to suit his own view better, and is promptly told to stop. This is quite different from someone calling out an attack for what it is, which is what happened in the post you wanted the mods to slam down on; DINLT has made the "argument" that the Remain side wants Brussels approval for everything several times in the past; it's obvious that this isn't something he's "reluctantly reaching the conclusion" of, it's a view he's expressed multiple times already. As such, it is not an argument but rather an attack on the Leave side, which means calling it out as such is not a distortion or a reinterpretation of what someone's been saying.
FWIW I agree with you that we could do with a lot less petty sniping, but you're defending DINLT sniping while calling out sniping, which makes you appear hypocritical.
reds8n wrote: James Dyson on a post Brexit UK: It should be easier to hire and fire and Corporation Tax should be eliminated.
You forgot the bit about:
I should be able to move manufacturing to Malaysia and have a free trade deal so I can manufacture cheaper with less worker rights whilst I sell at the same price and earn more profit! and
I should be able to make my devices as energy intensive as possible and damn the consequences to the environment's future.
The answer of course is obvious - don't buy anything from Dyson ever again...
Yeah I see what I did there. I forgot that it was Kilkrazy DINLT was talking to in the first place, so I thought that AlmightyWalrus was referring to another recent incident on confusion. I’m going to have to stop arguing in this thread on a phone as the screens way too small. Makes things like that happen. That and I’m only ever half paying attention too.
@ nfe
I could have sworn you backed remain. Apologies for getting it wrong.
I originally came in to say that I find the ECJ prone to judicial activism, likely to interpret the law in favor of more intergration while hoarding more power for itself. Then I got sidetracked.
After Johnson put his foot in it the other week Gove has said he ‘didn’t know’ what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliff was doing in Iran but generously said if the husband said it was visiting family, then he’d accept it. Not exactly a great endorsement, wasn’t Gove told the government line on this? The more it goes on, the more confusion there seems to be, with people in government not leaping to her defence but saying ‘well I’ll agree with the husband as I’ve nothing else to go on’. Well great but why don’t they know it for themselves?
Maybe I’ve too much le Carré but I’m starting to think there’s perhaps something less innocent about this now after all. Obviously the security services would have been onto this and ministers have had reports on their desks with evidence of what she has been doing which should exonerate her, or at least be enough for ministers to defend her with confidence. At this rate, I’m wondering if she’s is on the payroll of the British government or something which is why they are struggling to defend her or supply evidence without letting some cat out a bag.
A common theme occurs time after time: British people will lose working rights, trade union rights, human rights, abortion rights, maternity rights, environmental rights, travel rights, Brexit will destroy the world, Ireland will float off towards America, Coca-Cola will stop selling Coca Cola to the UK, British cows will stop producing milk, grass will turn from green to blue, aliens will invade Brexit Britain, Polish plumbers will be burnt at the stake, Russia will invade Britain, Hadrian's wall will collapse, and so on and so on....
This is just irrational rambling. If you disagree with an article then you should highlight it and argue why it is incorrect. After the 7th one you are sounding more like someone with a billboard strapped to their neck and ringing a bell trying to just say people are wrong with no rational discourse.
As for the first 7
British will lose working rights (yes they are, their ability to work in any of the 28 nation bloc is being limited)
Trade union rights (I think the Tories have already shown us that the EU has no say over UK union rights)
Human rights (people will have less ability to travel anywhere they please without restriction, we are also more susceptible to right wing Tories!)
Abortion rights (again are you sure, take NI for example and their laws on abortion?)
Maternity rights (again human rights will be determined by the UK government. Are you sure you feel more comfortable with say Rees Mogg determining basic rights?)
Travel rights (free travel anywhere across the EU???)
As for aliens landing in the UK I don't think you should worry. Given our current issues with fears over immigration I'm fairly certain that another species, that will have come together to work towards large galaxy sized goals, will want to avoid the UK (and US) at all costs. I think they might take Germany if they had to land but more likely shake whatever goes for their heads and fly away very quickly...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: After Johnson put his foot in it the other week Gove has said he ‘didn’t know’ what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliff was doing in Iran but generously said if the husband said it was visiting family, then he’d accept it. Not exactly a great endorsement, wasn’t Gove told the government line on this? The more it goes on, the more confusion there seems to be, with people in government not leaping to her defence but saying ‘well I’ll agree with the husband as I’ve nothing else to go on’. Well great but why don’t they know it for themselves?
Maybe I’ve too much le Carré but I’m starting to think there’s perhaps something less innocent about this now after all. Obviously the security services would have been onto this and ministers have had reports on their desks with evidence of what she has been doing which should exonerate her, or at least be enough for ministers to defend her with confidence. At this rate, I’m wondering if she’s is on the payroll of the British government or something which is why they are struggling to defend her or supply evidence without letting some cat out a bag.
I think you are looking too deeply for a reason. It appears that Gove and Boris have buried the hatchet over the last PM fight. They seem to be getting on much better than before. My suspicion is that they have decided that if they want a hard Wrexiter in charge after May that they need to join forces and not fight one another. I guess they have probably decided to give each other good jobs when May shortly goes if either of them win the ensuing fight for PM (and to note given the people left in the Conservative club who will get a say you will almost certainly get a hard Wrexiter).
As far as I understand the situation, the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EU and the UK won't leave its jurisdiction by leaving the EU. Is there a parallel plan to leave the ECHR?
Whirlwind wrote: ...I guess they have probably decided to give each other good jobs when May shortly goes if either of them win the ensuing fight for PM...
The thought of either of those as PM is just, depressing.
Boris Johnson may have been a credible contender in the public imagination a good long while ago, but now? He'd be a disaster. We'd probably be genuinely better off with no leader at all.
Can't even entertain Gove as PM, it'd be like being led by a plate of watery blamange.
If I had to choose I'd rather have Gove as PM than Boris. But then that's like being asked at gunpoint if I'd rather someone chopped off my arms or my legs.
Whirlwind wrote: ...I guess they have probably decided to give each other good jobs when May shortly goes if either of them win the ensuing fight for PM...
The thought of either of those as PM is just, depressing.
Boris Johnson may have been a credible contender in the public imagination a good long while ago, but now? He'd be a disaster. We'd probably be genuinely better off with no leader at all.
Can't even entertain Gove as PM, it'd be like being led by a plate of watery blamange.
Sums up my thoughts on Gove. How the hell he got let into politics, I’ll never know.
Whirlwind wrote: ...I guess they have probably decided to give each other good jobs when May shortly goes if either of them win the ensuing fight for PM...
The thought of either of those as PM is just, depressing.
Boris Johnson may have been a credible contender in the public imagination a good long while ago, but now? He'd be a disaster. We'd probably be genuinely better off with no leader at all.
Can't even entertain Gove as PM, it'd be like being led by a plate of watery blamange.
Have you seen the make up of the Tory party faithful though? I'm always suspicious that the reason Leadsom was turned on by the papers was because her hard Wrexit views would have swung the majority, elderly, of the conservative members. If It had been her vs May I suspect we would have Leadsom as PM...
I don't think this time there will be no vote, both the Remain/Leave sides will put forward their candidate they think will win the most. I suspect that a lot of the faithful don't really give a damn about Boris's idiocy (and half of them probably think he is right!).
Kilkrazy wrote: As far as I understand the situation, the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EU and the UK won't leave its jurisdiction by leaving the EU. Is there a parallel plan to leave the ECHR?
One of the key drivers behind the argument that the EU is undemocratic, and one of the major reasons papers pushed for the referendum was the rulings of the court and them overruling the UK courts. May in her time as Home Office Minister was very critical of the ECHR and repeatedly called for a British bill of rights. What previously stopped this was the fact that it was linked to EU membership. It will not be long after leaving the EU that there are calls to leave the ECHR. I can see the DM headlines now the next time the ECHR tells the UK we can't deport someone... The only way I can see us staying a signatory of the ECHR is for it to be a requirement of some post brexit agreement. Otherwise the right wing press will be calling for us to leave within weeks of leaving the EU.
I do want to leave the ECHR and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. I'd prefer that such important laws as Human Rights be under the direct control of the British Parliament and Courts, and not be subject to a foreign court beyond the influence of the British Electorate.
Granted, I would prefer that the Labour party be the one to draw up and enact this Bill of Rights, not the Tories. But I think a Corbyn Government is inevitable anyway.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I do want to leave the ECHR and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. I'd prefer that such important laws as Human Rights be under the direct control of the British Parliament and Courts, and not be subject to a foreign court beyond the influence of the British Electorate.
Granted, I would prefer that the Labour party be the one to draw up and enact this Bill of Rights, not the Tories. But I think a Corbyn Government is inevitable anyway.
I'd rather keep the definition of human rights away from the british electorate, or indeed any single national government or population.
I'd rather keep the definition of human rights away from the british electorate, or indeed any single national government or population.
Exactly. I especially want control of it to be kept away from someone who showed plenty of contempt for human rights as home secretary.
The only reason May wants to bring it under uk control is to water it down. I think we'll need to agree to adhere to it to get single marker access.
To be fair; I'd rather it was codified globally via the UN rather than being a European thing. A human should have the same rights everywhere on the planet.
We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU
Err, the end of the death penalty in the UK was the direct result of Jack Straw signing the 6th protocol of the ECHR in 1999.
That aside, whether we did x, y, or z before joining the EU is irrelevant if we can't be confident of their protection in future. Looking at your examples, we have a government striving to curtail trade unions, for instance.
We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU
Err, the end of the death penalty in the UK was the direct result of Jack Straw signing the 6th protocol of the ECHR in 1999.
That aside, whether we did x, y, or z before joining the EU is irrelevant if we can't be confident of their protection in future. Looking at your examples, we have a government striving to curtail trade unions, for instance.
Jack Straw's actions abolished high treason against the crown - things like trying to blow up the Queen, selling secrets to the Russians etc etc that kind of thing.
I'm talking about the death penalty in your everyday law and order context.
The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.
The British people definitely, the Tories? Not so much
In the last 100 years, the Tories have been the most successful of our three major parties. That suggests that the British people are inherently Conservative, otherwise they wouldn't vote blue so often.
I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.
Who wants to increase the time people can be held Iin police custody without charge? Secret hearings for terrorism? Deportation centres? Invasive Internet and communications monitoring? Outsourced policing?
That we did stuff before the EU is no assurance we'd do so again. Why scrap the human rights act if we just want to add stuff on top?
I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.
There's a big difference between selling secrets to the Soviets, and your 'average' murder, not that I'm trying to downplay the seriousness of murder, which is a horrible thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Who wants to increase the time people can be held Iin police custody without charge? Secret hearings for terrorism? Deportation centres? Invasive Internet and communications monitoring? Outsourced policing?
That we did stuff before the EU is no assurance we'd do so again. Why scrap the human rights act if we just want to add stuff on top?
Everything you mentioned can be ended if the British people wish for it to be ended. Our history is full of people marching on parliament and changing things the hard way.
We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU
We had trade unions before we joined the EEC/EU
Women had the right to vote before we joined the EEC/EU
Kids stopped working down coal mines before we joined the EEC/EU
and so on and so on
There's a definite theme going on here
The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.
We also opted out of the Working Time Directive, and there have been a number of criticisms made of human rights rulings by the ECHR, before the referendum.
Since the referendum we've seen the UK gutter press name the Supreme Court "enemies of the people" for upholding our current constitutional rights which PM May was trying to dodge.
We also know that immigration and the status of refugees (not wanting to have them here) was a major theme of Leave, so common sense doesn't seem to be as powerful as you may think.
Consequently I have no faith in the UK's ability to preserve a fully functional international human rights system by itself.
It's also worth noting that the European Declaration of Human Rights is derived from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which was drawn up largely by British lawyers. If we leave the ECHR, we will still be bound by the UN Declaration, to which we are treaty members. The difference is our government will pay only lip service it wants to.
I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.
There's a big difference between selling secrets to the Soviets, and your 'average' murder, not that I'm trying to downplay the seriousness of murder, which is a horrible thing.
You'd be more credible if you could just concede that you were wrong, or that you didn't actually mean what you said, rather than retrospectively adding qualifiers. The UK did not abolish the death penalty before joining the EU/EEC. That statement is false and it remains false irrespective of your addendum.
I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.
There's a big difference between selling secrets to the Soviets, and your 'average' murder, not that I'm trying to downplay the seriousness of murder, which is a horrible thing.
You'd be more credible if you could just concede that you were wrong, or that you didn't actually mean what you said, rather than retrospectively adding qualifiers. The UK did not abolish the death penalty before joining the EU/EEC. That statement is false and it remains false irrespective of your addendum.
And you're trying to put high treason on the same footing as a bar room brawl that went horribly wrong.
I suppose, at the end of the day, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'll say no more on it.
We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU
We had trade unions before we joined the EEC/EU
Women had the right to vote before we joined the EEC/EU
Kids stopped working down coal mines before we joined the EEC/EU
and so on and so on
There's a definite theme going on here
The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.
We also opted out of the Working Time Directive, and there have been a number of criticisms made of human rights rulings by the ECHR, before the referendum.
Since the referendum we've seen the UK gutter press name the Supreme Court "enemies of the people" for upholding our current constitutional rights which PM May was trying to dodge.
We also know that immigration and the status of refugees (not wanting to have them here) was a major theme of Leave, so common sense doesn't seem to be as powerful as you may think.
Consequently I have no faith in the UK's ability to preserve a fully functional international human rights system by itself.
It's also worth noting that the European Declaration of Human Rights is derived from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which was drawn up largely by British lawyers. If we leave the ECHR, we will still be bound by the UN Declaration, to which we are treaty members. The difference is our government will pay only lip service it wants to.
Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say. And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.
As for immigration, I don't believe you can't stop people in this globalised age, and I'm not against it in principal, but I see no problem in the British people having the final say on immigration numbers.
After all, we all get to choose who enters our homes, so why should our country be any different?
Everything you mentioned can be ended if the British people wish for it to be ended. Our history is full of people marching on parliament and changing things the hard way.
when was the last time something was changed by marching on parliament?
What if the government making protesting illegal?
Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say. And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.
If noone takes the Daily Mail seriously, how come it's still in print? People buying it for the lols?
A skim of the comments section on any online article shows how many people take it seriously.
I suppose, at the end of the day, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'll say no more on it.
You must be able to admit how it looks to everyone though? Your statement was objectively wrong, you were corrected, instead of going "good point" you tried to move the goal posts.
Was the death penalty abolished before we joined the EU? No. There is no other answer to that question.
I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.
There's a big difference between selling secrets to the Soviets, and your 'average' murder, not that I'm trying to downplay the seriousness of murder, which is a horrible thing.
You'd be more credible if you could just concede that you were wrong, or that you didn't actually mean what you said, rather than retrospectively adding qualifiers. The UK did not abolish the death penalty before joining the EU/EEC. That statement is false and it remains false irrespective of your addendum.
And you're trying to put high treason on the same footing as a bar room brawl that went horribly wrong.
Absolute nonsense. I've done no such thing (though I actually do think treason a far lesser crime than murder) and in any case it would be irrelevant. Was it legally possible for a sentence of death to be conferred by a UK court after joining the EEC/EU? Yes. Therefore, the death penalty was not abolished in the UK before joining the EEC/EU. Any argument to the contrary is ludicrous.
I suppose, at the end of the day, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'll say no more on it.
We're not disputing something subjective. You made a factually incorrect statement.
If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
Everything you mentioned can be ended if the British people wish for it to be ended. Our history is full of people marching on parliament and changing things the hard way.
when was the last time something was changed by marching on parliament?
What if the government making protesting illegal?
Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say. And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.
If noone takes the Daily Mail seriously, how come it's still in print? People buying it for the lols?
A skim of the comments section on any online article shows how many people take it seriously.
I suppose, at the end of the day, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'll say no more on it.
You must be able to admit how it looks to everyone though? Your statement was objectively wrong, you were corrected, instead of going "good point" you tried to move the goal posts.
Was the death penalty abolished before we joined the EU? No. There is no other answer to that question.
There would be civil war if the government made protesting illegal.
As for the Daily Mail, that's just the blue rinse brigade stocking up on free wine vouchers. I wouldn't put too much into those viewing numbers.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
Good grief, man. You made a factually incorrect statement. There is no doubt about this whatsoever. Own it. There's no shame in saying 'I should have been clearer. That was a bit daft!'. There's plenty in trying to weasel out of being taken to task when you argue something that is blatantly false.
You seem to have gone off the boil a bit recently, DINLT.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In the last 100 years, the Tories have been the most successful of our three major parties. That suggests that the British people are inherently Conservative, otherwise they wouldn't vote blue so often.
No, it suggests nothing of the sort. What it does suggest is that our nation, the whims of the populace, historic spread of political parties, constituency boundaries and legal manner of determining who forms a government is inherently favouritive towards the Conservatives.
That doesn't mean the populace is inherently conservative.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say.
The Mail online is the most visited English speaking news website on the planet. There are a hell of a lot of people who take it seriously that you've just cast aside.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.
And this is why it's hard to take you seriously at times. For all your claims of being a student of politics and being a stout defender of the sovereignty of the British Parliament, you're very quick to discard that sovereignty when it doesn't match your preferred political outcome.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
And then the average man on the street would be just as wrong as you. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy for a reason. It takes a lot of mental hoop-jumping to argue that the death penalty is abolished when it can still be applied.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty.
Just stop digging. The death penalty was abolished after leaving the EU. The death penalty for all but treason was abolished before leaving the EU. The common man on the street would agree with that.
There would be civil war if the government made protesting illegal.
Quite possibly, but by then anyone engaging in the civil war would be arrested for indefinite detention without trial on unidentified terrorism charges. Plus plenty of people will be against a protest ban, if framed correctly.
You've got some fairly good insight on occasion DINLT, but your posting style seems to have changed drastically recently. Everything OK?
Henry wrote: You seem to have gone off the boil a bit recently, DINLT.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In the last 100 years, the Tories have been the most successful of our three major parties. That suggests that the British people are inherently Conservative, otherwise they wouldn't vote blue so often.
No, it suggests nothing of the sort. What it does suggest is that our nation, the whims of the populace, historic spread of political parties, constituency boundaries and legal manner of determining who forms a government is inherently favouritive towards the Conservatives.
That doesn't mean the populace is inherently conservative.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say.
The Mail online is the most visited English speaking news website on the planet. There are a hell of a lot of people who take it seriously that you've just cast aside.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.
And this is why it's hard to take you seriously at times. For all your claims of being a student of politics and being a stout defender of the sovereignty of the British Parliament, you're very quick to discard that sovereignty when it doesn't match your preferred political outcome.
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
As for the Daily Mail, people probably read it for entertainment value, comedy gold. Like watching a car crash in slow motion.
As for my conservative point, the Tories got what, 50% of the vote in the 1950s, so you can hardly blame a rigged system for that. The country is, IMO, historically Conservative. Voting numbers back me on that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
The "average man on the street" would probably also tell you he wanted it back. "Average men on the street" are more often than not idiots, probably drunk and maybe racist and/or homophobic. That is why they are hanging around on the street.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
And then the average man on the street would be just as wrong as you. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy for a reason. It takes a lot of mental hoop-jumping to argue that the death penalty is abolished when it can still be applied.
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
The "average man on the street" would probably also tell you he wanted it back.
That may be, but that's an argument for another day.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty.
Just stop digging. The death penalty was abolished after leaving the EU. The death penalty for all but treason was abolished before leaving the EU. The common man on the street would agree with that.
There would be civil war if the government made protesting illegal.
Quite possibly, but by then anyone engaging in the civil war would be arrested for indefinite detention without trial on unidentified terrorism charges. Plus plenty of people will be against a protest ban, if framed correctly.
You've got some fairly good insight on occasion DINLT, but your posting style seems to have changed drastically recently. Everything OK?
Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean there's anything wrong with my posting style!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
And then the average man on the street would be just as wrong as you. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy for a reason. It takes a lot of mental hoop-jumping to argue that the death penalty is abolished when it can still be applied.
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters.
That is what I think for the judgement of the "average man on the street". I don't want average people making decisions which affect our whole country. I want the smartest people doing that. Unfortunately the smartest people don't go into politics and the average intelligence people who do go into politics believe they are smart and so ignore those smartest people when they offer advice.
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
I see no distinction. A lot of legal experts backed Parliament, a lot of legal experts backed the use of the Royal Prerogative.
It took our finest legal minds to resolve the issue, and even then, 3 judges backed the use of the Royal Prerogative, so it's not as clear cut or as black and white as people think.
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
I see no distinction. A lot of legal experts backed Parliament, a lot of legal experts backed the use of the Royal Prerogative.
It took our finest legal minds to resolve the issue, and even then, 3 judges backed the use of the Royal Prerogative, so it's not as clear cut or as black and white as people think.
A majority of 8 to 3 is clear cut. If 8 to 3 isn't clear cut then how the feth is a referendum result of 51 to 49 clear?
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
Personally, I don't disagree with the course case. Parliamentary sovereignty IS important, and its only right and legally appropriate for Parliament to approve the triggering of Article 50.
I just question the motives of those who brought the case. They don't actually care about Parliamentary Sovereignty (if they did, they would be in favour of Brexit), it was just another avenue to halt or delay Brexit. Therefore, I think they did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
I see no distinction. A lot of legal experts backed Parliament, a lot of legal experts backed the use of the Royal Prerogative.
It took our finest legal minds to resolve the issue, and even then, 3 judges backed the use of the Royal Prerogative, so it's not as clear cut or as black and white as people think.
A majority of 8 to 3 is clear cut. If 8 to 3 isn't clear cut then how the feth is a referendum result of 51 to 49 clear?
I'm not disputing the 8 to 3 verdict in the Supreme Court case, I'm merely making the point that 3 highly experienced, and expert legal minds, clearly believed there was some merit in the government's argument about using the Royal Prerogative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: OK, even I have to admit DINLT's tub thumping style of debate is a little irritating...
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
Personally, I don't disagree with the course case. Parliamentary sovereignty IS important, and its only right and legally appropriate for Parliament to approve the triggering of Article 50.
I just question the motives of those who brought the case. They don't actually care about Parliamentary Sovereignty (if they did, they would be in favour of Brexit), it was just another avenue to halt or delay Brexit. Therefore, I think they did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Damn your treachery Shadow Captain! Who's side are you on?
But if Brexit was about Parliamentary Sovereignty, brexiteers would be 100% behind the court case that ensured said parliamentary sovereignty. Most seemed puts aged that they might not get their own way.
Even if you only felt Miller brought it to stop Brexit; she's still done more to ensure sovereignty than the government has.
Are you also outraged about this brexit bill that allows cabinet members free reign to change laws as required for brexit, without clearing it with parliament? You gakking well should be.
Herzlos wrote: But if Brexit was about Parliamentary Sovereignty, brexiteers would be 100% behind the court case that ensured said parliamentary sovereignty. Most seemed puts aged that they might not get their own way.
Even if you only felt Miller brought it to stop Brexit; she's still done more to ensure sovereignty than the government has.
Are you also outraged about this brexit bill that allows cabinet members free reign to change laws as required for brexit, without clearing it with parliament? You gakking well should be.
If Gina Millar had been genuinely concerned for Parliamentary Sovereignty, then I would have backed her 100%
But I knew at the time she was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum, and history proved me right.
You'll recall that at the time, Ed Miliband was trying to muster support in Parliament for a bloodless Brexit coup d'état.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
I never impugned that you don't respect the law. I say that you only like British parliamentary sovereignty when it suits your political agenda.
As for the Daily Mail, people probably read it for entertainment value, comedy gold. Like watching a car crash in slow motion.
So now we're ignoring facts because you don't like them?
As for my conservative point, the Tories got what, 50% of the vote in the 1950s, so you can hardly blame a rigged system for that. The country is, IMO, historically Conservative. Voting numbers back me on that.
Tories got 42.4% of the popular vote in the last election. The three main liberal, non-conservative parties got 50.4% of the popular vote. Voting numbers back me on that.
(note for completeness: UKIP got 1.8%)
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I just question the motives of those who brought the case. They don't actually care about Parliamentary Sovereignty (if they did, they would be in favour of Brexit), it was just another avenue to halt or delay Brexit. Therefore, I think they did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
I agree with you entirely on the right thing for the wrong reasons point. But your comment that one would have to vote for Brexit to truly support parliamentary sovereignty is ..... I disagree but can't be arsed rehashing the last dozen or so dismal pages of this thread.
