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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Labour NEC debacle continues:

http://teamrock.com/news/2016-08-26/labour-party-sees-red-over-foo-fighters-facebook-post

I'd always take a slight dose of scepticism when reading such things. We have no explanation from the other side (and we won't because of privacy laws) so have only one potentially biased picture. The fact it has been reported to the Daily Mail which aren't renowned for unbiased pieces of journalism especially when it comes to the Labour party is suspicious in itself. We haven't got all the information, such as what she posted on her friends site which was inoffensive (which could in an extreme example be "Congratulations on joining the Conservatives, they're the best party ever!").

Other options could simply be that the date was confused and the wrong one was written down (say they read an Americanised date and was actually the 3rd May they had issues with); alternatively maybe they simply got the date wrong.

When I complain about poor journalism this is the sort of article that I'd highlight - it's poor journalism because it's not really investigative. A random person sent them an email and photocopied letter and they've repeated it verbatim without doing any real investigation of the issue. Unfortunately I have been on the wrong side of such news before where the paper in question thought they had a story, asked for the other sides view, and then promptly told them they were going to ignore it because it effectively made it a non-story and ran it anyway (and hence was completely misleading).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've brought this link over from the NATO thread, but I knew this would happen: Czechs and Hungarians calling for an EU army!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37196802

I knew it! I knew it!

Another Remain argument bites the dust.

It's almost like people are taking advantage of one of the strongest opponents of something throwing its toys out of the pram and going home to advance something which never would have stood a chance had said opponent acted like an adult and worked its influence properly...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've brought this link over from the NATO thread, but I knew this would happen: Czechs and Hungarians calling for an EU army!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37196802

I knew it! I knew it!

Another Remain argument bites the dust.

I fail to see what the issue is? A joint military working in a similar way as the UN would provide the opportunity to manage broader issues better from an EU perspective. Take for example people smuggling across the Mediterranean. As it stands we have several navy's air forces and militaries working in a disjointed fashion leaving holes or overlapping in trying to deal with the issue. If it fell under one command you can better co-ordinate their actions to ensure that gaps are plugged and you are not overlapping search areas. This will allow you to save more peoples lives and possibly capture more of the traffickers.

Also what is wrong with having a force that would defend all 28 nations. If in some possible future an aggressive state decided to (try and) annex part of the EU then thinking they would need to confront a defensive force of 28 nations would provide more pause for thought than 1 (where the other 27 spend 8 weeks discussing what to do). A comparable situation would have been the beginning of WWII, where one country after another was 'captured' and by the time the remainder of those allies decided to act it was by far too late. Even with their more advanced weaponry if all the affected nations had taken immediate co-ordinated action then the next 5 years may not have happened, but for that you do need some form of joint working military. Of course you can take the approach that it's not the UK so it's not our issue but eventually that only results in victory on the other side due to divide and conquer maxim.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've brought this link over from the NATO thread, but I knew this would happen: Czechs and Hungarians calling for an EU army!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37196802

I knew it! I knew it!

Another Remain argument bites the dust.

I disagree. An EU army is an excellent idea and a logical extension from the idea of NATO.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've brought this link over from the NATO thread, but I knew this would happen: Czechs and Hungarians calling for an EU army!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37196802

I knew it! I knew it!

Another Remain argument bites the dust.

I fail to see what the issue is? A joint military working in a similar way as the UN would provide the opportunity to manage broader issues better from a EU perspective. Take for example people smuggling across the Mediterranean. As it stands we have several navy's air forces and militaries working in a disjointed fashion leaving holes or overlapping in trying to deal with the issue. If it fell under one command you can better co-ordinate their actions to ensure that gaps are plugged and you are not overlapping search areas. This will allow you to save more peoples lives and possibly capture more of the traffickers.

Also what is wrong with having a force that would defend all 28 nations. If in some possible future an aggressive state decided to (try and) annex part of the EU then thinking they would need to confront a defensive force of 28 nations would provide more pause for thought than 1 (where the other 27 spend 8 weeks discussing what to do). A comparable situation would have been the beginning of WWII, where one country after another was 'captured' and by the time the remainder of those allies decided to act it was by far too late. Even with their more advanced weaponry if all the affected nations had taken immediate co-ordinated action then the next 5 years may not have happened, but for that you do need some form of joint working military. Of course you can take the approach that it's not the UK so it's not our issue but eventually that only results in victory on the other side due to divide and conquer maxim.

My main argument against this sort of thing has been outlined in the NATO thread, so I'll not repeat it here. You are of course more than welcome to check it out.

Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, it's the start of a slippery slope, and proof, in my eyes, that the EU was always heading for a political union, so I'm glad we (Britain) pulled the plug on that.

I don't believe in the relentless political union cospiracy but anyway I think conglomeration into larger supra-national units is a logical development of history and offers many benefits to mankind.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've brought this link over from the NATO thread, but I knew this would happen: Czechs and Hungarians calling for an EU army!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37196802

I knew it! I knew it!

Another Remain argument bites the dust.

