Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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.

https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/930490619855859712

The UK and Scotland must continue to work together to ensure businesses and consumers have the certainty they need as we leave the EU:

.. wait ...

The UK and Scotland

huh, well fair play to Nicola Sturgeon , that happened pretty swiftly eh ?

Aston Martin Chief says no-deal Brexit would be "semi-catastophic" and would mean suspending production.

of course.

.. even James Bond is fethed by Brexit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41936543

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?

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

 Ketara wrote:

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?

 Whirlwind wrote:

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?????

 Ketara wrote:


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?

 Whirlwind wrote:

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."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41990906

Even if HMRC only need half of what they asked for, the government are still an order of magnitude out in their plans!

 Ketara wrote:
I didn't? I gave the motivation for an EU army,

Yet you choose to ignore repeated indications (not just by me) that an EU army is not what's happening.

Even NATO is cool with that.

NATO Secretary General welcomes PESCO, stresses need for complementarity
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_148838.htm

 Ketara wrote:

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."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41990906

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.

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I didn't? I gave the motivation for an EU army,

Yet you choose to ignore repeated indications (not just by me) that an EU army is not what's happening.

Even NATO is cool with that.

NATO Secretary General welcomes PESCO, stresses need for complementarity
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_148838.htm

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

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.

 Ketara wrote:


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".

Here's the full read.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31511/171113-pesco-notification.pdf

 Whirlwind wrote:

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.

Ketara, you have the patience of a saint.

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?

 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.

So the UK could join the EEA and not have to be a member of the EU army.

That is the solution to all the problems except if you want a hard brexit.

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...........


And they still got rid of the double deckers.

At least they realized the mistake and are undoing it (at colossal expense).

 Ketara wrote:


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.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/foreign-policy-defence-and-development-a-future-partnership-paper

"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).

Politicians, like senior managers of big companies, are prone to the fallacy that they need to make their mark by "doing something".

 Whirlwind wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

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