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
So you feel the average man is a responsible source of decisions because they agree with you?
Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean there's anything wrong with my posting style!
In the past week or so your posts have gone from a well argued but factually relaxed post, to what seems like a frothing caricature of a Brexiteer. You even proclaimed "fake news" in what seems to not involve any sarcasm at all. I'm genuinely concerned.
I agree with you entirely on the right thing for the wrong reasons point. But your comment that one would have to vote for Brexit to truly support parliamentary sovereignty is ..... I disagree but can't be arsed rehashing the last dozen or so dismal pages of this thread.
Sorry, I didn't mean quite that.
I meant that anyone who claimed "Parliamentary Sovereignty" as a reason to Brexit should be 100% behind the Miller case. Otherwise they are just hypocrites.
If Gina Millar had been genuinely concerned for Parliamentary Sovereignty, then I would have backed her 100%
So you believe someone should have taken the government to court, just not her?
But I knew at the time she was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum, and history proved me right.
Please detail, specifically and with evidence, how Gina Miller was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum.
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
So you feel the average man is a responsible source of decisions because they agree with you?
Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean there's anything wrong with my posting style!
In the past week or so your posts have gone from a well argued but factually relaxed post, to what seems like a frothing caricature of a Brexiteer. You even proclaimed "fake news" in what seems to not involve any sarcasm at all. I'm genuinely concerned.
I was being sarcastic about fake news. For a long time, EU defenders have dismissed the idea that the EU is interested in a defence force or heaven forbid, and army.
Recent speeches from Macron and Juncker, plus that article, make a mockery of the claims of EU supporters, hence my use of the fake news approach.
Actually, we dismiss the idea that the UK army could be coerced into being part of an EU army. It would have only ever happened with the approval of our parliament.
If Gina Millar had been genuinely concerned for Parliamentary Sovereignty, then I would have backed her 100%
So you believe someone should have taken the government to court, just not her?
But I knew at the time she was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum, and history proved me right.
Please detail, specifically and with evidence, how Gina Miller was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum.
She has publicly declared herself as an EU supporter, which is her divine right.
Court cases are expensive, and she was bankrolled by people who support the EU.
Hence, my assertion she was a front woman for something else happening behind the scenes.
There was an element of Machiavelli going on at the time.
Ed Miliband, an outspoken supporter of the EU trying to rally the troops in The Commons, Gina Miller, an outspoken supporter of the EU putting HM Government in the dock, Al Campbell, another EU supporter making trouble for Jeremy Corbyn, a known opponent of the EU, all of which was happening at the same time.
I agree with you entirely on the right thing for the wrong reasons point. But your comment that one would have to vote for Brexit to truly support parliamentary sovereignty is ..... I disagree but can't be arsed rehashing the last dozen or so dismal pages of this thread.
Sorry, I didn't mean quite that.
I meant that anyone who claimed "Parliamentary Sovereignty" as a reason to Brexit should be 100% behind the Miller case. Otherwise they are just hypocrites.
I've just explicitly said that I'm behind it, I'm just suspicious of the motives behind it.
If Gina Millar had been genuinely concerned for Parliamentary Sovereignty, then I would have backed her 100%
So you believe someone should have taken the government to court, just not her?
But I knew at the time she was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum, and history proved me right.
Please detail, specifically and with evidence, how Gina Miller was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum.
She has publicly declared herself as an EU supporter, which is her divine right.
Court cases are expensive, and she was bankrolled by people who support the EU.
Hence, my assertion she was a front woman for something else happening behind the scenes.
There was an element of Machiavelli going on at the time.
Ed Miliband, an outspoken supporter of the EU trying to rally the troops in The Commons, Gina Miller, an outspoken supporter of the EU putting HM Government in the dock, Al Campbell, another EU supporter making trouble for Jeremy Corbyn, a known opponent of the EU, all of which was happening at the same time.
Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't
I think we define 'specifically', 'evidence', and 'proved' differently.
Again, you believe someone should have challenged the government in court, just not Gina Miller?
I agree with you entirely on the right thing for the wrong reasons point. But your comment that one would have to vote for Brexit to truly support parliamentary sovereignty is ..... I disagree but can't be arsed rehashing the last dozen or so dismal pages of this thread.
Sorry, I didn't mean quite that.
I meant that anyone who claimed "Parliamentary Sovereignty" as a reason to Brexit should be 100% behind the Miller case. Otherwise they are just hypocrites.
I've just explicitly said that I'm behind it, I'm just suspicious of the motives behind it.
Think this is just a mix up, Herzlos has responded to my post that responded to you and I can only assume they thought I was responding to them.
Whether you're a Brexit or a Remainer though, the sensible thing to do was to support the case to prevent the undermining of sovereignty not by some foreign influence but by our own Prime Minister!
We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU
We had trade unions before we joined the EEC/EU
Women had the right to vote before we joined the EEC/EU
Kids stopped working down coal mines before we joined the EEC/EU
and so on and so on
There's a definite theme going on here
The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.
I would highlight this rather amusing comedy sketch on the ECHR when people start complaining about it. The daft thing is the UK wrote the ECHR in the majority, but now we want to write it all over again (I suspect May thinks it was all a mistake and it's too stringent on Government)
I was being sarcastic about fake news. For a long time, EU defenders have dismissed the idea that the EU is interested in a defence force or heaven forbid, and army.
Recent speeches from Macron and Juncker, plus that article, make a mockery of the claims of EU supporters, hence my use of the fake news approach.
No we haven't. It's always been "we don't see the issue". And as have pointed out many times before Wrexit or no Wrexit the UK is still committed to provide forces to the 'dreaded EU army'.
The proposition of an EU army is another of those points which you either regard as the ultimate horror of the world, or a good idea in outline, which needs some working out.
I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
Well, that's it. Game over for anyone who opposes the United States of Europe. The last pillar knocked over. People's reactions are consequently more to do with the ramifications of the EU army than the EU army itself. That's the equivalent of the birthing cry of Slaanesh for those who oppose it.
Ketara wrote: I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
If that happens, the EU has a military joint command to do stuff the individual EU armies have to do but cannot. A power independent (but complementary) to the needs of NATO, which are those of the USA.
But it looks like some people genuinelly believe the UK is getting off the train in time before art. 50 is abolished entirely. Good for you I guess.
Ketara wrote: I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
If that happens, the EU has a military joint command to do stuff the individual EU armies have to do but cannot. A power independent (but complementary) to the needs of NATO, which are those of the USA.
But it looks like some people genuinelly believe the UK is getting off the train in time before art. 50 is abolished entirely. Good for you I guess.
Perhaps, or there is the possibility of a large European Army keeping everyone in check, problems in Catalonia? Don't worry, send in the Eastern Legions! They don't give a monkeys.
Now, if only we could properly deal with those pesky barbarians across the Rhine and the Danube.....
Ketara wrote: I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
If that happens, the EU has a military joint command to do stuff the individual EU armies have to do but cannot. A power independent (but complementary) to the needs of NATO, which are those of the USA.
But it looks like some people genuinelly believe the UK is getting off the train in time before art. 50 is abolished entirely. Good for you I guess.
Perhaps, or there is the possibility of a large European Army keeping everyone in check, problems in Catalonia? Don't worry, send in the Eastern Legions! They don't give a monkeys.
The first misconception is that there will be a European army as such. Just like in NATO or in the different force-sharing agreements the UK has with France, the Netherlands, Norway, etc. there won't be a 1st Luxembourg Fusiliers "Jean-Claude Juncker" regt made out of recruits from all over Europe.
Each country will supply their own units, rotating them. Big expensive things will be pooled and shared (like NATO now does with AWACS or big transport aircraft) there will be an integrated command (like NATO does) and possibly, only possibly, France will put their nuclear deterrent under the EU command.
The 2% NATO doctrine doesn't work because 2% small individual budgets buy a lot less efficiently than 2% of a common pool, and efficiency is the name of the game right now.
But if the UK thinks it can go alone, by all means.
Kilkrazy wrote: The proposition of an EU army is another of those points which you either regard as the ultimate horror of the world, or a good idea in outline, which needs some working out.
I still vividly remember the EU's blundering and ineptitude in Ukraine, so thank God they didn't have the military option as a Plan B!
Ketara wrote: I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
If that happens, the EU has a military joint command to do stuff the individual EU armies have to do but cannot. A power independent (but complementary) to the needs of NATO, which are those of the USA.
But it looks like some people genuinelly believe the UK is getting off the train in time before art. 50 is abolished entirely. Good for you I guess.
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I thought Cameron said an EU army wasn’t going to happen, it was on one of the live TV debates.
Only Brexit supporters get held to account with their statements.
Fewer Britons will die from the cold under climate change, study suggests
" in northern Europe hot weather mortality will be cancelled out by the decrease in cold weather deaths."
.... *hot-take joke*
Although the current 2,000 excess annual summer deaths are expected to rise between seven and five-fold, they would be cancelled out by the fall in winter mortality, suggesting hundreds of lives would be spared.
Can't wait for their piece about how terrorist attacks are actually good as it means there's less queues at airports and cheaper holidays in certain locations.
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
The argument would be that NATO already performs this function, and unless you're literally integrating the militaries of various countries, we already have a structure set up and in place to co-ordinate defence strategy and resources. Therefore instituting anything short of actual military integration is simply a duplication of NATO and a waste of time or money.
I would personally be inclined to agree with that viewpoint. NATO has this aspect of affairs firmly in hand. There is no serious justification or need for an EU military structure unless you intend to use it as a step towards EU statehood. It's not like an EU border force, where there is at least some grounds for it. I think it can be reasonably asserted that the entire purpose of the EU army project is to attempt to wean European defence policy away from the Americans and into an asset more easily controlled by the EU.
You do realize that not all members in the European Union are NATO members, yes?
Besides, if it's about moving military decision-making from the US to the EU isn't that protecting the sovereignty of the EU's member states by bringing military decision-making under their communal control rather than under that of an outside entity?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You do realize that not all members in the European Union are NATO members, yes?
Besides, if it's about moving military decision-making from the US to the EU isn't that protecting the sovereignty of the EU's member states by bringing military decision-making under their communal control rather than under that of an outside entity?
I'm not sure moving military planning from one supranational entity to another one really counts as 'protecting Sovereignty' by anyone's definition, or indeed counts as anyone's motivation. That's like leaving the EU so you can join the USA 'to protect sovereignty', y'know?
Plus, if we're going to be serious and not reflexively attacking anything perceived as anti-EU here for a minute, we all know that the reason behind the formation of an EU army isn't for Sweden, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland and Malta (the countries in the EU but not NATO)'s benefit. Sweden and Austria already co-operate with NATO under the table, Finland is actively planning on joining, Malta is effectively under British protection, and Ireland really doesn't care, on account of the fact that it's an island and nobody will invade it any time soon. I don't know about Cyprus, but if you're going to tell me we're going to duplicate NATO within the EU for the benefit of Cyprus, that'll be the stage this conversation will lose all point.
The EU army is a state building project. Pure and simple. Love it or hate it. It has no military need or justification whilst NATO exists.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You do realize that not all members in the European Union are NATO members, yes?
Besides, if it's about moving military decision-making from the US to the EU isn't that protecting the sovereignty of the EU's member states by bringing military decision-making under their communal control rather than under that of an outside entity?
That is exactly the point. Here is an interesting politico take on it.
When it comes to big European partners the UK doesn't seem to object to just toe the Washington line, Germany is still somehow under post-war guilt about the whole defence business and France has always seen NATO for what it is, a vehicle for USA interests.
However, Trump has shown that now, more than ever, USA interests may not necessarily align with those of Europe down the road. EU or no EU, Europe as a whole needs to start pulling its own weight in the defence camp. That means serious money of the kind the modern Western electorate doesn't want to commit to, so the answer is spending better (and if that also means some jobs so much better).
This is the most relevant quote of the article:
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel stressed it would have economic benefits. He said Europe spends 50 percent as much as the United States on defense yet only has 15 percent of its military efficiency.
You can make a pretty decent military force out of 50% of the USA defence spending, but there has to be some planning to it or you end up with a ragtag assortment of bits and bobs. NATO has shown it can work.
The NATO AWACS force has 16 aircraft, operated by crews and support staff from 14 nations. There's no way a single nation could afford this capacity, it is a very evident case of economies of scale and was repeated successfully with the transport fleet.
It's funny how fast the idea of 'commonality of nations' and 'bringing us all together' seems to vanish the minute the Americans get involved.
You talk about 'toeing the Washington line', but what line is that? Anyone can invoke NATO, but the pledge just says that you give 'support', it's entirely open-ended as to what that comprises. Iraq was a perfectly good example as to how NATO is easily flexible enough to allow any European states who disagree with American foreign policy to duck out, and those who don't to join in (whether part of NATO officially or not)
The fact remains, there is (at present) absolutely no pressing military or domestic political need for the vast disruptive organisational shift and financial expenditure required to start building an EU army. It's purely an EU state building exercise.
Ketara wrote: It's funny how fast the idea of 'commonality of nations' and 'bringing us all together' seems to vanish the minute the Americans get involved.
You mean just like do not take my sovereignty away unless it's uncle sam calling?
There IS a pressing political need to have a plan B from Washington. It's called Donald Trump and it may or may not leave in 3 years, but it's changed the political landscape for good.
You mean just like do not take my sovereignty away unless it's uncle sam calling?
I don't understand this comment. Could you explain what you're saying (or joking/implying) in detail for me?
There IS a pressing political need to have a plan B from Washington. It's called Donald Trump and it may or may not leave in 3 years, but it's changed the political landscape for good.
So....the argument that we need to reform a defence alliance that's been in existence for 50 years, worked really very well, and institute a different one at greater financial cost which excludes the most militarily powerful member....is that a member got someone elected you don't like? Despite the fact that nothing bad has actually happened through NATO as a result?
God forbid, what do you do when someone gets elected in charge of the EU you don't like??? Do you set up another defence alliance which blockades Brussels? Or do you think that the European nations are so much more advanced and special than America that it could never happen over here?
Not to mention, isn't the whole idea against the principles of the EU? Isn't dialogue and co-operation the entire sodding point of multinational projects? As opposed to immediately breaking them in two because someone not on your political side of the spectrum got involved? And Trump, of all people, is the tipping point? I mean, you've got Erdogan enacting reforms in Turkey that would make Ceausescu break into a jig, but it's Donald Trump, the man who can't even get am immigration reform through without being struck down, that motivates you to break up NATO? Jesus Christ.
I'll tread carefully here, because we don't want to turn this into an American politics thread, but the rational from the EU seems to be that because the USA elected one bad POTUS, then they'll keep electing more bad POTUS' in the future, so we can't rely on the US for defence, despite the evidence to the contrary i.e more American troops and equipment heading back to Europe.
You'll note that there was never talk of an EU army when Obama sat in 1600 Pennsylvania.
The EU was all over Obama like a bad rash. If anything, the Europeans loved him more than the Americans did
The Ukraine debacle showed us that the EU shouldn't be trusted to watch over a dead parrot, never mind a standing army!
Ketara wrote: It's funny how fast the idea of 'commonality of nations' and 'bringing us all together' seems to vanish the minute the Americans get involved.
You mean just like do not take my sovereignty away unless it's uncle sam calling?
There IS a pressing political need to have a plan B from Washington. It's called Donald Trump and it may or may not leave in 3 years, but it's changed the political landscape for good.
NATO does not take our soveriengty away. NATO is purely a military alliance.
The EU is a political union. The two are not equivalent in any way and pretending they are is disingenuous.
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
Shifting the goalposts here. One minute EU supporters claim there was never going to be any kind of European defence force, now it's all for economic efficiency in defence spending.
If you want economic efficiency, I suggest you head to EUHQ and get them to stop wasting money on red tape, pet projects, and largesse at the taxpayers' expense!
As always with the EU, stealth is their watchword.
They'll scream from the rooftops that an EU army is not happening, then when you turn your back, it gets smuggled in by the back door and becomes a fait accompli before anybody knows what is happening.
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
Shifting the goalposts here. One minute EU supporters claim there was never going to be any kind of European defence force, now it's all for economic efficiency in defence spending.
Now who's shifting the goalposts? I've never said there'd be a European defence force, I'm saying that this is a project to coordinate the existing armies into a more efficient group of militaries to enable them to work together. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Plus, you didn't answer my question, so stop deflecting while you're at it.
When it comes to big European partners the UK doesn't seem to object to just toe the Washington line, Germany is still somehow under post-war guilt about the whole defence business and France has always seen NATO for what it is, a vehicle for USA interests.
In the same way as the EU has always been a vehicle for French interests - see CAP, a second uneeded parliment building in France paid for by EU taxpayers, and pretty much any decision the EU has made - the odd ones they don't agree with which are rare - they ignore.
NATO protected Europe during the Cold War - but sadly allowed many nations to run down their own military at the expense of those who did keep up the spending despite treaty obligations saying otherwise but I guess those "Club rules" donlt matter.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ahh, more reactionary nonsense.
You know, when in Europe, we have a veto on these things.
If it happens, it's now gonna happen without us. And when we inevitably come back begging to be let back in, we'll have to sign up to that too.
Nice one, Brexiteers. You really based you decision based on the facts. And certainly not nonsensical scare mongering
Do you feel better now you've coughed up that vague/generalised diatribe? I do hope so, it'd have a point then.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Now who's shifting the goalposts? I've never said there'd be a European defence force, I'm saying that this is a project to coordinate the existing armies into a more efficient group of militaries to enable them to work together. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Sorry, how is setting up what will effectively be an identical intranational defence alliance, minus america, be more efficient? One would think that:
a) any efficiencies that could be made in an EU defence force could easily be made in a NATO one; changing to a completely different organisation is utterly excessive as a response, and
b) ditching the military that provides most of the heavy lifting power and funding would, if anything, be a total and utterly backwards step when considering the military aspect of 'efficiency'.
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
Shifting the goalposts here. One minute EU supporters claim there was never going to be any kind of European defence force, now it's all for economic efficiency in defence spending.
Now who's shifting the goalposts? I've never said there'd be a European defence force, I'm saying that this is a project to coordinate the existing armies into a more efficient group of militaries to enable them to work together. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Semantics. This is a De Facto "European Defence Force". Once this precursor is established, it'll be one step away from being a De Jure EU Army.
This is how the EU operates, incrementally. And as such, knowing the end goal (EU Army and EU Statehood), I oppose this increment no matter how innocuous you pretend it to be.
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
Shifting the goalposts here. One minute EU supporters claim there was never going to be any kind of European defence force, now it's all for economic efficiency in defence spending.
Now who's shifting the goalposts? I've never said there'd be a European defence force, I'm saying that this is a project to coordinate the existing armies into a more efficient group of militaries to enable them to work together. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Semantics. This is a De Facto "European Defence Force". Once this precursor is established, it'll be one step away from being a De Jure EU Army.
Semantics matter, though. The military would be under the command of the various member states. Or is NATO an American Defence Force?
Macron and Juncker, the President of France, and the President of the European Commission respectively, and not some random people down the pub, are the one's talking about a EU defence force, so we can safely say that idea is been taking seriously by key players in the EU.
The EU, and its supporters rational for an EU army seems to boil down to three points:
1. Donald Trump. This is despite the fact that Trump has not done ANYTHING to alter the structure of NATO or withdraw the USA from it. Trump talked about NATO members pulling their weight, and predictably, the Germans got upset about it.
2. Fiscal efficiency and an end to waste. And yet, the EU's proposals would duplicate existing structures.
3. Putin. Again, we have NATO for that. The Baltic states can sleep easy.
If you watch fox news, and read Conservative American newspapers as I do (I read pretty much anything these days left-wing or right-wing) then you'll know that prominent US right-wing commentators loathe and mistrust Putin. The idea that these people would say nothing if Putin invaded a NATO member is risible nonsense.
The USA is in NATO for the long haul. The EU is only interested in usurping power in the name of 'European community.'
NATO and the EU are NOT equiavlent. One is purely a military alliance. Another is a political union.
I'm not bothered in the slightest about the former. I am however bothered about combining a military alliance with a political union, because that is state building as Ketara puts it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: War is the continuation of politics by other means, remember? A military alliance is inescapably a political alliance; war is inherently political.
Please point out to me where NATO's Parliament is located, what economic, financial and social Laws and regulations NATO is enacting, what public elections it holds.
Your argument is descending into farce.
Just be honest with us and admit that you want a European Nation State with its own Military. We'll respect you more for it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: War is the continuation of politics by other means, remember? A military alliance is inescapably a political alliance; war is inherently political.
That depends entirely on how you define 'war' and 'politics' respectively. Pithy quotes about the nature of war don't really stand up to much academic scrutiny. There's been several very authoritative tomes written on the subject, from Quincy Wright onwards. Thoroughly yawn-inducing, and virtually postmodernist at times, but the subject is a little more complex than you're making out.
It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: War is the continuation of politics by other means, remember? A military alliance is inescapably a political alliance; war is inherently political.
Please point out to me where NATO's Parliament is located, what economic, financial and social Laws and regulations NATO is enacting, what public elections it holds.
Your argument is descending into farce.
Just be honest with us and admit that you want a European Nation State with its own Military. We'll respect you more for it.
You're defining "politics" narrowly to suit your own argument. The NATO intervention in Iraq, for instance, was very much a political project. Changes to Iraq's constitution afterwards would certainly qualify as "economic, financial and social laws and regulations", and the elections organized there was under NATO's auspices.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: War is the continuation of politics by other means, remember? A military alliance is inescapably a political alliance; war is inherently political.
That depends entirely on how you define 'war' and 'politics' respectively. Pithy quotes about the nature of war don't really stand up to much academic scrutiny. There's been several very authoritative tomes written on the subject, from Quincy Wright onwards. Thoroughly yawn-inducing, and virtually postmodernist at times, but the subject is a little more complex than you're making out.
I know it's a yawn-inducingly long-winded subject, and I know I might have been a bit sloppy in quoting von Clausewitz, but the fact remains that the organization of the armed forces of a nation inherently is political. Whether we consider politics the doman of state actors or of individual actors is beside the point; the organization of armed forces is done for a political end; they are not in and of themselves an end, unless you're a Khorne Berzerker.
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.
There's a reason why the "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.
They're establishing all the necessary infrastructure for a European Military without actually calling it that. Then all it'll require is another treaty or amendment to the EU Constitution and hey presto, we've got ourselves a European Military. If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
You know how we proved this was a lie, or at least not true, last time it was claimed in this thread? Yeah, that. Could you not bring up stuff we've been through and debunked already without actually making an argument as to why this is the case?
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.
They're establishing all the necessary infrastructure for a European Military without actually calling it that. Then all it'll require is another treaty or amendment to the EU Constitution and hey presto, we've got ourselves a European Military. If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.
It doesn't have to necessarily, any more than NATO has done. The problem for me lies in the fact that there really is absolutely no good argument for it.
Arguments that it makes our militaries more efficient is ludicrous purely on the grounds that it excludes the largest military. They're further illustrated as daft by the obvious followup question of 'Why don't we just do whatever would supposedly make our militaries more efficient whilst retaining NATO?' Arguing for a slightly different approach to military structing/funding and arguing for an EU army are just completely different concepts. You can quite easily do the former whilst never touching the latter.
With the military argument thoroughly trashed, it becomes obvious that the reasons have to be political. The commonly espoused one is that NATO is America's sock puppet. But this terrible attempt to stoke hatred against the 'outsider' as a justification for a vast organisational shift is rendered pretty obvious by the contention of 'Sorry, can you show me where in recent history NATO nations have been dragged into wars that don't involve them against their will by America using NATO as a medium?' To which the answer is; there haven't been any. If anything, it's totally the other way around. America has no real stake in Europe, yet they ended up funding and manning the Yugoslavian conflict.
The historical argument failing, the argument then revolves purely upon a scare tactic, the 'Ah, but what if the big baddie Donald Trump, or some other American like him does it in the future? What if an evil warmongering American President drags us peace loving folks into a war?' To which again, the question is , 'Why would this new EU organisation be impervious to gits being elected over here and doing the exact same thing?'. Judging by the fact that the Spanish Government committed violence against its own population more recently, and the sorts of people sitting over in the Austrian and Polish government, it's pretty clear that mindless brutality is far from the sole preserve of the American people.