It's almost like people are taking advantage of one of the strongest opponents of something throwing its toys out of the pram and going home to advance something which never would have stood a chance had said opponent acted like an adult and worked its influence properly...

We've seen where the EU's 'superior' geo-political strategy has taken us - all the way to the Russian border and an unnecessary clusterfeth in Ukraine, and a pointless and unecessary square off with Russia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't believe in the relentless political union cospiracy but anyway I think conglomeration into larger supra-national units is a logical development of history and offers many benefits to mankind.

Or it ends up creating two massive armed camps, like, say, the triple entente and the Central alliance, or even NATO or the WARSAW Pact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've brought this link over from the NATO thread, but I knew this would happen: Czechs and Hungarians calling for an EU army!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37196802

I knew it! I knew it!

Another Remain argument bites the dust.

I disagree. An EU army is an excellent idea and a logical extension from the idea of NATO.

Like I say on the NATO thread, the EU's ham-fisted foreign policy with regards to Russia and the Ukraine makes me wary of entrusting them with anything more than a car boot sale.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


My main argument against this sort of thing has been outlined in the NATO thread, so I'll not repeat it here. You are of course more than welcome to check it out.

Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, it's the start of a slippery slope, and proof, in my eyes, that the EU was always heading for a political union, so I'm glad we (Britain) pulled the plug on that.

NATO is a different beast and not really comparable. A better comparison would be the UN (or are you opposed that military force as well?).

Also I think you burden of proof is too way too low. Just because a few countries moot an idea does not make such an idea an inevitability as it would have to be debated and voted on by all states. It's like saying that because two senior managers at Sainsbury's discussed the idea of selling adult toys that the supermarket is now a sex shop. It's just plainly ridiculous. The principle of talking about ideas is that you can determine which ideas are feasible and which aren't, it is after all how the human race progressed to what we are today - by asking questions of the wider world.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree. An EU army is an excellent idea and a logical extension from the idea of NATO.

The last thing I'd trust the EU with is a military.

That is just your emotional response. Why trust anyone with an army?

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


My main argument against this sort of thing has been outlined in the NATO thread, so I'll not repeat it here. You are of course more than welcome to check it out.

Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, it's the start of a slippery slope, and proof, in my eyes, that the EU was always heading for a political union, so I'm glad we (Britain) pulled the plug on that.

NATO is a different beast and not really comparable. A better comparison would be the UN (or are you opposed that military force as well?).

Also I think you burden of proof is too way too low. Just because a few countries moot an idea does not make such an idea an inevitability as it would have to be debated and voted on by all states. It's like saying that because two senior managers at Sainsbury's discussed the idea of selling adult toys that the supermarket is now a sex shop. It's just plainly ridiculous. The principle of talking about ideas is that you can determine which ideas are feasible and which aren't, it is after all how the human race progressed to what we are today - by asking questions of the wider world.

I'm not opposed to military force. What I am opposed to is military force that is devoid of any strategy or realpolitik, because that, as demonstrated by Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, has led to one almighty feth up.

In this regard, the EU having control over these things fills me with ZERO confidence.

As regards your second point, true, it's early days, but what the Czechs and the Hungarians have said has fallen on sympathetic ears. It hasn't been dismissed out of hand, so this idea could still run.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is just your emotional response. Why trust anyone with an army?

It's the lack of strategy and realpolitik that bugs me.

You look at Iraq and Afghanistan and ask yourself, would things be better if we had done nothing?

Sadly, the answer to that is Yes, IMO.

David Cameron and that small French guy blundered into Libya, made an almighty mess, and then pleaded amnesia when the time came to accept responsibility when the country fell into predictable anarchy.

Trust people like that with an EU army? You must be joking!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In this regard, the EU having control over these things fills me with ZERO confidence.

Brussels would do no worse than Westminster has.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In this regard, the EU having control over these things fills me with ZERO confidence.

Brussels would do no worse than Westminster has.

True, they're both equally as bad, but we have more chance of stopping Westminster than we do of fighting the bureaucratic tentacles of Brussels.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is just your emotional response. Why trust anyone with an army?

Our national governments aren't much better, but they can suffer the consequences for it. The EU doesn't answer for its blunders.

That's just your opinion.

The UK not only has a veto over Brussels decisions, it also owns the largest armed forces, so any EU army and decisions regarding deployment would be heavily dependent on UK agreement. We "the people" do not have a veto over the decisions of our own government.

Given that the UK decided to go by itself into Ganners, etc. with the US, and the rest of the EU either refused or gave only token support, it seems that the EU's geopolitical ideas on Iraq and so on were a lot better than you give them credit.

So I am not seeing any reason to oppose an EU army, or EU geo-poltical decision making other than I H8** EU 4EVAR!!11!!!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's just your opinion.

The UK not only has a veto over Brussels decisions, it also owns the largest armed forces, so any EU army and decisions regarding deployment would be heavily dependent on UK agreement. We "the people" do not have a veto over the decisions of our own government.