Which leaves....no real argument for an EU army at all. To which the question must be raised, 'If there's no real apparent need for it, why do you want it so badly?'
The answer is of course, to help solidify the bulwark of a future European superpower.
If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?
You mean just like do not take my sovereignty away unless it's uncle sam calling?
I don't understand this comment. Could you explain what you're saying (or joking/implying) in detail for me?
There IS a pressing political need to have a plan B from Washington. It's called Donald Trump and it may or may not leave in 3 years, but it's changed the political landscape for good.
So....the argument that we need to reform a defence alliance that's been in existence for 50 years, worked really very well, and institute a different one at greater financial cost which excludes the most militarily powerful member....is that a member got someone elected you don't like? Despite the fact that nothing bad has actually happened through NATO as a result?
God forbid, what do you do when someone gets elected in charge of the EU you don't like??? Do you set up another defence alliance which blockades Brussels? Or do you think that the European nations are so much more advanced and special than America that it could never happen over here?
Not to mention, isn't the whole idea against the principles of the EU? Isn't dialogue and co-operation the entire sodding point of multinational projects? As opposed to immediately breaking them in two because someone not on your political side of the spectrum got involved? And Trump, of all people, is the tipping point? I mean, you've got Erdogan enacting reforms in Turkey that would make Ceausescu break into a jig, but it's Donald Trump, the man who can't even get am immigration reform through without being struck down, that motivates you to break up NATO? Jesus Christ.
Break up NATO? No way.
NATO has been calling for European countries to bulk up militarily for the last 30 years. Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes. European countries have generally dragged their feed mostly on the account that Uncle Sam would be there when needed, and it turns out that he might not. It's not as much Donald Trump as the forces set in motion time ago that have finally put him there. Remember when he threatened to cancel NATO because according to him everyone was getting a free ride?
NATO will benefit from having a more operative European military, able to project itself when needed so that the USA can look at the Pacific. And that can be done without increasing (or only marginally increasing) military expenditure. And the EU already has a voice
It's win-win on both sides. It's not a case of don't fix what isn't broken, European military expenditure is clearly broken: 15% efficiency for 50% of the cost.
In any case, the USA will welcome post-Brexit UK with open arms..... as long as you toe the line. That's what the US requires from post-Brexit UK:
A third benefit for NATO will be a reduction in the quiet, but real, battlefield competition between NATO and the EU. Consider the respective anti-piracy military missions conducted off the coast of Africa for the past several years by the EU and NATO. Each has had different strategic priorities, with the EU working the “soft power” side of the equation more diligently than NATO. This competition has also manifested in Afghanistan and the Balkans, where both organizations over time have had different missions and priorities. Since the UK will no longer be obligated to support EU missions, its military will be able to focus solely on their work within the NATO alliance. And, given that European military efforts will be greatly diminished by the loss of British military muscle, the EU can be expected to defer to NATO more frequently.
Finally, a new British government will presumably be a very motivated NATO partner. Now that it has chosen to become a relatively marginal economic player on the international stage, it will have to look for new ways to demonstrate value in its partnership with the United States if it hopes to maintain anything like the “special relationship” it has become accustomed to (and dependent on). Britain will no doubt calculate that continuing or improving its good work in NATO – where it has always been strong to begin with – will be an important show of good faith.
This piece was written right after the Brexit vote by a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and perfectly sums up the US vision of NATO. It's the US and a bunch of junior partners who can't be trusted to do serious things.
Before I get into your other stuff, can you explain what you meant by that earlier comment for me? I did ask, but you seem to have skipped it. I'd appreciate it if you could break it down for me.
NATO has been calling for European countries to bulk up militarily for the last 30 years. Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes. European countries have generally dragged their feed mostly on the account that Uncle Sam would be there when needed, and it turns out that he might not. It's not as much Donald Trump as the forces set in motion time ago that have finally put him there. Remember when he threatened to cancel NATO because according to him everyone was getting a free ride?
NATO will benefit from having a more operative European military, able to project itself when needed so that the USA can look at the Pacific. And that can be done without increasing (or only marginally increasing) military expenditure. And the EU already has a voice
You seem to be arguing for increased military expenditure. This is a very different thing to an EU Army.
It's win-win on both sides. It's not a case of don't fix what isn't broken, European military expenditure is clearly broken: 15% efficiency for 50% of the cost.
And Brexit is 350 million extra for the NHS. Throwing a stat around doesn't give any form of context.
In any case, the USA will welcome post-Brexit UK with open arms..... as long as you toe the line. That's what the US requires from post-Brexit UK:
I don't understand why you keep trying to rope Britain (a nation that is leaving the EU) into an argument for an EU military. The two are unrelated.
Finally, a new British government will presumably be a very motivated NATO partner. Now that it has chosen to become a relatively marginal economic player on the international stage,
As marginal as Japan? You have a very strange perception of the world, where anyone who isn't America, China, or the EU conglomerate is 'marginal'.
it will have to look for new ways to demonstrate value in its partnership with the United States if it hopes to maintain anything like the “special relationship” it has become accustomed to (and dependent on). Britain will no doubt calculate that continuing or improving its good work in NATO – where it has always been strong to begin with – will be an important show of good faith.
This piece was written right after the Brexit vote by a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and perfectly sums up the US vision of NATO. It's the US and a bunch of junior partners who can't be trusted to do serious things.
.....what on earth does this future British defence policy have to do with an EU army? If the EU increases their funding into NATO, they'll get more of a say in setting the mission priorities, no doubt. There's still no pressing need for a separate organisation here, beyond the EU's desire to move into a sphere controlled by another international entity.
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.
They're establishing all the necessary infrastructure for a European Military without actually calling it that. Then all it'll require is another treaty or amendment to the EU Constitution and hey presto, we've got ourselves a European Military. If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
Except the EU as a singular entity is rather powerless, it's still mostly a political platform governed by the individual interests of the participation nation states . It's when the interests of the major nations or a majority of nations align that the thumbscrews are used to force opponents to submit. Stronger EU institutions as a counterweight to Franco-German ambitions was for a long time a reason for smaller nations to support more federalism. Now the UK is in the process of leaving, the interests of the remaining nations create a different consensus then the current one.
If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.
If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.
We've been over this once already in this thread. Suffice to say you're wrong.
Besides, how is it the EU:s fault if the national governments exercise their sovereignty and doesn't let its electorate vote?
If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.
If you go back a few pages this was dealt with previously in the conversation I was alluding to.
Ketara wrote: Before I get into your other stuff, can you explain what you meant by that earlier comment for me? I did ask, but you seem to have skipped it. I'd appreciate it if you could break it down for me.
NATO has been calling for European countries to bulk up militarily for the last 30 years. Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes. European countries have generally dragged their feed mostly on the account that Uncle Sam would be there when needed, and it turns out that he might not. It's not as much Donald Trump as the forces set in motion time ago that have finally put him there. Remember when he threatened to cancel NATO because according to him everyone was getting a free ride?
NATO will benefit from having a more operative European military, able to project itself when needed so that the USA can look at the Pacific. And that can be done without increasing (or only marginally increasing) military expenditure. And the EU already has a voice
You seem to be arguing for increased military expenditure. This is a very different thing to an EU Army.
No such thing as en EU army. I am arguing for increased operational availability for the same expenditure.
It's win-win on both sides. It's not a case of don't fix what isn't broken, European military expenditure is clearly broken: 15% efficiency for 50% of the cost.
And Brexit is 350 million extra for the NHS. Throwing a stat around doesn't give any form of context.
The numbers are easy to check. Add up all the european military budgets together and you get half the US spending. Yet there is a single nuclear aircraft carrier (the CdG which is small, by US standards), a tiny fraction of the air and sea transport capability, fighter jets, drones...... in everything except body count the US much more than doubles all of Europe put together.
In any case, the USA will welcome post-Brexit UK with open arms..... as long as you toe the line. That's what the US requires from post-Brexit UK:
I don't understand why you keep trying to rope Britain (a nation that is leaving the EU) into an argument for an EU military. The two are unrelated.
Finally, a new British government will presumably be a very motivated NATO partner. Now that it has chosen to become a relatively marginal economic player on the international stage,
As marginal as Japan? You have a very strange perception of the world, where anyone who isn't America, China, or the EU conglomerate is 'marginal'.
I'm just quoting the words of a former NATO SAC. That's how the US sees his NATO partners (including the UK). You challenged my "toe the line" comment, here's how the US military brass definitely sees everyone in NATO as junior partners at the very best.
If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.
We've been over this once already in this thread. Suffice to say you're wrong.
Besides, how is it the EU:s fault if the national governments exercise their sovereignty and doesn't let its electorate vote?
Gone back over 10 pages and could not find a reference to either of these treaties.
Because they are acting on behalf of the EU that does not want anyone to vote on such matters other than the chosen few who subscribe to their vision of the future, its how it works - they either ignore voters or make them vote again until they receive the answer they want.
No such thing as en EU army. I am arguing for increased operational availability for the same expenditure.
Which is already done through NATO - why do we need yet more money funnelled into black holes in the EU administration? In addition this admin charge will probably be seen by certain countries as a way to avoid actually spending money on defence tech or going abroad.
Add up all the european military budgets together and you get half the US spending. Yet there is a single nuclear aircraft carrier (the CdG which is small, by US standards), a tiny fraction of the air and sea transport capability, fighter jets, drones...... in everything except body count the US much more than doubles all of Europe put together.
How is this going to be better by having another expensive organisation draining money and competing for attention but without the US doing all the heavy lifting. No wonder the US is so annoyed when its treaty partners fail to live up to their obligations - oddly different to how they expect us to live up to ours.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll tread carefully here, because we don't want to turn this into an American politics thread, but the rational from the EU seems to be that because the USA elected one bad POTUS, then they'll keep electing more bad POTUS' in the future, so we can't rely on the US for defence, despite the evidence to the contrary i.e more American troops and equipment heading back to Europe.
Trump threatened to ignore NATO assistance unless the other members paid the US the 2% they owed. We all know that's not how it works, but it's cast enough doubt about the US's involvement in NATO. Since you can't trust the US to be involved, NATO becomes almost a waste of time.
That 2% spending (when met) doesn't result in much military of use, when taking in isolation across EU27 - there's either going to be a lot of duplication or a lack of coordination. This "EU Army" is the logical answer to both - an ending of the US reliance from NATO, and a co-ordination of resources with some kind of top level planning structure. The forces are still under control of the host nation, but working with the rest, like NATO. This will both give us a better, more stable military, but it'll also save us a lot of money.
It's not going to be an EU controlled army, or Junkers private police force, or any weird EU amalgamation. It's going to be complimentary units from different nations working together.
And as pointed out - We used to have a veto on this stuff.
If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.
The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.
Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.
We've been over this once already in this thread. Suffice to say you're wrong.
Besides, how is it the EU:s fault if the national governments exercise their sovereignty and doesn't let its electorate vote?
Gone back over 10 pages and could not find a reference to either of these treaties.
Despite all this discussion I still have yet to see a sound reason as to why an EU military force is a bad idea other than the emotional response that "we don't want other people to control our forces" and "it's just the EU wanting to become a superstate".
We already provide forces to the "EU army" and it is proposed that we continue to do so Wrexit or no Wrexit. It is written in the UK governments own proposals.
The argument that we have NATO is also rather perverse as the military aren't just employed as a defensive or aggressive force. The reality is that if a foreign state ever invades and NATO gets used in force then the EU will be called up anyway. Additionally the EU will be the least of our worries as we have enough military installations (not only as base for any counter attack, but also early warning systems and so on) that a large war in Europe we will be target number one whether we are in the EU or out of it. In the first couple of hours the UK will become a smoking ash strewn crater. Basically you want to find somewhere the south pacific to live if it ever looks like we are going in this direction.
On the other hand NATO role is to assure us all that mutually assured destruction is inevitable. Hence the 'EU army' is there for other reasons. Now the cynics are pointing out it's just federalisation but I disagree. The military will also get involved in disasters, helping stop smuggling on the Mediterranean, respond to a nuclear terrorist attack and so on. Having a joined command and control allows more efficient response to such issues. It also allows pooling of resources and specialist knowledge that some states may not have. Suppose there is an earthquake and Tsunami that subsequently devastated large swathes of the south Mediterranean coast. By each nation acting independently it results in a lack of co-ordinated action. Some areas might get lots of aid, some might get missed altogether as individual governments push to help the most populous areas. Alternatively you end up with all the aid in a few ports but no one is sorting out clearing roads to get it anywhere.
A co-ordinated command allows resources to be directed evenly and appropriately rather than different countries bump into each other and get in the way. This causes delays and will inevitably kill people. You can avoid more of this with a co-ordinated response by an EU army. Bad recent examples include the response to the hurricanes in the Caribbean. Pretty much every state sent their own ships, supplies etc (the UK was three days late to the party and sent Boris the Clown first instead of anything useful). There were people that were denied access to being taken off islands simply based on the fact that the *military* response was only to deal with their own citizens. Now envisage a different scenario where a combined command allowed all EU citizens to be evacuated by one country, whilst another sent soldiers to round up escaped convicts or provided emergency power.
The arguments has got to get away from 'but we have NATO' because NATO is not there to do everything a military would do.
In other news Theresa May has warned that Russia should stop meddling with elections. Despite the fact the evidence is pointing to Wrexit being meddled with. But I suppose she is only worried that they might be trying to help Corbyn...
John Redwood has been caught telling people not to invest in the UK and to move money to the EU. Now this seems slightly odd considering he supports leaving. So it might be suggested that he only wants Brexit for his own personal gain rather than any ideology.
Whirlwind wrote: Despite all this discussion I still have yet to see a sound reason as to why an EU military force is a bad idea other than the emotional response that "we don't want other people to control our forces" and "it's just the EU wanting to become a superstate".
I think you have this the wrong way around. It's not people saying 'an EU army is a bad idea'. It's people saying, 'Why do we need it? What pressing need is there for the vast expenditure (and it will be) in setting up an alternate organisation to NATO? What will there be for it to do? What urgent necessity does it meet that NATO is incapable of being flexible enough to meet?'
And the answer is; there isn't one. Saying 'I don't think it's a bad idea, why not do it?' isn't really a good enough reason to waste a load of wonga, duplicate processes already performed elsewhere, and generally complicate matters. That's like saying 'Why not set up a Ministry to repair roads?' at the same time the local council does it. Sure, you can say, 'Ah, my new road-repairing Ministry will be able to respond to specific matters of repaving in a somewhat different way', but is it necessary to set up a whole new Ministry to do it? Can't we just adapt the procedures of the local Council as needed?
And come to think of it, why was your first thought to set up a whole new Ministry of Repaving to do it? Do you know how many other calls there are on our money? The roads are generally in perfectly tolerable condition, they've worked well enough for the last fifty years. In fact, why are we even discussing this? Do you have so little else to do that you're sitting around discussing new ways of spending money to extend bureaucracy for the hell of it? Couldn't you just submit a request to modify Council procedure using the standard form? etcetc
If people asking what the the point of your idea is makes you automatically recoil and go 'It's not a bad idea you guys!', it might not be a great idea.
And since I know you Whirlwind, and you're reaching for your keyboard right now to say, 'But hey, you didn't respond to the whole refugee rescue and disaster relief ideas I wrote!', I have. If you look above I specified 'Why not adapt what exists already?' Because that's the most logical, cost efficient thing to do. NATO already has an integrated command structure, it involves the USA (which is a damn big deal in terms of resources), and indeed, already engages in a lot of the stuff you've mentioned (whether you know it or not). If there are some specific thoughts or ideas that it could undertake one or two other things to meet the needs of its member states, those ideas could very easily be submitted and acted upon. And it would be infinitely, infinitely, cheaper and easier to do than establishing the European Union Army.
I mean seriously, nuts and sledgehammers mounted on industrial wrecking cranes here. And the reason that the sledgehammer is being targeted at the nut is not for the reasons given. Think it's a mere coincidence that those who are most in favour of a European superstate are the only ones pushing for this?
If somebody wants a European superstate, that's great and fine. Everyone has an opinion, and the idea is not intrinisically bad. I just don't get why we need the whole 'Erm, we could totally use a European army to...rescue some drowning refugees! Yeah! That's a legit reason to set up a international military org, right guys? Guys? Why are you all looking at me funny? ...I knew you were all anti-democratic EU hating pigs!' charade from those in Brussels advocating it. I just wish they'd be honest and say 'Bro. Superstate. Am I right or am I right?'.
I think you have this the wrong way around. It's not people saying 'an EU army is a bad idea'. It's people saying, 'Why do we need it? What pressing need is there for the vast expenditure (and it will be) in setting up an alternate organisation to NATO? What will there be for it to do? What urgent necessity does it meet that NATO is incapable of being flexible enough to meet?'
Most people arguing against it are fighting about that it means a federalisation of the EU rather any particular reason. I've already pointed out why there is a need, a bit of imagination can expand the concept without having to spell it out in exquisite detail. We might selfishly think we are OK, but Malta, Greece and a dozen other states simply won't have the resources. So it provides surety to those states that there is a useful support in such a crisis. An everyone puts in a bit to make the pain less when that crisis happens. Yes it might be 300 years before the UK has a problem, but then it might also be in 2 years. It's a case of mutual support and a co-ordinated response rather than a mess of a response that can occur. If they started using it to annex Morocco on behalf of one state then I would not agree to it, but that is hardly the plan.
That's like saying 'Why not set up a Ministry to repair roads?' at the same time the local council does it. Sure, you can say, 'Ah, my new road-repairing Ministry will be able to respond to specific matters of repaving in a somewhat different way', but is it necessary to set up a whole new Ministry to do it? Can't we just adapt the procedures of the local Council as needed?
And come to think of it, why was your first thought to set up a whole new Ministry of Repaving to do it? Do you know how many other calls there are on our money? The roads are generally in perfectly tolerable condition, they've worked well enough for the last fifty years. In fact, why are we even discussing this? Do you have so little else to do that you're sitting around discussing new ways of spending money to extend bureaucracy for the hell of it? Couldn't you just submit a request to modify Council procedure using the standard form? etcetc
That's a rather interesting and ironic example considering that there is a national agency for managing roads, the Highways Agency. Where the council is responsible for managing local roads the Highways Agency is responsible for managing major roads to avoid discontinuities at the boundaries. Imagine the chaos if road works on these roads were done at the Council level and the level of co-ordination needed just so that the one Council hadn't just resurfaced a lane of a motorway that led straight into a lane that was being dug up by another. There are always efficiencies of scale, the same principles goes for the military as well.
And since I know you Whirlwind, and you're reaching for your keyboard right now to say, 'But hey, you didn't respond to the whole refugee rescue and disaster relief ideas I wrote!', I have. If you look above I specified 'Why not adapt what exists already?' Because that's the most logical, cost efficient thing to do. NATO already has an integrated command structure, it involves the USA (which is a damn big deal in terms of resources), and indeed, already engages in a lot of the stuff you've mentioned (whether you know it or not). If there are some specific thoughts or ideas that it could undertake one or two other things to meet the needs of its member states, those ideas could very easily be submitted and acted upon. And it would be infinitely, infinitely, cheaper and easier to do than establishing the European Union Army.
Yes, sure NATO could do this. But it doesn't and there appears to be no movement for it to do so in the future. We could also make NATO resurface country's roads for us using their combined command structure as well. But I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. Your argument seems to revolve around someone else can do it so why do we need the 'EU army'? But it's a pointless argument if they aren't and are not going to do it (Unless of course you are secretly head of NATO and about to introduce it?). Most things can be done by someone else but it's hardly a rational argument for not doing it, if the organisation that you think should, isn't.
I mean seriously, nuts and sledgehammers mounted on industrial wrecking cranes here. And the reason that the sledgehammer is being targeted at the nut is not for the reasons given. Think it's a mere coincidence that those who are most in favour of a European superstate are the only ones pushing for this?
You mean like the UK is pushing for it too?
I just don't get why we need the whole 'Erm, we could totally use a European army to...rescue some drowning refugees! Yeah! That's a legit reason to set up a international military org, right guys? Guys? Why are you all looking at me funny?
That's just being facetious at other people's suffering. Some people might actually be a bit more humane than your cynicism and even if it did only save a few hundred of lives then many might consider this a worthwhile cause. Are you saying that if a coordinated 'EU military' did save more children's lives from a slow drowning death that this is a sacrifice we shouldn't make simply to avoid having a centralised command and control set up by the EU?
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.
Honda UK telling MPs it imports 2 million components a day from Europe on 350 trucks and holds 1 hours worth of stock. It would take 18 months to put customs admin in place but every 15 minutes of delay would cost £850,000 a hour. That's not including WTO tariffs of 10% and 4.5%.
The devastating impact of a hard Brexit on the UK car industry was laid bare on Tuesday to MPs, who were told every 15 minutes of customs delays would cost some manufacturers up to £850,000 a year.
Presenting the industry’s most detailed evidence yet to the business select committee, Honda UK said it relied on 350 trucks a day arriving from Europe to keep its giant Swindon factory operating, with just an hour’s worth of parts being held on the production line.
The Japanese-owned company said it would take 18 months to set up new procedures and warehouses if Britain left the customs union but that, with 2m daily component movements, even minor delays at Dover and the Channel tunnel would force hundreds of its trucks to wait for the equivalent of 90 hours a day.
“Outside of the customs union, there is no such thing as a frictionless border,” said Honda’s government affairs manager, Patrick Keating.
“I wouldn’t say that the just-in-time manufacturing model wouldn’t work, but it would certainly be very challenging.”
Until now, many large multinationals have chosen to present such commercially-sensitive data to the government in private, but with MPs still struggling to force disclosure of 58 sectoral analysis reports produced by Whitehall officials, there is growing demand for the impact of leaving without a deal to be spelled out.
Witnesses said new tariffs would add an estimated £1,500 to the price of an imported car, and Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP and former Bank of England economist who led Tuesday’s hearing, encouraged the executives to outline how exporters might also face a possible £300 cost due to tariffs on their imported components.
If Britain leaves without a trade deal, ministers plan to apply World Trade Organization tariffs that stand at 10% for finished vehicles and about 4.5% for automotive components. More than a third of the 690 cars a day produced by Honda in Swindon are sold in Europe, which is also the source of 40% of the company’s parts.
Honda and other witnesses from Aston Martin and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) argued that customs and trade threats were only the start of their concerns.
Aston Martin also feared a “semi-catastrophic” end to EU recognition of UK regulatory approval, something Keating revealed Brussels was now threatening in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit.
Honda pointed to a recent study suggesting the cost of converting an EU car to match US standards is equivalent to another 26% tariff increase.
The industry also fears the impact of new immigration rules for EU nationals. Already 14% of Honda’s 3,500 to 4,000-strong Swindon workforce are from other EU countries, but this is growing fast: of the 600 extra workers hired to build new Civic model last year, 40% were EU workers, as are 30% of the staff at the company’s European HQ in Bracknell.
On Monday, European business leaders including Britain’s CBI warned that the government had just two weeks to make progress on a Brexit divorce agreement if they were to get the clarity they urgently need by the anniversary of article 50 being invoked in March.
“People are sitting on their hands waiting for more clarity about the likely trading relationship with our biggest partner,” Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the SMMT, told the business committee on Tuesday.
Though Honda declined to discuss its UK profitability in public, the SMMT said car manufacturing was a low-margin business, yielding an average 2-4% return on investment.
“You are pretty quickly getting into negative territory,” said Hawes when asked what this would mean in the event of a hard Brexit. “If we went on to WTO terms, it would be incredibly difficult.”
He predicted there may be a diminished choice of cars on sale for British consumers if there is divergence in regulatory standards as some niche importers would not bother to have additional testing just for the UK market.
“If there is any sort of divergence, manufacturers will have to decide whether they want type approval on that UK vehicle, so there might be a contraction in terms of choice,” explained the SMMT boss.
And the industry leaders dismissed arguments that mutual interest among European manufacturers would be enough to automatically force a solution.
While 56% of British car exports go to Europe, just 7% of EU exports go the UK. “The UK is an important market but what matters more is protecting the EU single market,” said Hawes.
Although 10% of the SMMT’s 800 members were revealed in a survey to have supported Brexit during the referendum, its chief executive said he had yet to meet a member who supported leaving now.
“This is a fiercely competitive industry, yet this is a subject that is pretty unifying across the industry,” he told MPs.
Most people arguing against it are fighting about that it means a federalisation of the EU rather any particular reason. I've already pointed out why there is a need, a bit of imagination can expand the concept without having to spell it out in exquisite detail. .
No. You haven't pointed out that there's a need. You've literally said 'They could pick up some refugees' (something already underway by many groups) and respond to disaster relief'. Straight off the bat, that doesn't say 'EU Military' to me. That says 'EU border force' or 'EU Humanitarian Agency'. Tanks, planes, and soldiers with guns aren't primarily there to perform those actions. Saying we should form an EU military to do it is like saying we should form a new branch of the British military to help out with giving directions like they did at the Olympics.
I mean, sure, the military can step in and help with these things (and occasionally do), but that is very emphatically not what the military is about. The military is there to fight people at the command of the government and defend their nation. Everything, and I mean, everything else is absolutely secondary to that.
This is what puts the lie to the lips of anyone who starts advocating a united military as a logical response to a humanitarian problem. If they were truly concerned about humanitarian concerns, they would be establishing an international humanitarian body. Not a combined military. Issuing codes with similar encryption keys to armoured tank units to be utilised on an armoured thrust really has sweet sod all to do with humanitarian issues.
That's a rather interesting and ironic example considering that there is a national agency for managing roads, the Highways Agency. Where the council is responsible for managing local roads the Highways Agency is responsible for managing major roads to avoid discontinuities at the boundaries. Imagine the chaos if road works on these roads were done at the Council level and the level of co-ordination needed just so that the one Council hadn't just resurfaced a lane of a motorway that led straight into a lane that was being dug up by another. There are always efficiencies of scale, the same principles goes for the military as well.
In your rush to find something to disagree with, you missed the fact that it was a made up analogy, and thus, the point of it. When someone compares someone else to the devil, counting horns and disagreeing on that basis doesn't really lend much to a discussion, you know?
Yes, sure NATO could do this. But it doesn't and there appears to be no movement for it to do so in the future.
Funny that. All these people with all these humanitarian concerns, and yet they don't move to actually utilise the already established channels which might allow for immediate action and mitigation of the problem they're apparently concerned about. Instead, they just make vague speeches about establishing a vast joint military. It's almost as if it isn't true.
That's just being facetious at other people's suffering. Some people might actually be a bit more humane than your cynicism and even if it did only save a few hundred of lives then many might consider this a worthwhile cause. Are you saying that if a coordinated 'EU military' did save more children's lives from a slow drowning death that this is a sacrifice we shouldn't make simply to avoid having a centralised command and control set up by the EU?
I'm saying that the EU is quite literally, demonstrably, and factually forking out hundreds of millions of pounds to murderers, slave traders, and despots in North Africa to try and stop immigrants from coming here and disturbing their electoral bases; and that the most logical course of action (pushing for something to be done through NATO and expanding spending there) is very clearly being ignored in favour of advocating the arbitrary formation of a united EU military, something which wouldn't help the situation for at least two years if it was agreed upon tomorrow.
Come on guv. You're not this dense. Just imagine them wearing Tory Party rosettes if that'll help.
An interesting report by the BBC about how a rush to register to vote by young people may have been a key factor in denying the Tories a win at the recent general election.
In related news, there is a tussle going on between people who want the date of leaving the EU to be inscribed into new legislation, and people who don't.
Two points occur to me:
1. How democratic is it to deny the people of the UK the chance of a second referendum if they want one?
2. How does it help our negotiations with the EU to deprive our negotiators of flexibility?
Whirlwind wrote: Despite all this discussion I still have yet to see a sound reason as to why an EU military force is a bad idea other than the emotional response that "we don't want other people to control our forces" and "it's just the EU wanting to become a superstate".
I think you have this the wrong way around. It's not people saying 'an EU army is a bad idea'. It's people saying, 'Why do we need it? What pressing need is there for the vast expenditure (and it will be) in setting up an alternate organisation to NATO? What will there be for it to do? What urgent necessity does it meet that NATO is incapable of being flexible enough to meet?'
There's a big one. Two big ones actually.
One is that what's on the books is not really an EU army, so that's for starters. There won't be EU units answering to an EU command. You won't see a Jean Monnet armoured brigade with an EU commissar summarily shooting soldiers who keep their national flag hidden on their backpack.
Two is that European military procuring is terribly inefficient. The additional layer of admin will more than compensated by economies of scale. This has long been recognised by individual countries, as cooperation gets bigger and bigger in scale. The Dutch have integrated one mechanized Brigade into the German 1st Panzer Division and their air mobile Brigade has been under German command for 3 years now (meaning 2/3 of Dutch brigades are in the German military structure) while the Germans have put their naval troops and handed over a SAM battery in German soil to Dutch command.
Europe can do much more with the same spending. That's what NATO wants from Europe, and that's what needs to be done.
No. You haven't pointed out that there's a need. You've literally said 'They could pick up some refugees' (something already underway by many groups) and respond to disaster relief'. Straight off the bat, that doesn't say 'EU Military' to me. That says 'EU border force' or 'EU Humanitarian Agency'. Tanks, planes, and soldiers with guns aren't primarily there to perform those actions. Saying we should form an EU military to do it is like saying we should form a new branch of the British military to help out with giving directions like they did at the Olympics.
I mean, sure, the military can step in and help with these things (and occasionally do), but that is very emphatically not what the military is about. The military is there to fight people at the command of the government and defend their nation. Everything, and I mean, everything else is absolutely secondary to that.
That largely depends on what defend the nation means. The 'EU army' would be there to defend the EU in it's entirety. That doesn't have to be just by bullets and knives. Managing refugees can be just as influential, such as ensuring refugees don't drown, get desperate and attack fishing vessels; arresting smugglers (likely to be armed and not going to be dealt with by aid agencies etc); try and identify potential terrorists/weapons arriving in the EU. Even by having that humanitarian aid you could prevent someone being radicalised as they see a loved one drown half way across the sea and pin the blame on the country they are going to. Defence is not just about making sure a bear doesn't cross the border. There are a lot more subtle threats than this, it's a bit naive to think the only threats are the ones we can see directly across the border. We don't live in the era of WWI and II anymore. Also I'd point out that despite your focus on immigration it wasn't the only example I provided.
In your rush to find something to disagree with, you missed the fact that it was a made up analogy, and thus, the point of it. When someone compares someone else to the devil, counting horns and disagreeing on that basis doesn't really lend much to a discussion, you know?
Hmmm, not really I was just pointing out lack of thought on your behalf. You were arguing that roads were good example and that there wasn't a need for a national organisation; except in hindsight there is and that the principles you were trying to highlight as not required had indeed been determined were a good idea! I find your argument a bit bizarre really, it effectively comes down to "I gave an example to prove my point", except when it was pointed out that it actually proves the opposite of what you were saying, you are coming back and saying "but I made it up, so hence my example isn't valid". It sounds a bit like you've been caught flat footed because of lack of research and are now trying to say that the analogy you were alluding to was made up to prove a point? Perhaps do better research next time and give a more appropriate analogy for the point you are trying to make. Either that or make a comparison to cavepeople so it's obvious that you aren't using any credible evidence for your argument.
Funny that. All these people with all these humanitarian concerns, and yet they don't move to actually utilise the already established channels which might allow for immediate action and mitigation of the problem they're apparently concerned about. Instead, they just make vague speeches about establishing a vast joint military. It's almost as if it isn't true.
Maybe they just think this is the safest way to deal with the issue if some of them are armed? Maybe they decided that paying NGOs to do this and put them in harms way (which could result in hostages and so on) is perhaps not the best way to go about the process? Some of the people will be desperate, some are actively looking to earn money from people's plight
I'm saying that the EU is quite literally, demonstrably, and factually forking out hundreds of millions of pounds to murderers, slave traders, and despots in North Africa to try and stop immigrants from coming here and disturbing their electoral bases; and that the most logical course of action (pushing for something to be done through NATO and expanding spending there) is very clearly being ignored in favour of advocating the arbitrary formation of a united EU military, something which wouldn't help the situation for at least two years if it was agreed upon tomorrow.
Yes and UK provides arms to less than scrupulous country's as well. I also find the argument rather circular (something I see more and more). Population up in arms about too much immigration leading to people claiming the EU is at breaking point etc, "bad EU for letting all these people in". We (as the populace) vote in more and more anti-immigration MPs and MEPs. They then agree to make deals with less than scrupulous to decrease immigration. The same people then go "Bad EU, you are dealing with people that have dodgy records". The reality is you can't have neither, either money has to be channelled to countries to try and hopefully over time improve both their approach and the populace's lives or you need to accept that more people that want to get out of the god forsaken hellhole they live in. Unless of course you want to string a line of warships around the EU and shoot anyone making an illegal crossing (but then you'd need a joint EU military for that).
As for NATO expanding what it does - How do you know it has been ignored, are you privy to NATOs general meetings where this has ever been discussed? Do you know that it definitely hasn't or perhaps it has and the answer was simply "No". Do you have evidence that it has never been discussed or considered? In that case how do you know that if the "No" answer was given that the EU felt that it then required a new joined up approach as NATO simply was never going to do it?
That largely depends on what defend the nation means. The 'EU army' would be there to defend the EU in it's entirety. That doesn't have to be just by bullets and knives. Managing refugees can be just as influential, such as ensuring refugees don't drown, get desperate and attack fishing vessels; arresting smugglers (likely to be armed and not going to be dealt with by aid agencies etc); try and identify potential terrorists/weapons arriving in the EU. Even by having that humanitarian aid you could prevent someone being radicalised as they see a loved one drown half way across the sea and pin the blame on the country they are going to. Defence is not just about making sure a bear doesn't cross the border. There are a lot more subtle threats than this, it's a bit naive to think the only threats are the ones we can see directly across the border. We don't live in the era of WWI and II anymore. Also I'd point out that despite your focus on immigration it wasn't the only example I provided.
You're kidding right?
Your argument is that we need a unified EU army to 'defend' us against anything you can conceptually dream up as a 'threat' to the people in the most loose possible sense of either word? That's your justification? 'We don't live in WW2 man, we might need a united EU army to rescue immigrants in case somebody knows someone who drowns and becomes radicalised'? 'There could be some smugglers who have guns!'
I mean....seriously? If this is the best sort of thinking that you can devise as a reason for spending vast sums of time and money establishing a combined EU military, I actually don't need to say anything else. Your examples speak for themselves in their utter ludicrous inadequacy for a response of such ill directed magnitude and proportion.
Hmmm, not really I was just pointing out lack of thought on your behalf. You were arguing that roads were good example
This is where you went wrong at the conceptual level. I wasn't using it as a physical, literal 'example' or demonstration of something which exists. I was inventing a fictional analogy in order to exaggerate (and thus illustrate) a specific point being made. This is a common way of explaining something to someone, to make the intended meaning obvious. If I say 'the hospital is cold like a fridge',to demonstrate that something is cold, arguing that the temperature inside a specific make of fridge would technically be underneath the room temperature of any given hospital room is not the correct response. This is because it is a fictional fridge in a fictional hospital, and the point being communicated is that both are cold.
Maybe they just think this is the safest way to deal with the issue if some of them are armed? Maybe they decided that paying NGOs to do this and put them in harms way (which could result in hostages and so on) is perhaps not the best way to go about the process? Some of the people will be desperate, some are actively looking to earn money from people's plight
Yes. The best answer to drowning refugees is clearly to start instituting new combined EU procurement protocols for hand grenades. This will clearly save many people. No better targeted plan or usage of resources could possibly be devised. Trebles all round!
Yes and UK provides arms to less than scrupulous country's as well. I also find the argument rather circular (something I see more and more). Population up in arms about too much immigration leading to people claiming the EU is at breaking point etc, "bad EU for letting all these people in". We (as the populace) vote in more and more anti-immigration MPs and MEPs. They then agree to make deals with less than scrupulous to decrease immigration. The same people then go "Bad EU, you are dealing with people that have dodgy records". The reality is you can't have neither, either money has to be channelled to countries to try and hopefully over time improve both their approach and the populace's lives or you need to accept that more people that want to get out of the god forsaken hellhole they live in. Unless of course you want to string a line of warships around the EU and shoot anyone making an illegal crossing (but then you'd need a joint EU military for that).
None of this has anything to do with anything. The anything in question being 'why are you trying to build an integrated international military organisation when one already exists'.
As for NATO expanding what it does - How do you know it has been ignored, are you privy to NATOs general meetings where this has ever been discussed? Do you know that it definitely hasn't or perhaps it has and the answer was simply "No". Do you have evidence that it has never been discussed or considered? In that case how do you know that if the "No" answer was given that the EU felt that it then required a new joined up approach as NATO simply was never going to do it?
I hang around the JSCSC enough and meet enough officers who actually have something to do with it to know that not only would it be a totally feasible option, it already happens. Seriously. Do some basic research instead of just making up arguments for the hell of it. NATO has had a growing humanitarian role in things like disaster relief since the 1950's. They offer sealift capacity for supplies donated by governments and humanitarian organisations, they deployed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrine, I mean, hell's bells man, they literally have an office called the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre at NATO headquarters!!! I could go through and start listing everything they do, but seriously? Go and look for yourself. It's a patent absurdity to argue that NATO would be opposed to helping out in a specific humanitarian capacity if sufficient of its member states wished to do so.
Why? Because NATO is made up of those member states! If 10 NATO governments decide they want to start utilising NATO resources to combat a specific situation and threat, it's their sodding officers in NATO who will deal with it! America might get a little arsey if it involves spending substantial sums of money on things they consider of little importance, but that would be easily rectified by those 10 nations simply offering to foot the bill for the extra expenditure incurred in pursuing their interests (be it on preventing radicalism from the relatives of people who drowned, or handing out plasters in the street).
I reiterate. There is an existing international military organisation which is well placed to meet any individual reason or case which could require large scale military co-ordination of any type. And there is absolutely zip in the way of pressing reasons to form an entirely new organisation to do exactly the same thing, minus America.
I don't know why you seem to have such trouble conceding that this is an overt political movement towards stronger European integration. It would be one of the primary logical steps towards full European integration, it's advocated by those who very explicitly want a European superstate, there's no obvious military necessity, etcetc. I mean, Occam's razor guv?????
Your argument is that we need a unified EU army to 'defend' us against anything you can conceptually dream up as a 'threat' to the people in the most loose possible sense of either word? That's your justification? 'We don't live in WW2 man, we might need a united EU army to rescue immigrants in case somebody knows someone who drowns and becomes radicalised'? 'There could be some smugglers who have guns!'
So you think putting unarmed civilians potentially in the way is a good idea then if there are armed smugglers running about. Isn't that likely to make things worse if the smugglers learn that arming themselves is the best way to get what they want. An armed force is likely to be more of a deterrent than an unarmed group of civilians. However you arguments re becoming a bit irrational. Rather than arguing why this would be a bad things you are just using more exclamations as to what I've already said. A military force doesn't just have to be there for defending us against a bear. It can do much more than that. In fact if you co-ordinate responses through it you are likely to make efficiencies not just financially but operationally as well as they are trained to take action as needed. You might not accept that they should be doing such things but it doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't.
This is where you went wrong at the conceptual level. I wasn't using it as a physical, literal 'example' or demonstration of something which exists. I was inventing a fictional analogy in order to exaggerate (and thus illustrate) a specific point being made. This is a common way of explaining something to someone, to make the intended meaning obvious. If I say 'the hospital is cold like a fridge',to demonstrate that something is cold, arguing that the temperature inside a specific make of fridge would technically be underneath the room temperature of any given hospital room is not the correct response. This is because it is a fictional fridge in a fictional hospital, and the point being communicated is that both are cold.
I simply don't believe you. I think you are trying to back out of a mistake rather than accept it. I could accepted an initial "Well OK it wasn't a good example in hindsight" but the fact you are still trying to argue that it was only hypothetical makes me believe you did think it was a good example; got pointed out exactly why it was the opposite and evidenced why in some aspects why roads needed to be built on a national scale at times (and hence the comparison an EU military could also apply); and now you are desperately trying to find away to palm off the obvious contradiction in your statement.
Yes. The best answer to drowning refugees is clearly to start instituting new combined EU procurement protocols for hand grenades. This will clearly save many people. No better targeted plan or usage of resources could possibly be devised. Trebles all round!
An army would need grenades wouldn't it. There's not an argument that they wouldn't need to be armed (unless you expect them to go around with flowers as weapons?). Also if the procurement allows for all member states to access the grenades then there are efficiencies here. Rather than 28 individual states undertaking a procurement (or even 10 poorer ones) then this allows them all to buy into one set of armaments which saves them time and resources doing their own procurement. Additionally standardised equipment means that forces can share ammunition regardless of where they are; they are all trained/set up to use the same equipment. If we suppose there was ever a conflict on a European border would it be better to have 28 different ammunition and supply dumps that each force has to resupply from or a set oof supply dumps that means where ever yu are you know the nearest friendly supply will have the equipment you need?
None of this has anything to do with anything. The anything in question being 'why are you trying to build an integrated international military organisation when one already exists'.
Then why did you raise it?
I hang around the JSCSC enough and meet enough officers who actually have something to do with it to know that not only would it be a totally feasible option, it already happens. Seriously. Do some basic research instead of just making up arguments for the hell of it. NATO has had a growing humanitarian role in things like disaster relief since the 1950's. They offer sealift capacity for supplies donated by governments and humanitarian organisations, they deployed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrine, I mean, hell's bells man, they literally have an office called the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre at NATO headquarters!!! I could go through and start listing everything they do, but seriously? Go and look for yourself. It's a patent absurdity to argue that NATO would be opposed to helping out in a specific humanitarian capacity if sufficient of its member states wished to do so.
You are ignoring what I said and just answering you own justification. I do not disagree that NATO could do this. The question is why they don't consistently. Katrina conveniently had a major US impact. More recent ones amounted to a response saying - "hey look folks there's been a hurricane, anyone want to help out?" Which is why we had different nations sending the same things to the region. There was no central control of the situation, that would have resulted in more efficient use of resources. The argument isn't whether NATO can, of course they can. If they wanted they could go and build new golf courses in every member state or build new roads. But they don't consistently, hence it is reasonable for the EU to make it's own arrangements in these areas. If NATO did undertake this support consistently for everyone then yes the requirements for an EU army to do this is lessened. But it doesn't so it isn't
Why? Because NATO is made up of those member states! If 10 NATO governments decide they want to start utilising NATO resources to combat a specific situation and threat, it's their sodding officers in NATO who will deal with it! America might get a little arsey if it involves spending substantial sums of money on things they consider of little importance, but that would be easily rectified by those 10 nations simply offering to foot the bill for the extra expenditure incurred in pursuing their interests (be it on preventing radicalism from the relatives of people who drowned, or handing out plasters in the street).
I don't know why you seem to have such trouble conceding that this is an overt political movement towards stronger European integration. It would be one of the primary logical steps towards full European integration, it's advocated by those who very explicitly want a European superstate, there's no obvious military necessity, etcetc. I mean, Occam's razor guv?????
As I've pointed out before the UK also supports it Wrexit or no Wrexit. Are you arguing that the current UK government supports stronger EU integration?
So you think putting unarmed civilians potentially in the way is a good idea then if there are armed smugglers running about. Isn't that likely to make things worse if the smugglers learn that arming themselves is the best way to get what they want. An armed force is likely to be more of a deterrent than an unarmed group of civilians. However you arguments re becoming a bit irrational. Rather than arguing why this would be a bad things you are just using more exclamations as to what I've already said. A military force doesn't just have to be there for defending us against a bear. It can do much more than that. In fact if you co-ordinate responses through it you are likely to make efficiencies not just financially but operationally as well as they are trained to take action as needed. You might not accept that they should be doing such things but it doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't.
Mate, you can keep coming up with vague spurious occasions when it might potentially be handy to have somebody there to lend a hand, but to reassert again (I note you keep totally ignoring this point), it is one thing to devise a problem, and another to match that up with a) the military as being the most suitable responders, and b) justify that these are large enough problems to require the erection of a large international entity to deal with it when another already exists.
You keep falling down on both counts. Your problems are not particularly suited for a military agency as opposed to a civilian based one, and they are nowhere near large enough in scale to deserve such a response. Anyone can devise a reason for doing something, whether that reason justifies a mismatched and disproportionate response is the matter at hand.
I simply don't believe you.
Good for you. Hold that fervent disbelief close, and then try applying it to something worthwhile. Like the motivation of those advocating for an EU army.
An army would need grenades wouldn't it. There's not an argument that they wouldn't need to be armed (unless you expect them to go around with flowers as weapons?). Also if the procurement allows for all member states to access the grenades then there are efficiencies here.
You might want to go back and reread, you mixed up the train of discussion. My comment about grenades was in response to the idea that a combined EU military was motivated by things like humanitarian goals and disaster relief. It pointed out how clearly, integrated military procurement has sweet sod all to do with such things, reinforcing the point reiterated in my first paragraph of this reply. If you just take it on its own and start talking about efficiency savings could be a good motivation, you're moving it onto another subject altogether, which of course, my original comment was not responding to. And that just turns into us talking past each other.
For example, otherwise my next response will be something like, 'You could apply that to any government procurement, you could use that to justify integrating every department of every EU government', to which you respond with something about how the EU integrates other things, to which I spin off on another tangent, and the conversation just turns into a /really pointless tit for tat where we just seize on one aspect of what's mentioned, ignore the original topic, and end up arguing about space programs to Jupiter inside of five posts.
]
Then why did you raise it?
I didn't? I gave the motivation for an EU army, then you started talking about how they were actually angels in disguise trying to help out in North Africa. To which I pointed out that their actions so far hardly demonstrate that sort of motivation being the case for a combined EU army. Posting paragraphs about how 'The UK totally sells guns too and people in Brussels sadly have their genius underappreciated' was entirely your doing, and unrelated to the topic. By pointing out their actively harmful actions and policies in North Africa, I've established pretty clearly that doing what's best for the people there is clearly not high enough on their priority list to be a serious contender for undertaking a massive organisational shift.
You are ignoring what I said and just answering you own justification.
No, I followed exactly what you said. You said, 'How do I know things like this haven't been proposed in NATO and shot down?' To which I replied, 'Because I actually talk to some people in NATO command, and I know enough about NATO and their involvement in that sort of work to know that not only is it frequently proposed, it's regularly undertaken. Here are the examples. Look more up if you want them.'
Question and answer. Case and point. Open and shut. Changing the subject back to how you think it could be done better is just rehashing the previous point. Please stop doing it, or we might as well give this debate up now, because the conversation will go:
Whirlwind: We need an EU army to respond to the things NATO does badly!
Ketara:- Why not just leverage more of NATO's resources in that direction using predetermined channels to make them do them better? Wouldn't that be far more resource efficient?
Whirlwind:- How do you know that they can do that? For all you know, they've tried and failed!
Ketara:- I know because they already do.
Whirlwind:- Yes, it works badly, and that's why we need an EU army!
You see how circular that line of argument is? Otherwise, I might as well literally just point back to my first response again as an answer to your latest retort.
As I've pointed out before the UK also supports it Wrexit or no Wrexit. Are you arguing that the current UK government supports stronger EU integration?
We very clearly support anything that potentially gets us a better trade deal. This is one such thing. If we were still staying in the EU, we'd be opposing it tooth and nail. Right now, saying we support it is like saying Japan or someone supports it, it's really not here or there anymore when it comes to internal EU policy motivations.
The level of incompetence of this government is astounding, bordering on delusional:
"HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) - which handles customs checks - has said it will need an extra 5,000 staff to cope with the extra workload, while the government has promised an extra 300 border staff will be in place on Brexit day."
I mean....seriously? If this is the best sort of thinking that you can devise as a reason for spending vast sums of time and money establishing a combined EU military, I actually don't need to say anything else. Your examples speak for themselves in their utter ludicrous inadequacy for a response of such ill directed magnitude and proportion.
Let's sort this part out, as you keep repeating the idea that we're going to spend vast sums of time and money doing this. We'll spend some time and money setting up the new co-ordination infrastructure, but we'll save orders of magnitude more than we spend in the efficiency savings. Everyone buying the same equipment using the same contracts and procurement procedures. Everyones kit being interoperable, so an combined army in the field doesn't need to bring in as many different items, resulting in less trucks, simpler logistics, and so on.