Given that the UK decided to go by itself into Ganners, etc. with the US, and the rest of the EU either refused or gave only token support, it seems that the EU's geopolitical ideas on Iraq and so on were a lot better than you give them credit.

So I am not seeing any reason to oppose an EU army, or EU geo-poltical decision making other than I H8** EU 4EVAR!!11!!!

Credit where credit's due - the EU was spot on about Iraq, but badly miscalculated with regards to Ukraine.

If you are looking for a human institution that is constantly perfect I am afraid that you are likely to be disappointed.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've brought this link over from the NATO thread, but I knew this would happen: Czechs and Hungarians calling for an EU army!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37196802

I knew it! I knew it!

Another Remain argument bites the dust.

...I'm sure I mentioned it before, now the UK is leaving, the federalists will have a much easier time getting what they want.
If we'd stayed in, there have been no chance.

 Whirlwind wrote:


It's not corrupt as that would imply the results are rigged. The issue is that it is outdated voting mechanism that worked when there were only two parties around but now with a host of different ones it is no longer suitable for todays society.

Gerrymandering is a thing and it unfairly benefits three (though usually only two) political parties at the expense of others so I'm sticking with calling it corrupt (which doesn't require the results to be rigged anyway). Even still the Tories got into power with a third of the vote because smaller parties are pushed out. It essentially is rigged.

@ r_squared

Why stay in something just to stop it from doing something, whilst paying for the "privilege"?

I think that the EU is far to much of a political institution to be allowed a joint army. Like people have said, each country would have a veto and different interests (because let's face it, the biggest failing of the EU is the fact that most of the countries in Europe get on each other's nerves most of the time, heck we didn't have two massive wars in the last century over nothing) and then you have so much political red tape that you might as well not have an army at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


It's not corrupt as that would imply the results are rigged. The issue is that it is outdated voting mechanism that worked when there were only two parties around but now with a host of different ones it is no longer suitable for todays society.

Gerrymandering is a thing and it unfairly benefits three (though usually only two) political parties at the expense of others so I'm sticking with calling it corrupt (which doesn't require the results to be rigged anyway). Even still the Tories got into power with a third of the vote because smaller parties are pushed out. It essentially is rigged.

I swear we had a chance a few years ago to change the voting system....... It's almost as if it was sternly rejected by the British public....

 welshhoppo wrote:

I swear we had a chance a few years ago to change the voting system....... It's almost as if it was sternly rejected by the British public....

Which yet again demonstrates just how politically ignorant the 'great British public' are.

Oh get off your high horse. We rejected Alternative Vote because its gak, not because we're opposed to electoral reform. The issue was with the solution offered to us.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

I swear we had a chance a few years ago to change the voting system....... It's almost as if it was sternly rejected by the British public....

Which yet again demonstrates just how politically ignorant the 'great British public' are.

Indeed. Unless it allows us to get a great big moan about it. Then we are all ears. This '30 percent voted for the current government ' has been happening for decades. But no one brought it up until after the referendum result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh get off your high horse. We rejected Alternative Vote because its gak, not because we're opposed to electoral reform. The issue was with the solution offered to us.

It's still better than first past the post. People only complain about something when it doesn't go their way. We had the option to change the voting system, or at least make enough noise to bring about an idea of change. But nope, not a squeek.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh get off your high horse. We rejected Alternative Vote because its gak, not because we're opposed to electoral reform. The issue was with the solution offered to us.

It's still better than first past the post. People only complain about something when it doesn't go their way. We had the option to change the voting system, or at least make enough noise to bring about an idea of change. But nope, not a squeek.

Better than gak is still gak.

You want to blame someone? Blame the people who decided to offer a gak solution, not the people who rejected said gak solution.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh get off your high horse. We rejected Alternative Vote because its gak, not because we're opposed to electoral reform. The issue was with the solution offered to us.

It's still better than first past the post. People only complain about something when it doesn't go their way. We had the option to change the voting system, or at least make enough noise to bring about an idea of change. But nope, not a squeek.

Better than gak is still gak.

What would you recommend then? Because FPTP obviously doesn't work for anyone anymore.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh get off your high horse. We rejected Alternative Vote because its gak, not because we're opposed to electoral reform. The issue was with the solution offered to us.

It's still better than first past the post. People only complain about something when it doesn't go their way. We had the option to change the voting system, or at least make enough noise to bring about an idea of change. But nope, not a squeek.

Better than gak is still gak.

What would you recommend then? Because FPTP obviously doesn't work for anyone anymore.

It works for the Tories, hence their smear campaign against AV during that referendum.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh get off your high horse.

I don't have a horse.

FPTP is a terrible and undemocratic voting system and always has been. AV has its issues but its substantially better than FPTP. The AV campaigns were farcical being heavily influenced by party politics and cheap point scoring; sound familiar?

I've actually come to the conclusion that leaving the EU is the best thing we can do for the EU. We clearly feel differently to the other 26 members.

Herzlos wrote:
I've actually come to the conclusion that leaving the EU is the best thing we can do for the EU. We clearly feel differently to the other 26 members.

There's 27 other members.