Everyone is (IIRC) using a standard NATO 5.56mm or 7.62mm round, but different rifles, different uniforms, webbing, and so on. It means a German unit can't potentially help out a French unit with spare rifle parts. It's more about commonality and interoperability than control.
So you seem to be coming at this as "this is going to cost money, so the only reason is a superstate", whereas we're coming at it as "this is going to save so much money and make life so much easier".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: The level of incompetence of this government is astounding, bordering on delusional:
"HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) - which handles customs checks - has said it will need an extra 5,000 staff to cope with the extra workload, while the government has promised an extra 300 border staff will be in place on Brexit day."
Even if HMRC only need half of what they asked for, the government are still an order of magnitude out in their plans!
To be fair, 300 border staff is all you'd need if you were going to have stricter movement requirements but were still in the customs union - most of the additional work will be in airports.
Of course, we already know we're not going to drop freedom of movement and not freedom of goods.
I can't remember the exact figure, but with the training curve (around 2 years?) it means for us to be ready for Brexit day we'd need to have recruited those 5000 staff already.
You're conflating two topics here, guv. Not your fault, I can totally see why you would do. Just to make it clear, I started discussing the unified EU military concept three days ago, I haven't really been following this defence pact announced subsequently as of two days ago. I was referring (and still am, I haven't been checking the news) to the arguments being put forth up until that point about a general integrated EU military; as opposed to what you've now started talking about (the most current events). So if you're going to start talking about that, you're talking about something different to me, apples and oranges. The latter having occurred in no way invalidates the debates about the former, as if a full EU military hasn't happened yet (I haven't gone into this new pact, so couldn't say), the arguments and political motivation behind it still exist (as they did so back then).
If you want to debate the latest developments, you'll need to talk to someone who's been following them, or get back to me in a week or so. Away from home and doing a lot of work in an archive at the mo.
Let's sort this part out, as you keep repeating the idea that we're going to spend vast sums of time and money doing this. We'll spend some time and money setting up the new co-ordination infrastructure, but we'll save orders of magnitude more than we spend in the efficiency savings. Everyone buying the same equipment using the same contracts and procurement procedures. Everyones kit being interoperable, so an combined army in the field doesn't need to bring in as many different items, resulting in less trucks, simpler logistics, and so on.
Everyone is (IIRC) using a standard NATO 5.56mm or 7.62mm round, but different rifles, different uniforms, webbing, and so on. It means a German unit can't potentially help out a French unit with spare rifle parts. It's more about commonality and interoperability than control.
So you seem to be coming at this as "this is going to cost money, so the only reason is a superstate", whereas we're coming at it as "this is going to save so much money and make life so much easier"..
Your argument has merit to it. It's why the Royal Navy and Royal Artillery always tried to retain interchangeability in stores (historically). It's not a bad idea, quite the opposite on procurement grounds. It has a few blips though.
The first is the obvious question of 'Why not do this through NATO'? The second is that we already share procurement policy through NATO to an extent, both in procurement planning and acquisition (so the savings would be less than you'd think). The third is that different geographic locales ultimately retain different specialisations. The gear best suited for warfare in Turkey is obviously going to be very different to that best suited for Finland. The fourth is that procurement and supply chains are different things. We might set up a joint purchasing department, but if you combines those across nations but not the logistical aspect (which is a part of the individual militaries themselves), you in effect raise a barrier between procurement and commissariat, which slows things down vastly and complicates them (supply chains like that have always had massive problems in the past). It's a bit like instituting the Euro but with no shared fiscal policy. This is without even going into the framework of trying to co-ordinate it when different partners disagree on procurement priorities.
I could go on, but I'm just trying to lay out why whilst it seems like a great idea initially on efficiency grounds, and it certainly has its merits, there's at least as many demerits and it would require much careful planning to even begin to enact successfully. And even then, it would still likely stuff up in its first conflict (most systems do). Given the lack of pressing need for it, I'd argue that there simply isn't the stimulus required currently to push for us to open up that massive can of worms when what we have actually works well enough for the most part, and can be further refined without it.
And let's be honest, the likes of 'I lie and push to see what I can get away with in further integrating Europe' Juncker (who very literally said words to that effect) aren't pushing for an EU military in the hope of saving a few quid. They have their federalist dream (often mentioned in the same breath). Which is fine and grand, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But pushing for an integrated EU military on efficiency grounds is a red herring; worthwhile discussion it may or may not be otherwise.
Ketara wrote: You keep falling down on both counts. Your problems are not particularly suited for a military agency as opposed to a civilian based one, and they are nowhere near large enough in scale to deserve such a response. Anyone can devise a reason for doing something, whether that reason justifies a mismatched and disproportionate response is the matter at hand.
Are you the one to make that judgement though? That is a personal perspective (and one clouded by that "evil EU is trying to take over the world"). On other hand from my personal perspective it is reasonable for the military to take on additional roles where a) a civilian might be put at risk by doing it; b) military training is an asset in implementing the scheme c) it is easier to coordinate an combined response and needs access to multiple resources that are more difficult to co-ordinate from a civilian perspective.
Good for you. Hold that fervent disbelief close, and then try applying it to something worthwhile. Like the motivation of those advocating for an EU army.
Not really, it's the evidence and approach you took to the conversation that made me believe that you were just backtracking. On the latter case I haven't seen evidence that this is some grand master plan to have a private 'EU army' (which as pointed out before isn't really the case anyway) solely at the call of Juncker while he sits in the mountain of doom stroking a white cat and going "mwhhahahahaha".
You might want to go back and reread, you mixed up the train of discussion. My comment about grenades was in response to the idea that a combined EU military was motivated by things like humanitarian goals and disaster relief. It pointed out how clearly, integrated military procurement has sweet sod all to do with such things, reinforcing the point reiterated in my first paragraph of this reply. If you just take it on its own and start talking about efficiency savings could be a good motivation, you're moving it onto another subject altogether, which of course, my original comment was not responding to. And that just turns into us talking past each other.
It's puerile to suggest though that any military organisation does not need weapons however. It's never been a debate that a military would be there to support and defend the EU. But that those aspects can be wider than the remit of what NATO is willing to do (or that concerns that will be the case in the future). Hence the EU is looking to its own security first which can include multiple aspects not only from a defence of nations in times of war but elsewhere including disaster response, smuggler interception etc.
I didn't?
To quote:-
"I'm saying that the EU is quite literally, demonstrably, and factually forking out hundreds of millions of pounds to murderers, slave traders, and despots in North Africa to try and stop immigrants from coming here and disturbing their electoral bases;"
then you started talking about how they were actually angels in disguise trying to help out in North Africa.
I never said that. I said that one aspect where a EU military can assist is managing the issues of migration across the Mediterranean and trying to minimise the loss of life (which is completely needless). As for the overall policy, well that comes down to a response to the electorate, but I'm not sure I agree that policy is right for those people (noting the UN criticises it). But that this is more EU policy issues rather than a 'military' application of that policy which is what we are discussing here. Simply the EU doesn't want people drowning on the beaches of Europe (as that is politically unpalatable) but they also want to discourage them in response to a proportion of the electorate (because it is politically unpalatable) that are worried about "them over there". The point being that the UK and EU have policies with other countries that don't have clean hands and in effect are doing what they think is best for the respective countries/organisation whilst turning a blind eye to some of those countries actions. We don't necessarily have to agree with these policies, which is a different discussion, but you do have to implement them somehow and I can see the logic in having a coordinated military organisation to manage it.
No, I followed exactly what you said. You said, 'How do I know things like this haven't been proposed in NATO and shot down?' To which I replied, 'Because I actually talk to some people in NATO command, and I know enough about NATO and their involvement in that sort of work to know that not only is it frequently proposed, it's regularly undertaken. Here are the examples. Look more up if you want them.'
So to confirm you have direct evidence that NATO will provide all the support the EU wants out of a coordinated military structure, that this is agreed and written down? If so can you post that evidence here rather than saying "I know a person, who knows a person who assures me that this is the case? ).
Perhaps I should just respond with "I know a person who knows a person who knows someone who knows someone else that knows a person in the EU that states that NATO won't provide all the support the EU would like?"
You argument revolves around the only reason to have an EU military coordinated organisation is because they want to federalise, whilst stating NATO could do these things (yes it can). But the best evidence you can come up with is "I know someone". If you can post NATO meeting minutes here on this forum that proves otherwise that the EU nations have asked and NATO have confirmed they will provide then fair enough, but until then I will stand by the principle that NATO could, but doesn't, provide everything that an EU centralised organisation would like. I'd also point out that other groups of countries also have agreed central coordinated command that they rotate units into (e.g. the African standby force) but there is no suggestion here that all the nations are trying to federalise.
We very clearly support anything that potentially gets us a better trade deal. This is one such thing. If we were still staying in the EU, we'd be opposing it tooth and nail. Right now, saying we support it is like saying Japan or someone supports it, it's really not here or there anymore when it comes to internal EU policy motivations.
That's incorrect, the documentation released by the government is that they will provide this support regardless, no strings attached.
Your argument has merit to it. It's why the Royal Navy and Royal Artillery always tried to retain interchangeability in stores (historically). It's not a bad idea, quite the opposite on procurement grounds. It has a few blips though.
The first is the obvious question of 'Why not do this through NATO'?
Because that's not what NATO is about. NATO has made some efforts towards standardisation, but for the most part stays away from platforms (ships, planes, tanks), weapons systems or personal equipment because that's always deemed to be too sensitive. Especially now with Trump in charge anything that's not "everyone should buy American" will get shot down.
NATO provides the platform for individual countries to join together and purchase some equipments (multinational funding) but does nothing to coordinate them. And why would they? The defence needs of the USA are very different to those of Turkey as you mentioned, any agreement other than to buy paperclips would be close to impossible.
The EU (which has a protection clause stonger than NATO) is much more homogeneous than NATO. Especially post-Brexit, and unlike NATO has the mechanisms to enforce the agreements, and the key here is "binding".
Are you the one to make that judgement though? That is a personal perspective (and one clouded by that "evil EU is trying to take over the world").....On the latter case I haven't seen evidence that this is some grand master plan to have a private 'EU army' (which as pointed out before isn't really the case anyway) solely at the call of Juncker while he sits in the mountain of doom stroking a white cat and going "mwhhahahahaha".
Okay. I'm going to stop this discussion right there, and clarify a few things that seem to have become muddled for you.
I'm not opposed to the EU. I'm not opposed to a United States of Europe. I'm not opposed to a theoretical United States of Europe having an integrated army.
You may not be aware of it, but I think you've slipped into that mindset where one side tries to tear the EU down, and you rush to defend it all costs. And that's not what's happening here. Because you're misinterpreting my motives (I don't care about EU defence policy anymore than I do Zambian defence policy now that we're leaving), the extent to which you're goalpost shifting, getting personal, and just generally arguing for the sake of arguing is just feeling mind boggling to me.
I mean, seriously squire. You've come up with the most insane plots about Tory evils in the past before based on the evidential equivalent of a sniff of an oil rag. Yet after quizzing me on whether or not NATO was willing to utilise it's resources humanitarian aid, and me providing proof that it already did that sort of thing, you're now demanding that I literally produce paperwork stamped on some vague proposal about 'NATO providing all the support the EU wants'.
You're taking umbrage at me saying that a guy who representing a bloc that has literally admitted in the past to bullshitting in order to extend European federalisation, is indeed now bullshitting to extend European federalisation.
Crikey, when I say that Britain is likely supporting whatever defence pact has just been announced in order to generate goodwill towards a trade agreement, you're disagreeing. Yet if I was to be trying to argue what you currently appear to be implying (that Theresa May is supporting it out of goodwill and belief in the system), you'd be the first one in the queue to shout about the evil empress May and how she must have an ulterior motive!
When someone like Herzlos or AlmightWalrus post a counter argument right now on this subject, it's reasoned, polite, and logical. So I do my level best to respond in the same way (if I don't always succeed, I apologise for that gents). In the same way that when you talk about statistics, I try to pay attention, because I know you know more than me about it. Ultimately, I'm a dude posting on a toy soldier forum, and frankly, I don't have the time or interest to argue with someone who's convinced that I'm lying (which you've effectively accused me of in your weird obsession over my analogy), or have some super secret hate filled ulterior motive to drag down his beloved European Union.
So no. I don't see the EU as the 'evil EU trying to take over the world' as you put it. I'm a dude on a toy soldiers forum trying to have a friendly debate discussing a known political system, one which has flaws and benefits, ups and downs, sinners and saints. Like every other one. So please, do me a favour. Take a day or two out, reflect on what I've said about my motives, and then send me a PM if you want to carry on chatting about it. I'll be more than happy to. But right now, this just feels like I'm in some triathlon of e-peen measuring, brick wall head bashing, and circular arguing.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think there's any doubt that even if an integrated EU military force existed, it would still need to be part of NATO.
Is Norway going to join this EU army?
Not in principle.
There's a framework in place that individual nations might get invited for individual projects, but PESCO is very much an EU project (so as to accomodate countries in the EU but not in NATO).
They're already part of the Nordic Battlegroup (which is one of the EU battle groups according to CSDP) and it's not like Norway has historically been reluctant to spend on defence anyway.
The problem with the Norway model is free movement (because paying into the EU budget can be disguised as paying for market access, which apparently resonates better) but put that in the mix and you solve the whole Irish thing, too.
I agree, however the referendum was to leave the EU, not to stop free market and free movement, etc, so this would be a completely "democratic" approach that would solve all the other problems.
Unfortunately, as we know, May decided to treat the Leave EU vote of under 52% as a mandatory instruction basically to hard brexit.
Yeah, EEA satisfies the referendum and does the least damage. It won't do anything about foreigners though, so Farage will appear and start being odious within seconds of it happening.
I'm going to moan here, because my missus has had enough of my moaning :p
Ten years ago, the glorious organisation known as Swansea City Council, decided to dig up the Kingsway (the dual carriage way that runs parallel to the High Street) and replace the two roundabouts at either end of the street with a traffic light system. Also they changed it from a dual way system to a one way system. This caused mayhem, and it one of the reasons that the Kingsway has died a slow death. This cost 10 million pounds.
Last week, the Council started digging up the Kingsway again. Because they realised that having this system in place was bloody useless and annoying. So they are replacing the one way system with........ Roundabouts at each end of the Kingsway. The total cost of this is 12 million pounds.
So you have 22 million pounds spent to change a road and then change it back. And why was it changed in the first place? To introduce our new bendy buses! To replace the old double decker buses!
Of which the council bought 2, which only run on one route, and they only use the Kingsway once on one of the journeys...........
You're taking umbrage at me saying that a guy who representing a bloc that has literally admitted in the past to bullshitting in order to extend European federalisation, is indeed now bullshitting to extend European federalisation.
Crikey, when I say that Britain is likely supporting whatever defence pact has just been announced in order to generate goodwill towards a trade agreement, you're disagreeing. Yet if I was to be trying to argue what you currently appear to be implying (that Theresa May is supporting it out of goodwill and belief in the system), you'd be the first one in the queue to shout about the evil empress May and how she must have an ulterior motive!
My issues with the Tories is their actions. If they do something well I'm happy to say that. The issue is that I've pointed out counter arguments each time and your overall response has always been that it is just an excuse for federalisation and/or that "NATO can do it". I'm quite happy to point you in the direction of evidence (which I've done before in earlier discussions on this) that you don't want to provide.
So as to the defence being part of the trade deal. In the "Foreign policy, defence and development - a future partnership paper" and I quote from the conclusions.
"The UK is unconditionally committed to maintaining European security."
So my interpretation of unconditionally is that it is not related to any other agreement trade or otherwise. If the trade deals falls through or we get the best trade deal ever that drains the EU dry this is still the intent. And this isn't a document from years before Wrexit, it is from 12th September 2017. So I have to ask what you understand by the term 'unconditional' if this is then being used as a tool to facilitate trade talks?
You've also laughed away thoughts that the EU might prefer a centralised command to try and deal with issues other than (and as well as) direct defence (and why should we need grenades for this). Yet again in this same document we have:-
"Operation ATALANTA is the EU’s military effort to counter piracy and armed robbery at sea off the Horn of Africa and in the Western Indian Ocean." and
"Since its launch in December 2008, the UK has commanded the EU Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) from its OHQ at Northwood, Middlesex, [...] EU NAVFOR has simultaneously ensured the safe delivery of over 1.5m tonnes of World Food Programme aid to the Somali people."
Finally one of your own comments was
That says 'EU border force' or 'EU Humanitarian Agency'. Tanks, planes, and soldiers with guns aren't primarily there to perform those actions.
Yet again in the UK governments document we have...
"In addition, the UK uses its military assets to support Operation SOPHIA, the EU’s countering illegal migration operation in the Mediterranean. The UK is one of a few countries to have had a ship continuously assigned to the operation, and its naval assets have destroyed 172 smuggling boats, saving over 12,000 lives, since the Operation began".
And these are comments and quotes from our Government policy documents. Our own government supports things that you were saying were 'ridiculous' and not really for the military to action. And I haven't even started delving into any EU documents in detail.
Now if you'd come back with NATO documents to say that they asked the EU whether they were wanted for such things and they were told "no" then I'd state at least on the NATO case you were correct, but you've failed to provide that and indeed your comments are directly contradictory to what even our own government is saying (and note I'm not slating May for saying it if you've noticed!).
I can appreciate you have more expertise on military issues than I do but the statements you are producing are simply not correlating with the evidence we have to hand. So hence I can only conclude that your negative perception of the EU is biasing your judgement on the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, EEA satisfies the referendum and does the least damage. It won't do anything about foreigners though, so Farage will appear and start being odious within seconds of it happening.
However he doesn't like the idea that experts are telling him that smoke is bad for you so. I would hence say we all chip in and buy him a few hundred cigarettes each. That would at least mean he will odious for less time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: So you have 22 million pounds spent to change a road and then change it back. And why was it changed in the first place? To introduce our new bendy buses! To replace the old double decker buses!
Of which the council bought 2, which only run on one route, and they only use the Kingsway once on one of the journeys...........
And they still got rid of the double deckers.
The question is why there was a change in policy. Was this because of changes that weren't foreseen or because of lack of long term oversight? It really requires digging through old policy documents. The old policies might have worked in the long term. However it wouldn't have been far off the crash and money for reinvesting into buses might have dried up before they could roll out the whole plan (and especially if there was changes in Councillors). Funding for bus services have ben drying up which means the companies operating them have dropped inefficient routes and stuck to the cash rich ones. The same thing is happening where I live. The only routes now operating are the ones that go past Amazon because they bring in the money. The rest have all been dropped because most of the time they were being used by people not paying for the service (OAP bus passes, which aren't necessarily a bad thing). However as the Council drops the funding support the businesses are making a loss and they get dropped. Conversely this increases traffic and the what seemed a sensible idea then looks silly now. On the other hand if the whole policy had gone through it might have made the area in the long term better (less pollution etc).
I can appreciate you have more expertise on military issues than I do but the statements you are producing are simply not correlating with the evidence we have to hand. So hence I can only conclude that your negative perception of the EU is biasing your judgement on the issue.
I see that you've spurned my attempt to take this in a more positive direction, in favour of taking quotes of mine so far out of context that they might as well appear in Lord of the Rings, and then matching them up against (irrelevant) links.
I mean, when I literally can scroll through your extensive post and not even identify the comments and view supposedly attributed to me, and you're still insisting you know my views better than I do myself, all communication has clearly broken down. Whether it's because aliens are interfering with my brain, or your pet monkey is just hammering randomly googled comments on a keyboard, we're clearly going nowhere. Probably best not to waste either of our time interacting any more, now or in the future.
welshhoppo wrote: I'm going to moan here, because my missus has had enough of my moaning :p
Ten years ago, the glorious organisation known as Swansea City Council, decided to dig up the Kingsway (the dual carriage way that runs parallel to the High Street) and replace the two roundabouts at either end of the street with a traffic light system. Also they changed it from a dual way system to a one way system. This caused mayhem, and it one of the reasons that the Kingsway has died a slow death. This cost 10 million pounds.
Last week, the Council started digging up the Kingsway again. Because they realised that having this system in place was bloody useless and annoying. So they are replacing the one way system with........ Roundabouts at each end of the Kingsway. The total cost of this is 12 million pounds.
So you have 22 million pounds spent to change a road and then change it back. And why was it changed in the first place? To introduce our new bendy buses! To replace the old double decker buses!
Of which the council bought 2, which only run on one route, and they only use the Kingsway once on one of the journeys...........
And they still got rid of the double deckers.
Is it the same person in charge both times? Or a different mob?
Kilkrazy wrote: Politicians, like senior managers of big companies, are prone to the fallacy that they need to make their mark by "doing something".
It's a bit different with local Councils generally as they are set up differently to civil services. Council employees work for the populace and the Councillors make overall policy decisions but implemented by officers. Civil servants act on behalf of the government of the day. An MP in charge of a department can tell someone to jump and a civil servant asks how high? A Councillor can't actually tell a Council employee to do anything (and by rights should refuse if it is against Council policy and just point out that they need to take the policy change to their Cabinet). That does have some ramifications though - when a Council has no overall control, it becomes officer led which means non-political decisions are made but there is a risk that there isn't an overall policy. When one party is in charge it becomes more political (and hence not necessarily the best ideas get through) but there is more likely to be an overall strategy. Looking at the records there was a change from "No overall control" to Labour in 2012. That may have impacts on how things turned out.
I can appreciate you have more expertise on military issues than I do but the statements you are producing are simply not correlating with the evidence we have to hand. So hence I can only conclude that your negative perception of the EU is biasing your judgement on the issue.
I see that you've spurned my attempt to take this in a more positive direction, in favour of taking quotes of mine so far out of context that they might as well appear in Lord of the Rings, and then matching them up against (irrelevant) links.
I mean, when I literally can scroll through your extensive post and not even identify the comments and view supposedly attributed to me, and you're still insisting you know my views better than I do myself, all communication has clearly broken down. Whether it's because aliens are interfering with my brain, or your pet monkey is just hammering randomly googled comments on a keyboard, we're clearly going nowhere. Probably best not to waste either of our time interacting any more, now or in the future
OK well I'll help the aliens...
excuse for federalisation - "The answer is of course, to help solidify the bulwark of a future European superpower. " (2017/11/14 14:32:33) or ...I knew you were all anti-democratic EU hating pigs!' charade from those in Brussels advocating it. I just wish they'd be honest and say 'Bro. Superstate. Am I right or am I right?' (2017/11/14 19:27:07)
"NATO can do it" - "'Why do we need it? What pressing need is there for the vast expenditure (and it will be) in setting up an alternate organisation to NATO? What will there be for it to do? What urgent necessity does it meet that NATO is incapable of being flexible enough to meet?" (2017/11/14 19:27:07)
" laughed away thoughts that the EU might prefer a centralised command to try and deal with issues other than (and as well as) direct defence (and why should we need grenades for this). " - 'Erm, we could totally use a European army to...rescue some drowning refugees! Yeah! That's a legit reason to set up a international military org, right guys? Guys? Why are you all looking at me funny? (2017/11/14 19:27:07)
"That says 'EU border force' or 'EU Humanitarian Agency'. Tanks, planes, and soldiers with guns aren't primarily there to perform those actions. " - (2017/11/14 20:33:25)
Does that help?
I mean, when I literally can scroll through your extensive post and not even identify the comments and view supposedly attributed to me, and you're still insisting you know my views better than I do myself, all communication has clearly broken down. Whether it's because aliens are interfering with my brain, or your pet monkey is just hammering randomly googled comments on a keyboard, we're clearly going nowhere. Probably best not to waste either of our time interacting any more, now or in the future
We're all biased. This risk is when any of us deny it because that makes us all blind to our own prejudices. I know I am, which is why I try and support my arguments with evidence. However somehow I don't think we will stop interacting...
It was originally a liberal council. Now its a Lib-lab.
I wouldn't mind, but plenty of Swansea's roads are in dire need of repair. Driving along Fabian Way (the main road into Swansea. Past the new shiny university campus) is like driving along the road to hell.
But they did do up the Bus Station. The problem was nobody actually wanted Bendy Buses. There was a lot of opposition to it.
welshhoppo wrote: It was originally a liberal council. Now its a Lib-lab.
I wouldn't mind, but plenty of Swansea's roads are in dire need of repair. Driving along Fabian Way (the main road into Swansea. Past the new shiny university campus) is like driving along the road to hell.
But they did do up the Bus Station. The problem was nobody actually wanted Bendy Buses. There was a lot of opposition to it.
Bendy buses are yeah..
Great idea. Not always practical
welshhoppo wrote: It was originally a liberal council. Now its a Lib-lab.
I wouldn't mind, but plenty of Swansea's roads are in dire need of repair. Driving along Fabian Way (the main road into Swansea. Past the new shiny university campus) is like driving along the road to hell.
But they did do up the Bus Station. The problem was nobody actually wanted Bendy Buses. There was a lot of opposition to it.
Why are they are problem, is it particular to the area (narrow roads, tight corners etc)? We have them in the local city(especially for student areas and they seem OK with no particular problems?). Double deckers are getting rarer.
As for the poor state of roads that is a different budget. Council budgets are split into two pots. One called 'Capital funding' and one 'Revenue funding'. Capital is for new projects, new roads etc and are for 'one off' expenditure. Revenue budgets are for maintenance and are, barring savings and growth bids, stay the same each year. Revenue funding from one year can be moved into a capital pot, but you can never move capital into a revenue fund. Revenue pays for things like road repairs, emptying bins etc. These are the types of budgets that are getting slashed and hence something has to give (which in this case is likely to be how bad a road gets before a repair is actioned, whether you have to pay for your green waste collection etc). On the other hand capital comes from multiple sources such as selling of council assets (land etc) or from government road investment funds and so on. Hence you can get a brand new lovely looking road whilst other roads go to wrack and ruin. If you really push things and drive a road into the ground far enough then you can then be awarded capital money to completely redo the road. Effectively lack of maintenance allows you eventually to get a new road. You just have to wait a while for the road to fall to pieces. It's not efficient and hardly constructive to road users but that's the system we have.
Swansea is very hilly, regular buses have enough problems going up Townhill and the other hills of Swansea, I somehow doubt a Bendy has the necessary grunt to pull a full load of students up a steep hill towards the Townhill campus.
I mean....seriously? If this is the best sort of thinking that you can devise as a reason for spending vast sums of time and money establishing a combined EU military, I actually don't need to say anything else. Your examples speak for themselves in their utter ludicrous inadequacy for a response of such ill directed magnitude and proportion.
Let's sort this part out, as you keep repeating the idea that we're going to spend vast sums of time and money doing this. We'll spend some time and money setting up the new co-ordination infrastructure, but we'll save orders of magnitude more than we spend in the efficiency savings. Everyone buying the same equipment using the same contracts and procurement procedures. Everyones kit being interoperable, so an combined army in the field doesn't need to bring in as many different items, resulting in less trucks, simpler logistics, and so on.
Everyone is (IIRC) using a standard NATO 5.56mm or 7.62mm round, but different rifles, different uniforms, webbing, and so on. It means a German unit can't potentially help out a French unit with spare rifle parts. It's more about commonality and interoperability than control.
This is great if it’s your kit all the EU nations are buying. There’s clearly a massive financial benefit to someone here which will drive the direction it goes in. The arms industry is massive money. France will be rubbing their hands together will glee if they can get the EU nations to invest in products they make, same for any other nation. And we know there’s a lot of back room deals with greased palms and twisted arms going on to agree such things. If you manage to arrange it so your industry is supplying all the rifles to European countries you’re minted. I’m skeptical how fair this will seem once some countries start using political clout to hog the juicy procurement contracts.
Yeah you do have to wonder about that one. It's almost like there is a complete absence of self awareness given that the Wrexit vote itself was political and even the most ardent supporter pretty much accepts that it will impact prosperity at least in the short to mid term (long term we will never really have an unbiased comparison to test against, although I suspect it will just increase the rate of decline for the country).
However it does slightly smack of getting desperate because we several more weeks on and there appears to be no further progress in real terms. Financial and the Irish border are still sticking points. Tusk has given an ultimatum on the UK Government which would suggest increasing frustration:-
and Ireland are getting more demanding that the Irish border must be open if they are to agree moving things forward (and hence the big issue is that this then means all EU citizens must have the same rights - i.e. open borders remain).
I think the reality of not having your cake and eating it is also coming home as the EU have thrown out free trade in goods and financial services in leaked papers and Carney is again warning of the damage this will cause:-
Bank of England governor Mark Carney warned of a Brexit “shock” to Britain’s financial backbone amid reports that Brussels has thrown out Theresa May’s bid for a bespoke free trade deal.
Papers leaked in Brussels suggest that European Union leaders were flatly rejecting Mrs May’s vision of a comprehensive free trade deal after Brexit covering goods and financial services.
The documents, described as scoping papers for Michel Barnier’s negotiation team, conclude that Britain’s insistence on leaving the single market and customs union ruled out continuing trade on current terms, according to the Politico news service.
Moreover, they reportedly state that a standard trade deal would offer “no direct branching in areas like financial services” and only “limited EU commitments to allow cross-border provision of services”.
The Brexiteer concept that the EU is going to unfairly compel the UK into a disastrous collapse by not offering major concessions does not mean that the UK will not suffer a disastrous collapse.
“Every government has periods of turbulence,” Davis responded.
Damn right that one.
I was absolutely flabbergasted that he said that. ..
Because putting politics above prosperity is never a smart choice.
The man front and centre of putting politics ahead of prosperity, who is knowingly and deliberately embarked on a course that is certain to damage the country and economy on so many levels had the absolute audacity to come out with that peach.
I'm struggling to actually keep up with the blizzard of lies, and bulls hit in world politics. Every single major world figure seems to have lost their mind. I'm starting to think that we've all somehow ended up in the Good Place.
The situation is worse in the Anglo-Saxon economies of the USA and UK because 35 years of neo-liberal economic policies essentially have failed to reward large chunks of the population, but the power elite are locked into them, don't know what to do, and therefore are forced to peddle crap because reality is set against them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've just read a report that Universal Credit is cut off if as a weekly paid worker you are paid five times in a month, forcing you to reapply and go through the six-week waiting period again.
8. If you’re paid weekly
If you’re paid weekly by your employer, you will get either 4 or 5 payments of earnings within a Universal Credit assessment period. Depending on the amount you get paid this may affect your Universal Credit.
When you have 5 weekly earnings payments within an assessment period, your income may be too high to qualify for Universal Credit in that month.
If this happens you will be notified that your income is too high and you will no longer get Universal Credit.
You can re-apply the following month as you should only get 4 wage payments in your assessment period then.
You will need to be prepared for a month when you get 5 wage payments in one assessment period and budget for a potential change in your monthly Universal Credit payments.
I've just read a report that Universal Credit is cut off if as a weekly paid worker you are paid five times in a month, forcing you to reapply and go through the six-week waiting period again.
Well done, the government and civil service!
Yeah it's a dire system. I think it's designed to be awkward because a lot of people will throw their hands up in the air and say "to hell with it" in frustration. Hence taking temporary earnings into account means that they can try stop payment as early as possible whilst, when payments are agreed, it is delayed. My suspicion is the policy is there to try and push people to work because of the stop/start nature of it all; except that it is making more and more people worse off.
There other stupid things about this as well. I have two brothers. They both have one child. One pair are very well off earning between them over £80kpa. The other not so, perhaps bringing in about £20kpa (and that's really not that bad compared to to other people). The former has no savings and have pushed it into a new house (so you could argue the house is the savings) and spend what they can. The latter tries to take a more frugal approach and save money. Which do you think gets denied UC? Well it is the latter, because they have savings (for example to try and use for a deposit) they have to use these before they can get child credit. It has effectively forced them into spending something they really shouldn't and were trying to be sensible about money. Indeed they even take into account money in the childs savings account if the parents are managing it when considering whether they can get UC or not (note I can understand that some people might try and exploit this 'loop hole' but my view is that you should deal with those people in a different way and not penalise everyone because grandparents or other family might be putting money into a childs account for the future). UC is a terrible system that is punshing people for being on lower income scale.
What is most galling however is that the same party is quite happy to continue allowing wealthy individuals to exploit tax loop holes, which if they targetted this area would bring in vastly more income for the government than trying to penalise the poorest will ever do.
It's penny pinching to satisfy the indignant taxpayer worried about "scroungers".
Tories used to accuse the Labour party of the "Politics of Envy", it now seems that that perception has swung around to attack those at the bottom end of the scale who are getting "something for nothing". A Politics of Envy of the poor.
A tiny percentage of scumbags are represented as being the overwhelming majority of those on benefits even if that is far from the truth, and armchair are holes get all fething self-righteous after watching benefits street.
Hence the very poorest, and the working poor get treated like scum and are continuously chastised and punished, yet those who caused the fething problems are lauded as benevolent wealth creators.
The latter tries to take a more frugal approach and save money. Which do you think gets denied UC? Well it is the latter, because they have savings (for example to try and use for a deposit) they have to use these before they can get child credit. It has effectively forced them into spending something they really shouldn't and were trying to be sensible about money. Indeed they even take into account money in the childs savings account if the parents are managing it when considering whether they can get UC or not (note I can understand that some people might try and exploit this 'loop hole' but my view is that you should deal with those people in a different way and not penalise everyone because grandparents or other family might be putting money into a childs account for the future). UC is a terrible system that is punshing people for being on lower income scale.
UC is a terrible system, as are many of the other new benefits that are clearly designed to put people off. Three yearly reassments for life long illnesses for PIP for example. My wife has to go through a stressful reassessment every three years and have to keep appealing as the assessments are so crap and seem to be so dependent on the assessor, who seem to be there to avoid giving people benefits they need.
However, the complaints you give are not related to UC, but have been around for years. The assumption with income related benefits is that anyone on them should not be able to save up £16k, or if you have that much in savings you should be using that before becoming reliant on the state.
The bigger problem for me is that people need state support. IMO no one working full time should be needing income related benefits. Companies should be forced to pay more. Benefits are subsidies going to big companies.
r_squared wrote: It's penny pinching to satisfy the indignant taxpayer worried about "scroungers".
Tories used to accuse the Labour party of the "Politics of Envy", it now seems that that perception has swung around to attack those at the bottom end of the scale who are getting "something for nothing". A Politics of Envy of the poor.
A tiny percentage of scumbags are represented as being the overwhelming majority of those on benefits even if that is far from the truth, and armchair are holes get all fething self-righteous after watching benefits street.
Hence the very poorest, and the working poor get treated like scum and are continuously chastised and punished, yet those who caused the fething problems are lauded as benevolent wealth creators.
It's obscene.
If it wasn't for the flag next to your name, I'd think you were talking about the socioeconomic situation here in the States.
How about some proper train service first? How about all the homes which can't get high speed internet? For that matter, how about all the people who can't get homes?
It's nothing but fiddling around the edges in a desperate search for a positive headline while the country continues to fall apart around us.
How about some proper train service first? How about all the homes which can't get high speed internet? For that matter, how about all the people who can't get homes?
It's nothing but fiddling around the edges in a desperate search for a positive headline while the country continues to fall apart around us.
My first thought would be "who's got a stake in whatever company is going to be deploying that service?" Probably someone managing that budget
The bigger problem for me is that people need state support. IMO no one working full time should be needing income related benefits. Companies should be forced to pay more. Benefits are subsidies going to big companies.
Exactly my thoughts. Tax credits are just a subsidy to large corporations to get away with low wages. Scrap them and lift the minimum wage. Employers should burden the cost of needing employees not the public purse. I really don’t see why my taxes should go to someone working in a supermarket so that ASDA can pay their employees less and increase their margin for shareholders and investors who no doubt don’t pay any tax in the UK themselves. It’s perverse. The problem is that the Tories attack such benefits but do little to make corporations pay more so people end up worse off.
This sort of thing really rankles middle earners because they are never in a position to benefit from all these tax avoidance schemes but cannot receive any of the benefits that low earners receive, it’s a system that ultimately only benefits the wealthy and corporations because other than the wealthy, we all pay in taxes to sub low earners. And those in authority continue to act surprised that the rich only get richer when we literally all chip in to reduce their employment costs and let them avoid tax. Yet we have a situation where middle earners are mostly likely to vote Tory, because of the way government collaborate with media to present the problem as the lower classes taking more than they deserve, and these voters lap it up.
There absolutely are benefits claimants who cheat the system, but the problem is that it’s really being exploited by the wealthy and the rest is a distraction. For heavens sake, if employers paid more there would be less benefits to cheat on.
How about some proper train service first? How about all the homes which can't get high speed internet? For that matter, how about all the people who can't get homes?
It's nothing but fiddling around the edges in a desperate search for a positive headline while the country continues to fall apart around us.
As much as high speed internet would be useful on my train journey (it's actually reasonable performant now), I don't get why the government is providing money towards it, unless it's for cell tower infrastructure along train routes.
How about some proper train service first? How about all the homes which can't get high speed internet? For that matter, how about all the people who can't get homes?
It's nothing but fiddling around the edges in a desperate search for a positive headline while the country continues to fall apart around us.
I think the demand comes form the businesses. When all their staff are stuck on a train going nowhere at least they will be able to email them promptly that they are going to be late (or maybe never arrive)....
The bigger problem for me is that people need state support. IMO no one working full time should be needing income related benefits. Companies should be forced to pay more. Benefits are subsidies going to big companies.
Exactly my thoughts. Tax credits are just a subsidy to large corporations to get away with low wages. Scrap them and lift the minimum wage. Employers should burden the cost of needing employees not the public purse. I really don’t see why my taxes should go to someone working in a supermarket so that ASDA can pay their employees less and increase their margin for shareholders and investors who no doubt don’t pay any tax in the UK themselves. It’s perverse. The problem is that the Tories attack such benefits but do little to make corporations pay more so people end up worse off.
The question is how you do this without crippling smaller businesses. Take small farm - many (excluding here the bigger industrial ones) might only just about make ends meet so just raising the minimum wage might just force them out of business and the land into the even larger companies that can start to monopolise the system. The alternative is to put prices up, but that just raises inflation and you end up with a repeating cycle as the poorest don't really gain anything other than having their income align with expenditure (it is just higher). Don't get me wrong the large multinational companies that pay peanuts do need to be encouraged to increase wages but it can't just be a rise across the board. It would have to be selective - you could perhaps raise the minimum wage and that companies that earn X profit have to pay for it completely whilst lower income businesses get support for the increase in the lower taxes (paid for by correcting the tax evasion issue that large companies can enjoy) if their profit falls below a certain level.
I don’t believe you should give exemptions to minimum wage. If you wish to support small business in particular sector then the use of tax exemptions would be more appropriate. I understand the need to support small business, but equally we have to ensure we are not propping up unsustainable business. You also have to take account of the fact that that small businesses would also struggle to get workers. If you base it on profit it would also fall apart. Think of the number of multinationals that pay no tax as they move their income to different countries to reduce tax on profits.
Merkel on the ropes, and if we had a stable government, and competent leaders, we might have been to exploit this situation to our advantage and shake down the EU for a good deal.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Merkel on the ropes, and if we had a stable government, and competent leaders, we might have been to exploit this situation to our advantage and shake down the EU for a good deal.
How? I can't get my head around the EU powerhouse being unstable gives us any negotiating power. A stable government headed up by Merkel would have more leeway and direction.
I can understand getting some advantage if different EU nations disagree on terms, but even then the default position is a hard brexit come April 1st 2019. Having no-one able to form a deal is even worse for us than a united front.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Merkel on the ropes, and if we had a stable government, and competent leaders, we might have been to exploit this situation to our advantage and shake down the EU for a good deal.
How? I can't get my head around the EU powerhouse being unstable gives us any negotiating power. A stable government headed up by Merkel would have more leeway and direction.
I can understand getting some advantage if different EU nations disagree on terms, but even then the default position is a hard brexit come April 1st 2019. Having no-one able to form a deal is even worse for us than a united front.
Politicians are politicians the world over, and as much as they love the European project, their own job prospects will come first 99.9% of the time.
A strong British government could have turned around and said: you need Merkel. she's in trouble in Germany, let's cut a quick deal that suits everybody. Who needs the hassle of tortuous negotiations? Everyone's a winner. Job done.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Merkel on the ropes, and if we had a stable government, and competent leaders, we might have been to exploit this situation to our advantage and shake down the EU for a good deal.
How? I can't get my head around the EU powerhouse being unstable gives us any negotiating power. A stable government headed up by Merkel would have more leeway and direction.
I can understand getting some advantage if different EU nations disagree on terms, but even then the default position is a hard brexit come April 1st 2019. Having no-one able to form a deal is even worse for us than a united front.
It's the same fundamental misunderstanding Trump had when dealing with Merkel a few months back.
You deal with the whole EU, not individual countries. Of course the German word carries more weight than Malta's but ultimately the coalition of smaller voices beat the big ones.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Merkel on the ropes, and if we had a stable government, and competent leaders, we might have been to exploit this situation to our advantage and shake down the EU for a good deal.
How? I can't get my head around the EU powerhouse being unstable gives us any negotiating power. A stable government headed up by Merkel would have more leeway and direction.
I can understand getting some advantage if different EU nations disagree on terms, but even then the default position is a hard brexit come April 1st 2019. Having no-one able to form a deal is even worse for us than a united front.
It's the same fundamental misunderstanding Trump had when dealing with Merkel a few months back.
You deal with the whole EU, not individual countries. Of course the German word carries more weight than Malta's but ultimately the coalition of smaller voices beat the big ones.
Naturally of course, now that the EU's second biggest contributor is leaving the EU, and that Germany and France will have to contribute more, it stands to reason that Germany's voice is only going to diminish, not strengthen...
Steve steveson wrote: I don’t believe you should give exemptions to minimum wage. If you wish to support small business in particular sector then the use of tax exemptions would be more appropriate. I understand the need to support small business, but equally we have to ensure we are not propping up unsustainable business. You also have to take account of the fact that that small businesses would also struggle to get workers. If you base it on profit it would also fall apart. Think of the number of multinationals that pay no tax as they move their income to different countries to reduce tax on profits.
It depends on what counts as unsustainable. It can be argued that many smaller businesses offer functions that go beyond their bottom line accounting figures and therefore a moderate loss on paper actually is an investment in some other aspect of the community.
For example Post Offices. They have become unsustainable financially due to a number of factors within the government's control, because the government insists that everything must be run by private business using online blarney without regard to any social consequences.
Post offices previously formed part of the essential fabric of British public life, a focus of small villages like the pub, providing the people with a direct convenient line to the authorities for many services such as car tax discs, pensions, savings and all kinds of official forms. They are closing right and left ironically at a time when services like Click And Collect actually are increasing some of the possible demand for their existence
Default on car tax discs has tripled since they went online only a couple of years ago. Well done! Millions of £ of revenue lost in the name of efficiency.
In contrast, no-one believes the HST2 is sustainable. It's something no-one wants except for the government and the construction companies involved in building it, but it is getting many billions of pounds of public money spent on it. Ironically if it is successful, it merely will cannibalise passengers from the existing services.
EU to Britain: Negations can't move on until you pay us what you owe.
Britain: we've always said we'd honour our financial and legal obligations. How much do we owe you?
EU to Britain: Um...er...um...Northern Ireland! Citizens rights! Can't have your cake and eat it! Little Englanders!!!!
In case anybody was about to catch up with what Michel Barnier said this morning, I've just saved you some valuable time, because that pretty much sums it up.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Merkel on the ropes, and if we had a stable government, and competent leaders, we might have been to exploit this situation to our advantage and shake down the EU for a good deal.
How? I can't get my head around the EU powerhouse being unstable gives us any negotiating power. A stable government headed up by Merkel would have more leeway and direction.
I can understand getting some advantage if different EU nations disagree on terms, but even then the default position is a hard brexit come April 1st 2019. Having no-one able to form a deal is even worse for us than a united front.
It's the same fundamental misunderstanding Trump had when dealing with Merkel a few months back.
You deal with the whole EU, not individual countries. Of course the German word carries more weight than Malta's but ultimately the coalition of smaller voices beat the big ones.
Naturally of course, now that the EU's second biggest contributor is leaving the EU, and that Germany and France will have to contribute more, it stands to reason that Germany's voice is only going to diminish, not strengthen...
That doesn't change who the UK interlocutor in the EU is.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm actually not interested in what Michel Barnier has to say. I am interested in what the UK government is doing to get us out of this mess.
It's not easy when you're negotiating with a brick wall.
For all the talk about the strength of the EU's position, Barnier is just a frontman without any room for manoeuvre or compromise.
I've been saying it for weeks, and I'll say it again: the negotiations are a sham.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm actually not interested in what Michel Barnier has to say. I am interested in what the UK government is doing to get us out of this mess.
It's not easy when you're negotiating with a brick wall.
For all the talk about the strength of the EU's position, Barnier is just a frontman without any room for manoeuvre or compromise.
I've been saying it for weeks, and I'll say it again: the negotiations are a sham.
The EU has been pretty firm in it's stance, but that doesn't make it a brick wall. You seem to forget that not all negotiations require meeting in the middle.
Team UK seems to be getting slightly better in it's approach, but it still comes across as pretty schizophrenic. I'm not convinced it's given the EU anything to work with yet, because it doesn't know what it wants*.
*Though to be fair, what Team UK wants is to be able to blame someone else for this mess and keep their jobs / pension pots after April 1st 2019.
The whole sorry mess is born of the Conservative Party's desire not to rip itself apart between its pro- and anti-EU wings.
I don't think you can quite blame the 53% odd percentage of voters who wanted to leave the EU solely on the Conservative Party. Brussels has their own cross to bear.
I wasn't concerned with the precise percentage (though if it was a 60/40 split it would be a lot clearer mandate for change.)
My point was that Cameron promised a referendum because he wanted to defuse the Tory anti-EU wing of the party (which gave PM john Major such hassle in the 1990s) and to stop the leakage as he saw it of votes to UKIP. He called the referendum on the basis of 36% vote in the general election that delivered that manifesto.
Cameron's actual government policy was to stay in the EU, and could best have been served by not calling a referendum, but this might have lost the Tories more votes.
Nothing was done with the best interests of the UK in mind. It was done for the best interests of David Cameron.
Kilkrazy wrote: I wasn't concerned with the precise percentage (though if it was a 60/40 split it would be a lot clearer mandate for change.)
My point was that Cameron promised a referendum because he wanted to defuse the Tory anti-EU wing of the party (which gave PM john Major such hassle in the 1990s) and to stop the leakage as he saw it of votes to UKIP. He called the referendum on the basis of 36% vote in the general election that delivered that manifesto.
Cameron's actual government policy was to stay in the EU, and could best have been served by not calling a referendum, but this might have lost the Tories more votes.
Nothing was done with the best interests of the UK in mind. It was done for the best interests of David Cameron.
Precisely. Most center-right parties learn to live with a eurosceptic party to their right (often getting along just fine on some issues)
Then there's the way the remain campaign was run and the absence of a plan in case things didn't go as expected, but that's relatively minor.
I see. I thought by 'This whole sorry mess' you were referring to Brexit in general, as opposed to the specific sole decision to hold a referendum. Which is indeed on Cameron's shoulders, as PM at the time.
It's an important one I can't let anyone think brexit had a statistical majority. 53.x% would actually be a meaningful result.
I could remember it was within 0.1% of 52% or 53%, I just couldn't remember which. Although let's be honest, it could have been 58% to leave, and the result would have been identical in terms of everything that's happened since.
It might have helped if Cameron had not proved to be such a total Coward and abandoned his promise to see the country through in favour of bunging his mates massive pay offs and honours and sauntering off to wallow in the money pits of the corporate talk circuit.
It was disgusting how he acted following the vote.
Ketara wrote: I see. I thought by 'This whole sorry mess' you were referring to Brexit in general, as opposed to the specific sole decision to hold a referendum. Which is indeed on Cameron's shoulders, as PM at the time.
It's an important one I can't let anyone think brexit had a statistical majority. 53.x% would actually be a meaningful result.
I could remember it was within 0.1% of 52% or 53%, I just couldn't remember which. Although let's be honest, it could have been 58% to leave, and the result would have been identical in terms of everything that's happened since.
I reckon anything over 55% would have cut off all the will of the people arguments. Above 53% would cut out all the legitimacy arguments.
Then we'd just have to argue about how stupid the idea us
Steve steveson wrote: I don’t believe you should give exemptions to minimum wage. If you wish to support small business in particular sector then the use of tax exemptions would be more appropriate. I understand the need to support small business, but equally we have to ensure we are not propping up unsustainable business. You also have to take account of the fact that that small businesses would also struggle to get workers. If you base it on profit it would also fall apart. Think of the number of multinationals that pay no tax as they move their income to different countries to reduce tax on profits.
It depends on what you mean by 'sustainable' those companies like Amazon can move money abroad and pay less tax. That means any individual item can still earn the same profit compared to a small business but be selling it a cheaper price. That drives more sales for them vastly increasing profit and punishing the smaller businesses that have to pay UK tax. It can be the system that makes things sustainable. If you want both large and small businesses to be treated equitably in terms of the Government support they get then that has to be applied both at the smaller and larger business level. But it simply isn't, therefore you have to change the system so that if you increase the minimum wage the smaller businesses feel less of the pressure (on already tight margins) compared to the big businesses (who might also be using self employed gigging employees).
Politicians are politicians the world over, and as much as they love the European project, their own job prospects will come first 99.9% of the time.
A strong British government could have turned around and said: you need Merkel. she's in trouble in Germany, let's cut a quick deal that suits everybody. Who needs the hassle of tortuous negotiations? Everyone's a winner. Job done.
Sometimes, it can be as simple as that.
You are working on the principle though that they won't be more hard lined about the issue. The same types of people in Germany (ultra conservative) have the same attitude as here (as in Germany first, never forget they are foreigners claptrap). That might force all the parties to be harder to be seen to be getting a better deal for Germany so those same supporters then vote for the those parties other than neo-Nazi linked group. It's the same as what happened here (though UKIP isn't quite as bad, but similar sentiments) and hence we get a ultra hard line government that doesn't really want to negotiate because of being seen to be weak and losing critical support for generations.
I see they are still living in cloud cuckoo land then. We can't even fill vacant posts in farmers fields and food is going to rot. How exactly do they think they will find enough people to fill these jobs on the same basis?
Amsterdam has won a vote to host the European Medicines Agency (EMA) which will relocate from London after the UK leaves the European Union.
The UK is losing both the EMA and the European Banking Authority (EBA) which employ around 1,000 people.
Ministers from the 27 EU countries remaining in the bloc after the UK departs in 2019 have taken part in the secret ballot.
They will now vote later on the new home for the EBA.
Some 16 cities bid for the EMA, while eight want to host the EBA - Brussels, Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris, Prague, Luxembourg City, Vienna and Warsaw.
The EMA is the more alluring of the two bodies, as it promises to make its new host into a hub for Europe's medical industry.
The city that won the EMA must then drop out of the running for the banking authority.
Slovakia had been campaigning hard to make the case for relocating the EMA to Bratislava. Following its failure to win, diplomats say Slovakia may seek to cushion the blow by seeking support for its finance minister becoming chair of the Eurogroup, which runs policy for the eurozone.
What is the EMA?
The European Medicines Agency evaluates and supervises medicines for both human and animal use
It helps national authorities authorise the sale of drugs across the EU's single market of some 500 million people
It has been based at Canary Wharf in east London since 1995 and has about 900 staff
What is the EBA?
The European Banking Authority guarantees financial stability in Europe, including the integrity of the EU's banking sector
Its 170-strong workforce is tasked with harmonising banking rules across the EU Created in 2011, it is best known for its banking "stress tests" designed to test how well banks can withstand a possible repeat of the 2008 financial crisis
Its staff carried out 700 missions in member states last year, meaning its new host must have good air links
..back in April Davis said we could hang onto these , despite the EU saying they would go.
Loss for the UK: 900 jobs, €322m budget (89% from fees & charges, 5% from EU), health industry setting up nearby & 40,000 business visits a year. Gone from London.
Ketara wrote: I see. I thought by 'This whole sorry mess' you were referring to Brexit in general, as opposed to the specific sole decision to hold a referendum. Which is indeed on Cameron's shoulders, as PM at the time.
... ...
To be clear, I also believe Brexit is a whole sorry mess in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: It might have helped if Cameron had not proved to be such a total Coward and abandoned his promise to see the country through in favour of bunging his mates massive pay offs and honours and sauntering off to wallow in the money pits of the corporate talk circuit.
It was disgusting how he acted following the vote.
Same same with Farago, Bozo and Gove.
Still, Tim Martin of popular low-end pub-restaurant chain Wetherspoons thinks the global car industry operates under the same conditions as him, so that's all right.
In completely unrelated news, the Electoral Commission has re-opened its investigation into alleged illegal actions taken by various Leave campaigns.
....not gonna lie, that was the most pedantic correction I've seen today.
It's an important one I can't let anyone think brexit had a statistical majority. 53.x% would actually be a meaningful result.
Agreed, I suppose at some point I should really have a quick look at the statistical variation to see whether 53% would be a more significant result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I see. I thought by 'This whole sorry mess' you were referring to Brexit in general, as opposed to the specific sole decision to hold a referendum. Which is indeed on Cameron's shoulders, as PM at the time.
It's an important one I can't let anyone think brexit had a statistical majority. 53.x% would actually be a meaningful result.
I could remember it was within 0.1% of 52% or 53%, I just couldn't remember which. Although let's be honest, it could have been 58% to leave, and the result would have been identical in terms of everything that's happened since.
Well Cameron might have not left if it was that convincing. At that threshold it would have taken quite a die hard remainer to argue that there was a statistical possibility that it was an aberration (after considering those that didn't vote etc). It would have been more convincing and it was unlikely that we would have had such divide between NI + Scotland vs England + Wales as at that result pretty much everywhere would have voted Leave. That would then have meant the NI border was likely to be less of an issue. It would have probably put us in a stronger position too as the Government wouldn't be so split on the issue. Instead what has happened is an internal political fight in the Tory party has turned into a split country (that will probably split the country in the long term).
..back in April Davis said we could hang onto these , despite the EU saying they would go.
Loss for the UK: 900 jobs, €322m budget (89% from fees & charges, 5% from EU), health industry setting up nearby & 40,000 business visits a year. Gone from London.
I'm afraid he was living on another planet when he thought that was the case. The real question is though, what happens now for getting medicines approved if it all falls through (looking increasingly likely). I suppose if David Tredinnick gets his way they'll be using Astrology before too long.
So what happens if it is found that the Leave campaign were unfairly funding such schemes? May used another election to cover much less funding issues in the 2015 election. Could it perhaps lead to a new referendum if the last one was a result of electoral fraud (of an extent?). Was this Boris's master plan all along???
Amsterdam has won a vote to host the European Medicines Agency (EMA) which will relocate from London after the UK leaves the European Union.
The UK is losing both the EMA and the European Banking Authority (EBA) which employ around 1,000 people.
Ministers from the 27 EU countries remaining in the bloc after the UK departs in 2019 have taken part in the secret ballot.
They will now vote later on the new home for the EBA.
Some 16 cities bid for the EMA, while eight want to host the EBA - Brussels, Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris, Prague, Luxembourg City, Vienna and Warsaw.
The EMA is the more alluring of the two bodies, as it promises to make its new host into a hub for Europe's medical industry.
The city that won the EMA must then drop out of the running for the banking authority.
Slovakia had been campaigning hard to make the case for relocating the EMA to Bratislava. Following its failure to win, diplomats say Slovakia may seek to cushion the blow by seeking support for its finance minister becoming chair of the Eurogroup, which runs policy for the eurozone.
What is the EMA?
The European Medicines Agency evaluates and supervises medicines for both human and animal use
It helps national authorities authorise the sale of drugs across the EU's single market of some 500 million people
It has been based at Canary Wharf in east London since 1995 and has about 900 staff
What is the EBA?
The European Banking Authority guarantees financial stability in Europe, including the integrity of the EU's banking sector
Its 170-strong workforce is tasked with harmonising banking rules across the EU Created in 2011, it is best known for its banking "stress tests" designed to test how well banks can withstand a possible repeat of the 2008 financial crisis
Its staff carried out 700 missions in member states last year, meaning its new host must have good air links
..back in April Davis said we could hang onto these , despite the EU saying they would go.
Loss for the UK: 900 jobs, €322m budget (89% from fees & charges, 5% from EU), health industry setting up nearby & 40,000 business visits a year. Gone from London.
Ouch. That one is going to hurt. France are already on record stating they want as much of the banking sector as possible and now they have this they will push for it even harder. I don't think the banking passporting rights will be on the table anymore.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Merkel on the ropes, and if we had a stable government, and competent leaders, we might have been to exploit this situation to our advantage and shake down the EU for a good deal.
Ah, what could have been...
On the plus side, maybe second time around Merkel will get the opportunity to give a £500 million bung to some tiny minority party that will arboro-magically squeezeout the few votes out of hundreds she needs to win.
Yeah, I've just discovered that I never really meant to vote for Brexit, it was the Russians sending me subconscious messages whilst I slept...
Despite anti-EEC/EU opposition that started the day after the 1975 referendum result, despite years of anti-EU headlines in The Mail and The Telegraph, despite the Maastricht rebels, and despite Farage, and despite all this pre-dating Putin's presidency...it was the Russians wot won it...
There's crackpot conspiracies, and then there's crackpot conspiracies...
I'm not blaming people on dakka for this, but in certain media outlets, it's like the German army in the 1920s and the stab in the back myth.
The Russians? That's Remain's excuse for running one of the most gak poor political campaigns I have ever seen in my life?
I have often suspected that certain Remainers in the media secretly support Brexit.
Ouch. That one is going to hurt. France are already on record stating they want as much of the banking sector as possible and now they have this they will push for it even harder. I don't think the banking passporting rights will be on the table anymore.
The French are welcome to these spivs. They ran this country into the ground.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: .. huh, thought Frankfurt was going to get the banking agency.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, I've just discovered that I never really meant to vote for Brexit, it was the Russians sending me subconscious messages whilst I slept...
Despite anti-EEC/EU opposition that started the day after the 1975 referendum result, despite years of anti-EU headlines in The Mail and The Telegraph, despite the Maastricht rebels, and despite Farage, and despite all this pre-dating Putin's presidency...it was the Russians wot won it
You need to look into the reports more. You and I were never the intended target, that is a waste of time and resources. Our minds are firmly camped in the leave and remain side of things. The research that has been done on it shows they targeted groups that showed evidence of being undecided. I remember a report (it might have been in new scientist that undecided social media sites were the main targets for these bots). We are still human and people can be subtly manipulated (feed only bad things on the EU etc, give the impression that leave views are dominant. The links all seem to feed back to a few chains. Russia,is meddling, it has a vested interest to disrupt western nations if that breaks social cohesion, direction and a single voice (just look at the US and UK). The real question is whether it is state sanctioned meddling from the top.
Ouch. That one is going to hurt. France are already on record stating they want as much of the banking sector as possible and now they have this they will push for it even harder. I don't think the banking passporting rights will be on the table anymore.
The French are welcome to these spivs. They ran this country into the ground.
Although I understand the frustration with the banking industry, you need to change the system gradually and in a controlled manner. Losing a substantial fraction in a short period of time is a recipe for disaster for public finances. Anyway look at this way, we've bailed them out wouldn't you want a return from that investment before you kick them out?
Ouch. That one is going to hurt. France are already on record stating they want as much of the banking sector as possible and now they have this they will push for it even harder. I don't think the banking passporting rights will be on the table anymore.
They haven't been on the table at any point in Brexit so far.
The Russians? That's Remain's excuse for running one of the most gak poor political campaigns I have ever seen in my life?
Russian businesses paid for Brexit related adverts on facebook and even paid in Rubles. They didn't do it for the lulz. Bear in mind the margin here is so thin that they could have swung it by passing even more disinformation.
The French are welcome to these spivs. They ran this country into the ground.
That attitude is why we are in the gak. They messed up the country due to government de-regulation (due to the red tories), and are still responsible for something like 9-11% of the entire gakking economy. It's all fair and well disliking them, but you need to appreciate that we do an awful lot with their money.
There's been that many, so I doubt if the general public will notice another resignation from May's government.
The core problem of the trade talks around Brexit is how to reconcile free movement of people, goods and services without the oversight of the ECJ and involvement in the EEA.
Basically this is a circle that cannot be squared without a massive concession of basic political principle by the EU, because the Conservatives have already drawn a line in the sand about this, saying the UK won't accept the ECJ, EEA or free movement.
Consequently this deal is very unlikely to happen, so David Davis hopes for a trade deal like other third party nations such as Canada. He is desperate to start talking about this deal because he knows it will take a long time to get done.
Passporting rights might be on the table if and when we can get into the trade talks. Given our soon to be set in law deadline of March 29th 2019 for leaving the EU whatever happens, we need to clear the three hurdles of the Irish Border, Citizens' Rights and the divorce bill in the next few weeks, so that we can get to the trade talks.
Passporting rights might be on the table if and when we can get into the trade talks. Given our soon to be set in law deadline of March 29th 2019 for leaving the EU whatever happens, we need to clear the three hurdles of the Irish Border, Citizens' Rights and the divorce bill in the next few weeks, so that we can get to the trade talks.
We can agree on a divorce bill, but not a penny should be handed over until a deal on trade has also been reached.
Otherwise, whats to stop the EU from taking our money, then offering us a crap trade deal? We'd have lost our leverage.
Rumours are that May has been softening about ECJ oversight.
I don't think passporting rights will fit into any deal. EU are currently leaning towards imitating the Canada model as far as I can tell.
I think passporting will be tied to the 4 freedoms, and I can't see why the EU would give us it otherwise since France and Germany have made it clear they want our banking industry (who wouldn't? It all but prints money).
Passporting rights might be on the table if and when we can get into the trade talks. Given our soon to be set in law deadline of March 29th 2019 for leaving the EU whatever happens, we need to clear the three hurdles of the Irish Border, Citizens' Rights and the divorce bill in the next few weeks, so that we can get to the trade talks.
We can agree on a divorce bill, but not a penny should be handed over until a deal on trade has also been reached.
Otherwise, whats to stop the EU from taking our money, then offering us a crap trade deal? We'd have lost our leverage.
By now, we all know where we stand on certain political issues, and it's rare for us to unanimously agree on anything, but I can safely say that we're all in complete agreement over the following points:
A hardcore of Euro-skeptic opinion has existed in the UK since the 1970s, with many of the leading figures over the years being MPs.
British newspapers like the Mail and the Telegraph have been putting the boot into Brussels for decades.
There is a in-built historical suspicion of Europe, in particular of the French and the Germans, built into the nation's psyche, for a lot of people, but not everybody.
A lot of elderly people voted Brexit, and generally, elderly people tend not to be on facebook and twitter. (I'm not personally). Of course there is always exceptions.
Given the above points, where is all this horsegak coming from about Russian involvement? It's concentrated horsegak.
Whirlwind highlights undecided voters being swayed, and yeah, if Leave had won by a narrow margin, say, 100,000 votes, he'd have a point.
But leave won by more than a million votes.
The Russians are a convenient scapegoat for the West's ills these days.
Given the above points, where is all this horsegak coming from about Russian involvement? It's concentrated horsegak.
It's still true, though.
Whirlwind highlights undecided voters being swayed, and yeah, if Leave had won by a narrow margin, say, 100,000 votes, he'd have a point.
Leave won with a 1.9% majority, statistically speaking you can't get much narrower. Russia might not have caused all of it but they could have skewed things by some small fraction.
Given the above points, where is all this horsegak coming from about Russian involvement? It's concentrated horsegak.
It's still true, though.
Whirlwind highlights undecided voters being swayed, and yeah, if Leave had won by a narrow margin, say, 100,000 votes, he'd have a point.
Leave won with a 1.9% majority, statistically speaking you can't get much narrower. Russia might not have caused all of it but they could have skewed things by some small fraction.
People are always asking me to provide evidence, so I'm turning the tables here: where is the evidence that Russia swung the Brexit vote for Leave?
People are always asking me to provide evidence, so I'm turning the tables here: where is the evidence that Russia swung the Brexit vote for Leave?
The adverts, paid for by the russian companies in russian currency were pro-leave.
Plus, why would Russia want us to remain? I assume their end goal is reduced stability in NATO nations, and Brexit has done just that.
Britain is still in NATO, and only this morning, Bojo reiterated Britain's support for Eastern European nations.
If, and it's a big if, the Russian plan was to destabilise NATO, then it's fallen flat on its face.
I'm not convinced for a minute that the Russians swung the Brexit vote
but as always, I'm not afraid to put up my hand and admit I was wrong, should it be proven otherwise.
If genuine, diamond hard, black and white evidence of Russian involvement swinging the Brexit vote appears, then I'll be the first to admit my mistake and condemn the Russians.
I'll show you evidence once you show where anyone has actually claimed that Russia swung the vote. It's not the last 10 pages of this thread, at any rate.
Plus, you claimed that Brexit didn't win by a narrow margin only to then swing around and claim the complete opposite in your next post, hence me asking you to make up your mind.
The Russian plan broadly is to destabilise the West, and it is having some success. They have also been implicated in the US election and the recent trouble in Catalonia.
It's impossible to give "legal" evidence for the effect of Russian trolling, because it has been developed by GCHQ, the CIA and so on, and they aren't going to reveal their secrets. It's also impossible to believe that it had no effect whatsoever. Could it have swung the vote by 1%? Who can say? I don't think that means it should be ignored.
Of course, the Leave campaign is now under investigation by the Electoral Commission for violations of the funding rules, which is another reason to lack confidence in the reliability of the result.
To get back to Bozo, though, he is one of the reasons why the UK candidate for judge in the World Court failed to be elected.
1. The man in question was part of Blair's efforts to "legalitize" the invasion of Iraq.
2. The UK no longer can automatically count on the good will and support of EU countries.
3. Bozo has spent the past 18 months making British diplomacy a hissing and a by-word.
In general this is evidence of the UK's slide down the international pecking order.
The benefits of Brexit are merging day by day. Let the good times roll
As the article says, and I quote: "Global demand for British goods"
I'll drink to that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The Russian plan broadly is to destabilise the West, and it is having some success. They have also been implicated in the US election and the recent trouble in Catalonia.
It's impossible to give "legal" evidence for the effect of Russian trolling, because it has been developed by GCHQ, the CIA and so on, and they aren't going to reveal their secrets. It's also impossible to believe that it had no effect whatsoever. Could it have swung the vote by 1%? Who can say? I don't think that means it should be ignored.
Of course, the Leave campaign is now under investigation by the Electoral Commission for violations of the funding rules, which is another reason to lack confidence in the reliability of the result.
To get back to Bozo, though, he is one of the reasons why the UK candidate for judge in the World Court failed to be elected.
1. The man in question was part of Blair's efforts to "legalitize" the invasion of Iraq.
2. The UK no longer can automatically count on the good will and support of EU countries.
3. Bozo has spent the past 18 months making British diplomacy a hissing and a by-word.
In general this is evidence of the UK's slide down the international pecking order.
Electoral commission? When you consider the whitewash investigation they did concerning the Conservatives and the 2015 GE, I doubt if anybody at Vote Leave is losing sleep over this.
Russian businesses paid for Brexit related adverts on facebook and even paid in Rubles. They didn't do it for the lulz. Bear in mind the margin here is so thin that they could have swung it by passing even more disinformation.
Isn't that what all of the intelligence services do - the West certainly did it in Central and South America as well as Europe. I always thought it was part of their job.
This is one of those rare occasions I agree with you - it is a narrow win, but where's the evidence that the Russians swung the vote?
All I'm getting is smoke and mirrors.
To be fair, without trying to say whether they had any impact or not, that's the point. The Russian doctrine of late has been to create confusion and distrust and undermine the very idea that there is any truth. They're not looking to press "Russia Good", rather "You cant trust anything, nothing is true, go with your gut however crazy that may be".
This is one of those rare occasions I agree with you - it is a narrow win, but where's the evidence that the Russians swung the vote?
All I'm getting is smoke and mirrors.
To be fair, without trying to say whether they had any impact or not, that's the point. The Russian doctrine of late has been to create confusion and distrust and undermine the very idea that there is any truth. They're not looking to press "Russia Good", rather "You cant trust anything, nothing is true, go with your gut however crazy that may be".
We don't need the Russians to create confusion and distrust - we're perfectly capable of doing that ourselves!
I don't know how closely you follow British politics, but believe me, in the last 10 years, there have been some really bad feth ups, and there wasn't a Russian within 100 miles when these happened.
British history is full of feth ups. Here's a historic example: I'm reading about Operation Battle Axe in 1941. So who do the British appoint as ground commander to command this vitally important armoured battle against the Afrika Korps? An infantryman who's never commanded an armoured force before in his life...
This is Britain: we invented incompetence and made it into an art form!
but as always, I'm not afraid to put up my hand and admit I was wrong, should it be proven otherwise.
You get proven wrong on a regular basis on here and have never once admitted it, so I'm not going to waste the effort this time; no evidence will be sufficient for you, and that's fine.
This is one of those rare occasions I agree with you - it is a narrow win, but where's the evidence that the Russians swung the vote?
All I'm getting is smoke and mirrors.
To be fair, without trying to say whether they had any impact or not, that's the point. The Russian doctrine of late has been to create confusion and distrust and undermine the very idea that there is any truth. They're not looking to press "Russia Good", rather "You cant trust anything, nothing is true, go with your gut however crazy that may be".
We don't need the Russians to create confusion and distrust - we're perfectly capable of doing that ourselves!
I don't know how closely you follow British politics, but believe me, in the last 10 years, there have been some really bad feth ups, and there wasn't a Russian within 100 miles when these happened.
You know those spivs that you so despise? How much of what they've wrought was made possible because Russian capital was invested in the UK? There's significant investments in London by Russian oligarchs, no?
The benefits of Brexit are merging day by day. Let the good times roll
As the article says, and I quote: "Global demand for British goods"
I'll drink to that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The Russian plan broadly is to destabilise the West, and it is having some success. They have also been implicated in the US election and the recent trouble in Catalonia.
It's impossible to give "legal" evidence for the effect of Russian trolling, because it has been developed by GCHQ, the CIA and so on, and they aren't going to reveal their secrets. It's also impossible to believe that it had no effect whatsoever. Could it have swung the vote by 1%? Who can say? I don't think that means it should be ignored.
Of course, the Leave campaign is now under investigation by the Electoral Commission for violations of the funding rules, which is another reason to lack confidence in the reliability of the result.
To get back to Bozo, though, he is one of the reasons why the UK candidate for judge in the World Court failed to be elected.
1. The man in question was part of Blair's efforts to "legalitize" the invasion of Iraq.
2. The UK no longer can automatically count on the good will and support of EU countries.
3. Bozo has spent the past 18 months making British diplomacy a hissing and a by-word.
In general this is evidence of the UK's slide down the international pecking order.
Electoral commission? When you consider the whitewash investigation they did concerning the Conservatives and the 2015 GE, I doubt if anybody at Vote Leave is losing sleep over this.
The EC is a toothless tiger these days, sadly.
I appreciate you probably don't have a degree in business. That said, you do come out with some rather nonsensical statements at times, in your enthusiasm for the destruction of the EU and the UK..
How can full order books be a result of Brexit when Brexit hasn't happened? How can full order books in 1988 be a result of the prospect of Brexit when the referendum was 30 years away?
It's obviously complete rubbish. There are other reasons. What are they?
1. The sharp fall in the foreign exchange value of the pound is a boost to exports. Unfortunately, it is a bonus that contains the seeds of its own downfall, since foreigners need to buy £ to pay for their extra orders, and this naturally tends to drive up the foreign exchange value of the £.
2. Order books are full because Britain has a serious productivity problem, which makes the size of the order books smaller than they could have been. This is partly a result of the referendum and subsequent arseing around, which have made business reluctant to invest. To be fair, British businesses have always been bad at investing, it's just become worse in the past 18 months.
Whirlwind highlights undecided voters being swayed, and yeah, if Leave had won by a narrow margin, say, 100,000 votes, he'd have a point.
But leave won by more than a million votes.
The Russians are a convenient scapegoat for the West's ills these days.
The figure is actually 634,750 votes swayed the result. You are making a classic mistake because the figures are in percentages that you are considering things out of 100%. However it is actually out of 50%. This is because for each person that changes their opinion that is in effect a net effect of '2' In the percentage figures. It is in a sense the same as a '6-pointer' game in football where if a team loses they effectively lose 3 points to the opposition, but the opposition also gains 3 points on the loser. The same goes here. To have changed the result you only needed 635,000 people to vote in the opposite way and you would have had a completely different result. That's not an unreasonable number of people to 'persuade' given that the number of undecided going into election day was running to much larger figures than this.
People are always asking me to provide evidence, so I'm turning the tables here: where is the evidence that Russia swung the Brexit vote for Leave?
This is a fair request.
There was research done by Swansea and University of California titled "Social media, sentimentality and public opinions: Evidence from #Brexit and #USElection". A summary can be found here:-
Some 45,000 messages about Brexit were posted from Russian Twitter accounts in 48 hours during last year's referendum, a report in The Times reveals.
Researchers at Swansea University and the University of California, Berkeley found 150,000 accounts based in Russia that switched their focus to Brexit around the vote, with many of the messages coming from automated accounts, or bots.
The newspaper said many of the tweets pushed voters to leave the EU, though some favoured Remain.
Meanwhile, research from the University of Edinburgh has revealed more than 400 Twitter accounts run from a Russian propaganda unit posted tweets about Brexit.
Of the 2,752 accounts suspended by Twitter in the US, 419 accounts operating from the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) tried to influence UK politics, data scientists said.
Speaking to the Guardian, Professor Laura Cram said the 419 accounts tweeted about Brexit 3,468 times, though mostly after the 2016 vote had taken place.
Commenting on the tweets, she called the content "quite chaotic and it seems to be aimed at wider disruption. There's not an absolutely clear thrust. We pick up a lot on refugees and immigration".
Twitter responded to the revelation, telling the newspaper the company "recognises that the integrity of the election process itself is integral to the health of a democracy.”
“As such, we will continue to support formal investigations by government authorities into election interference as required," the spokesperson added.
Of course we do also have anecdotal evidence from TM herself and pointing the finger at meddling by Russia in elections.
The benefits of Brexit are merging day by day. Let the good times roll
As the article says, and I quote: "Global demand for British goods"
I'll drink to that.
It's driven by a weak £ and the same trading conditions. That might not be the same in the future. There is also a risk that companies are seeing large orders at the moment whilst companies fill stocks with what they need in case hard taxes/customs come in the future.
It would be better if our trade deficit was the opposite way round. Manufacturing might be up, but it is only 10% of the economy. We are much more reliant on imports than exports. Not every sector will suffer under Wrexit, it's what happens to the majority that is important. Anyone can point to individual items and say things are getting better but it's the wider picture that is important and we are still far behind the EU in growth terms (apart from perhaps Italy).
There are also other worrying elements, for example "Food and drink firms and companies producing chemicals have experienced a particularly marked increase in demand." In effect companies are buying our food cheap because they can afford to do so because of the weaker £. The problem is that our own population has to then compete to buy those same food types. That sees significant inflation on these types of essentials (food inflation is >4%) whilst the poorest are not gaining any level of increased income to compensate. That means and especially the poorer elements of society have to buy cheaper, less healthy food. In the long term this then has a knock on effect on our health system, sick days and so on. It is for this reason there are concerns about butter shortages over winter. With increased global demand for milk (especially china) that drives prices ever upwards to point where people can not afford it. Now suppose we get a free trade deal, that makes the situation even worse. Increased exports is not necessarily a good thing when the costs to your own populace is much greater.
but as always, I'm not afraid to put up my hand and admit I was wrong, should it be proven otherwise.
Is this a joke? You either flatly ignore posts that contradict you with evidence, or perform majestic mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you haven't been contradicted (e.g. the UK outlawing the death penalty prior to joining the EU/EEC nonsense). Can you actualy give an example of a time when you've admitted to being wrong without a big slab of qualifiers?
Paperchase has pulled a promotion from the Daily [Hate] Mail and apologised to customers who contacted it to complain about their financial support for the fascist gak rag.
The Daily [Hate] Mail, which had hoped to profit from £1000s of extra sales based on bundling a wrapping paper voucher, has accused Paperchase of bowing to a hate campaign against free speech.
but as always, I'm not afraid to put up my hand and admit I was wrong, should it be proven otherwise.
Is this a joke? You either flatly ignore posts that contradict you with evidence, or perform majestic mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you haven't been contradicted (e.g. the UK outlawing the death penalty prior to joining the EU/EEC nonsense). Can you actualy give an example of a time when you've admitted to being wrong without a big slab of qualifiers?
If you have a new scientist subscription these are worth a read.
@kilkrazy. I'm just the messenger here. I didn't write that article. If you have a problem with that article, then I suggest you diect your complaint to The Guardian and/or the CBI.
@whirlwind. Let me say this for the record: I don't doubt for a minute that the Russians tried something during the referendum - that's great power politics that everybody does. But it's a long way from actually INFLUENCING the result one way or another.
@ everybody else. It's no crime to be anti-EU on these pages, and if I'm voicing an opinion e.g I think the EU is rubbish, then how can you be 'wrong?'
but as always, I'm not afraid to put up my hand and admit I was wrong, should it be proven otherwise.
Is this a joke? You either flatly ignore posts that contradict you with evidence, or perform majestic mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you haven't been contradicted (e.g. the UK outlawing the death penalty prior to joining the EU/EEC nonsense). Can you actualy give an example of a time when you've admitted to being wrong without a big slab of qualifiers?
If you have a new scientist subscription these are worth a read.
but as always, I'm not afraid to put up my hand and admit I was wrong, should it be proven otherwise.
Is this a joke? You either flatly ignore posts that contradict you with evidence, or perform majestic mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you haven't been contradicted (e.g. the UK outlawing the death penalty prior to joining the EU/EEC nonsense). Can you actualy give an example of a time when you've admitted to being wrong without a big slab of qualifiers?
In the days of the US politics thread, I admitted I was wrong about Trump's foreign policy. I initially thought it could be a good thing. Ouze, an American dakka member, made a post acknowledging my admission. Tht was a few months back.
Weeks ago, I made a mistake and forgot that Norway was a member of EFTA. I was happy to hold up my hand and admit I got that wrong.
As for ignoring posts, I try my best to reply to every post concerning me. If I forget to reply, it's usually because I'm distracted by something else. I have got other things to do apart from hang around dakka all day I'm only human.
As for the death penalty, I stand by my comments. You know perfectly well I was making a distinction between high treason and a bar room brawl that went wrong and ended up with somebody with a knife in the back.
This is one of those rare occasions I agree with you - it is a narrow win, but where's the evidence that the Russians swung the vote?
All I'm getting is smoke and mirrors.
To be fair, without trying to say whether they had any impact or not, that's the point. The Russian doctrine of late has been to create confusion and distrust and undermine the very idea that there is any truth. They're not looking to press "Russia Good", rather "You cant trust anything, nothing is true, go with your gut however crazy that may be".
We don't need the Russians to create confusion and distrust - we're perfectly capable of doing that ourselves!
I don't know how closely you follow British politics, but believe me, in the last 10 years, there have been some really bad feth ups, and there wasn't a Russian within 100 miles when these happened.
You know those spivs that you so despise? How much of what they've wrought was made possible because Russian capital was invested in the UK? There's significant investments in London by Russian oligarchs, no?
There's also significant investments by the Chinese, but I've yet to see anybody point the finger at China for meddling in the referendum.
but as always, I'm not afraid to put up my hand and admit I was wrong, should it be proven otherwise.
Is this a joke? You either flatly ignore posts that contradict you with evidence, or perform majestic mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you haven't been contradicted (e.g. the UK outlawing the death penalty prior to joining the EU/EEC nonsense). Can you actualy give an example of a time when you've admitted to being wrong without a big slab of qualifiers?
In the days of the US politics thread, I admitted I was wrong about Trump's foreign policy. I initially thought it could be a good thing. Ouze, an American dakka member, made a post acknowledging my admission. Tht was a few months back.
Weeks ago, I made a mistake and forgot that Norway was a member of EFTA. I was happy to hold up my hand and admit I got that wrong.
Faor. The US politics thread must have been locked before I joined, but I do recall the Norway example.
As for ignoring posts, I try my best to reply to every post concerning me. If I forget to reply, it's usually because I'm distracted by something else. I have got other things to do apart from hang around dakka all day I'm only human.
Well, I don't suppose I can prove you don't simply miss tons of posts, but I've never seen you fail to flag one that agrees with you...
As for the death penalty, I stand by my comments. You know perfectly well I was making a distinction between high treason and a bar room brawl that went wrong and ended up with somebody with a knife in the back.
I know perfectly well you retrospectively insisted you'd been making such a distinction and that everyone should have assumed so after your sweeping, incorrect statement had been proven wrong, you mean.
@whirlwind. Let me say this for the record: I don't doubt for a minute that the Russians tried something during the referendum - that's great power politics that everybody does. But it's a long way from actually INFLUENCING the result one way or another.
Erm, do you ever actually question your own logic? After all businesses, industry etc all use social media to influence people to buy their products. Yet when a foreign state does it that has no influence? If it was that ineffective then why do any organisations use it at all? The difficulty we have is that there is no test group to determine whether people were influenced at all. But make no mistake it is an extremely subtle way of changing peoples perceptions so that they don't even notice. It's not like they sent a post out to everyone stating "We're from Russia we think you should vote Wrexit" as that will fail to convince anyone. The subtlety comes from exposing people to low level negative information on a certain group or person. The daft thing is that those that think they can't be influenced and have made up their own mind are in fact the ones most vulnerable to being manipulated in this way.
If you have a new scientist subscription these are worth a read.
It was a common tactic during the Soviet era to say that critics of the regime were 'mentally ill.'
It's an old Stalin trick.
Did you actually read the articles or just read the title and jump to your own conclusions. These are scientific reports as to how peoples behaviour is influenced and how we act as a species. It has nothing to do with anyone being considered 'mentally ill'.
On the other hand it's all based on scientific evidence so why shouldn't I be surprised this is the response.
You know those spivs that you so despise? How much of what they've wrought was made possible because Russian capital was invested in the UK? There's significant investments in London by Russian oligarchs, no?
There's also significant investments by the Chinese, but I've yet to see anybody point the finger at China for meddling in the referendum.
Which is entirely beside the point. You said, and I quote, "[...]in the last 10 years, there have been some really bad feth ups, and there wasn't a Russian within 100 miles when these happened.". Whether or not there were any Chinese investors or not is completely immaterial, the Russian investment in London has been going on for more than 10 years.
@whirlwind. Hell, I may as well say this to everybody.
It's important to note that I'm not accusing anybody on dakka of saying these things. If anything, dakka has been a beacon of polite, robust debate, which has been conducted in a friendly manner. Long may it continue.
But this is what I'll say. Ever since June 24th 2016, a narrative has developed in the Remain supporting media, and amongst prominent Remain supporters, and it goes like this:
Brexit supporters:
are racists and xenophobes.
automatically believe everything they read in The Mail, the Express, and The Sun.
Want to destroy human rights.
Worship Nigel Farage
Didn't know what they were voting for.
Are thick and didn't have a proper education.
Probably shouldn't have been allowed to vote in the first place...
And so on and so on and so on...
There's only so much you can take of that. And the amazing thing is, not amazing, it's sad If I'm honest, these are the EXACT same arguments used in the Victorian age to stop working class men and women from getting the vote.
People are saying Brexit has set this county back. I would argue that we never really progressed. The elites, the establishment, have never lost their disdain, fear, or contempt they have of the so called 'lower' orders. They'd take the vote off us tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.
These people love the EU. And they'll NEVER forgive people like me for voting for Brexit.
To cut a long story short, when this Russian influence argument gets wheeled out, I roll my eyes and think, here we go again.
Working class people are so stupid, they don't even know the Russians are telling them how to vote.
That is exactly what the establishment and the elites are thinking, and they cannot face the truth, and the truth is this:
Their campaign, and their arguments for remaining in the EU, were so worthless, so feeble, as to be fething useless.
Hell, I probably could have put up a better defence of the EU myself, than the likes of Clegg, Cameron and Miliband.
The EU is gak, but change is risky. That was their message, the grand vision they tried to sell to the British people. And they lost.
And deservedly so.
And the irony here is that the winning margin was so narrow, they could have won that with a better campaign, and a bit more passion...
I'll drag up my old argument again, but you really didn't know what you voted for. Neither do I, or anyone else, because the way the referendum was carried out was an exercise in sheer incompetence. There is no possible way of making an informed choice between status quo and "something else" when that something else isn't defined.
It's important to note that I'm not accusing anybody on dakka of saying these things. If anything, dakka has been a beacon of polite, robust debate, which has been conducted in a friendly manner. Long may it continue.
But this is what I'll say. Ever since June 24th 2016, a narrative has developed in the Remain supporting media, and amongst prominent Remain supporters, and it goes like this:
Spoiler:
Brexit supporters:
are racists and xenophobes.
automatically believe everything they read in The Mail, the Express, and The Sun.
Want to destroy human rights.
Worship Nigel Farage
Didn't know what they were voting for.
Are thick and didn't have a proper education.
Probably shouldn't have been allowed to vote in the first place...
And so on and so on and so on...
This narrative does exist. However, it is far from the dominant one. Most media outlets and all politicians trip over themselves to note that these characteristics certainly DO NOT characterise the majority, nor even average, Bexiteer.
ThIs narrative really only exists in two places:
1) Some remainers on Twitter.
2) Amongst Brexiteers, especially the hardline Brexiteer press whose agenda it suits to portray remainers as condescending, ivory-tower, elite traitors who don't care about you, your country, or your family.
Ironically, whilst the Remainer narrative is not that Brexiteers are idiots who believe everything the right wing press tells them, Brexiteers convinced that that it is kinda out themselves as exactly that.
DINLT, you're being disingenuous if you don't believe that social media didn't influence waiverers and the undecided.
I still remember the woman who said she would have voted remain right up until she was in the voting booth, then remembered about the bananas, and voted leave.
Brexit has definitely set us back; we've wasted thousands of hours and will waste many thousands more just to get back to nearly where we were. The country has all but paused waiting to see what will happen. We've lost given away 3 agencies and associated traffic already. We sill don't even know what a brexit is.
You keep talking about lacking a pig picture or plan, but can you imagine what government and businesses could have done if they didn't need to waste so much resource on Brexit?
On the Russia thing; they meddle with it, it's an accepted fact. We'll never be able to put a number on it. That doesn't make brexiteers idiots; we are all biased by advertising.
Could remain have won with a better campaign? I think so, but I wonder how many people wouldn't have voted leave I'd they thought it could win? It's also hard to run a good campaign when the other side paints an anri-expert narrative surrounded by so many lies.
Our politicians are incompetent on both sides, and the referendum should never have happened in such an incompetent way.
You really don't need to get so defensive about anything that threatens the legitimacy of the Leave vote; it's as tenuous a win as I think it's possible to get and hundreds of factors could have changed the result.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @kilkrazy. I'm just the messenger here. I didn't write that article. If you have a problem with that article, then I suggest you diect your complaint to The Guardian and/or the CBI. ... ...
You're not the messenger. You're the spinner. The article makes no reference at all to Brexit. You chose to make that interpretation and trumpet the benefits of Brext.
I have a problem with your statement, not the article.
Here is the only thing in that article that can be attributed to Brexit:
“Nonetheless, uncertainty continues to hold back investment..."
I'd be interested in whether we truly will ever be a United Kingdom again. It's been a spiteful narrative throughout the campaign and subsequent shambles of a negotiation.
I personally hope those that voted Leave get what is coming to them, which makes me feel sad when I take a step back sometimes. Just as I hope those who voted for this government feel the force of it's callous and cold attitude. I've been told as a left leaning remainer that I should simply shut up and accept the 'loss'. So I will take enjoyment as I see others that gloated fall. Unfortunately, the demographic that did the damage won't last long enough to feel the knife.
So, what do we think? We have a country deeply divided now, and I personally don't see a way back. Maybe I'll start the remain voting foodbanks I was toying with...
Thank you for your input. It's a genuine question, the country has never been this divided. I clearly put out my position as a reference, so as to be clear and serve as an example of the attitudes out there.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: A genuine question, dripping with petty spite and contempt. Which is par for the course for Remainers in this thread.
It's been the M.O of the leave campaign. But this is a circular discussion.
If you could focus on the question, rather than be bothered what I think about people, that in my opinion, have ruined my child's future. You'll understand that because that is my opinion, I have those particular thoughts on those that have done this. It's not about what 'I' think, my question was if you can see a time where people that share my views, and indeed the polar opposites, can ever live in harmony.
Because you seem interested in my opinion, I'm going to say no. I think this divide is permanent. Just as liberal and conservative are incompatible, the remain voter and the leave voter will forever hold those sticks to beat the other.
Again, you are taking things a little personal. My opinion is that this process will create a tough environment for the British people. Financially, and culturally.
I will take pity on those that are forced to deal with this when they didn't want it. I will feel no sympathy for any Leave voter during the same period. Those people that voted for something that damages them should get nothing, no sympathy, no financial assistance. I would however, feel a moral obligation to help someone that is in a situation not of their own making
If you want to take that personally then it says more about you. I'm simply writing what a lot of people feel.
The question is, how do you get those 'like me', and those on the other side of the fence, who are shouting for hard brexit and banning foreigners now it looks like this might not be the case, to co-exist anymore
@Shadow Captain: Er, that's exactly his point? How can we get back to being a United Kingdom when this mess has divided us so deeply and personally? He even points out that he doesn't like the fact that that is how he feels.
Personally I know exactly what he's talking about, this situation makes me very, very angry. In particular when I'm told that I've got to "work extra hard to make Brexit a success"; why should I? I didn't want it, I know how ridiculously disruptive it's effects are going to be to my industry and if you wanted it, you go put the effort in to sort it out.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't give a flying feth about what you have to say, when you preface it by wishing ill on me. Thats not conducive to a healthy debate.
Surely the comment was only wishing ill if you believe that the government is cold and callouses and that Brexit will have a negative impact. In which case is it not reasonable to hope that those who voted for it are the ones who feel that impact. To often in UK politics people only vote for politics when they see the harm being on someone else. Few people, especially the right, wish to except ill themselves for the greater good. No place is this more true than when talking about leaving the EU.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: A genuine question, dripping with petty spite and contempt. Which is par for the course for Remainers in this thread.
It's very hard not to feel some amount of anger and resentment at a group of people who've voted to set the living standards of our children back by generations, in a massive gamble with no clear end goal. Especially since a lot of them will be isolated from the changes.
Maybe a post-brexit UK will be better off, and my kids will be better off than me. But so far, as I see is us giving stuff away for no reason, and the very real possibility that no matter what I do, my kids will be worse off for it. All because of people voting for brexit, most of whom will play the victim when things get bad and moan at Remainers for not trying hard enough to make it work. I've already seen a huge amount of blame shifting and accusations of not being patriotic enough.
We all try to be civil, but there's a lot of problems going on underneath the surface at the moment.
I'm attacking all those that voted to leave the EU. In a mirror of what the narrative seems to be in the country still. Instead of trying to turn things into a personal attack to avoid the question, which has a term I for the life of me can't remember, try and discuss the issue at hand. Something which others seem able to do.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: A genuine question, dripping with petty spite and contempt. Which is par for the course for Remainers in this thread.
It's very hard not to feel some amount of anger and resentment at a group of people who've voted to set the living standards of our children back by generations, in a massive gamble with no clear end goal. Especially since a lot of them will be isolated from the changes.
Maybe a post-brexit UK will be better off, and my kids will be better off than me. But so far, as I see is us giving stuff away for no reason, and the very real possibility that no matter what I do, my kids will be worse off for it. All because of people voting for brexit, most of whom will play the victim when things get bad and moan at Remainers for not trying hard enough to make it work. I've already seen a huge amount of blame shifting and accusations of not being patriotic enough.
We all try to be civil, but there's a lot of problems going on underneath the surface at the moment.
The ultimate get out clause, and honestly, the one I think that will break the societal camel's back. Scottish independence, a return to the troubles in Ireland...
Instead of trying to turn things into a personal attack to avoid the question
This is double think, you're simultaneously admitting to attacking people who want to leave the EU, then denying its a personal attack. Which is it, FFS?
In essence you're saying..."You're an a*******, but don't take it personally".
, which has a term I for the life of me can't remember, try and discuss the issue at hand. Something which others seem able to do.
You mean the people who agree with you and whom you aren't personally attacking? Oh gee, I wonder why.
Stop making personal attacks and wishing ill on people with a different political view to you, THEN I will start taking you seriously and engaging with your political view. Abusing people who disagree with you does not incentivize them to listen to you.
I will discuss the issue at hand when the issue at hand is discussed in a civil way.
Again, an attempt to make it about yourself to avoid an awkward question. I suggest you put me on ignore, I'll engage with those that seem to be able to act grown up.
Thebiggesthat wrote: Again, an attempt to make it about yourself to avoid an awkward question. I suggest you put me on ignore, I'll engage with those that seem to be able to act grown up.
You hypocrite. YOU made this about me. You started this argument by wishing ill on people who voted in a way you disagree with. And you have the nerve to accuse ME of acting childish?
Herzlos wrote: How about you 2 give it a rest, block each other and we try getting back on topic?
In the budget, £3bn has been set aside for planning for "all outcomes" of Brexit.
Apologies, I'll not be attempting communication with him again.
Now, does that include the the extra money for the NHS? the word 'planning' is so disconcertingly vague. Does this 3bn cover the WTO tarrifs and loss of the financial sector if we lose all passporting rights?
The term 'outdate the outrage' has had a lovely week. First with a corrupt organisation pretending they care by issuing a statement that many will swallow as 'well thats that sorted'; and again with EA and their lootbox gambling fiasco
I listened to some of the budget on Radio 4, and then Corbyn's response.
Some of the items sound all right, but there was a sense of tinkering around with quite piddling amounts of money when the country's problems run a lot deeper. All backed up by some selective stats.
I was most unamused by Hammond's claim to feel a buoyant sense of boundless opportunity, which characterises this great nation. That may have been true for people his age, who had the chance to go to university without paying any fees, and then buy houses that were orders of magnitude cheaper compared to salaries than nowadays.
I think a lot of young people feel a genuine sense of anger and desperation, looking at their forebears as having climbed the ladder and pulled it up after them.
It's difficult to avoid the touchy subject of Brexit, but of course the young voted overwhelmingly to Remain, and all the opportunities that afforded are to be denied them also.
Corbyn tore a wide strip off Hammond afterwards. It was a joy to hear.
Kilkrazy wrote: I listened to some of the budget on Radio 4, and then Corbyn's response.
Some of the items sound all right, but there was a sense of tinkering around with quite piddling amounts of money when the country's problems run a lot deeper. All backed up by some selective stats.
I was most unamused by Hammond's claim to feel a buoyant sense of boundless opportunity, which characterises this great nation. That may have been true for people his age, who had the chance to go to university without paying any fees, and then buy houses that were orders of magnitude cheaper compared to salaries than nowadays.
I think a lot of young people feel a genuine sense of anger and desperation, looking at their forebears as having climbed the ladder and pulled it up after them.
It's difficult to avoid the touchy subject of Brexit, but of course the young voted overwhelmingly to Remain, and all the opportunities that afforded are to be denied them also.
Corbyn tore a wide strip off Hammond afterwards. It was a joy to hear.
Absolutely right. The Tories aren't stupid, the Baby boomers vote for them, so plenty of language like that and it's charming the elderly snake. The politically unmotivated will vote for whatever gives them what they think they want, so easy to win over with a good old witchunt, ala brexit and it's 'its them there immigrants wot took your jobs' and 'nana would have got her cancer treated if that immigrant hadn't been over here for some health tourism'.
The younger, politically motivated left are rising up, and it's fantastic to see Corbyn rising to meet the occasion.
Been at work so missed that, I shall look forward to catching up on it later. As to the budget? Not much in there that affects me really, and not exactly meta changing, but we didn't expect that.
Couple of small points I picked up, nothing for nurses, but the treasury will "react" to the next pay review recommendation, and some tinkering around with Universal Credit. 5 weeks instead of 6, and 1.6bn to help with "problems". Sadly, it's not been TM's Poll Tax, not yet at least.
Not really that exciting, but tbh, I wasn't expecting much.
I can't let anyone think brexit had a statistical majority. 53.x% would actually be a meaningful result.
