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.

@ Mr Burning

I forgot about that. It was my understanding too that the EU cooked the books to get Greece in. Under their own rules Greece was in no fit state to join and yet here we are.

@ DIKLT

It's like an exterminator who unleashes pests straight into your home so that they can clean it up isn't it? The EU is pretty much deliberately set up to cripple these countries so that they becone easier to absorb.

I think the migrant crisis is being handled in pretty much the same way. Their attitude seems to be, "Let's go down a route whereby the countries on the front line will have no choice but to give up powers to Brussels to get out of it".

EDIT:

They seem to be diobolical masterminds but the truth is they're actually a bit stupid. The grand far reaching schemes never hold up to sudden pressure, or even enviable disasters. Seriously, wait until Italy's economy goes belly up. Then we'll see who's made the right choices.

Italy is being watched very closely. Their banks are properly stretched and any minor issue could see them go belly up.

And its not even cooking the books. Greece Italy Spain, Portugal were all going to struggle once they joined the single currency. Any advantage they had in economic terms was lost when they joined, making their already shaky financial foundations (since forever) even more unsteady.

Herzlos wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I don't like the conservative party's attitude towardthe economy generally and historically, but why did the EU demand that we drastically change our debt levels etc?

Presumably for stability within the EU; debt levels of 60%+ of GDP and climbing fast is hardly sustainable.

I don't see a problem with a union requiring it's members to be financially responsible, especially after a global financial crisis.

Hmm. just re-read what i wrote and realized it didn't come out the way i was intending - i was trying to get at the swiftness of the change mostly.

My opinion is that 60% debt of gdp is an outrageous situation and it should be 0% if we want britain to have a good reputation internationally.

However, my brother-in-law tells me that nations use the 'national debt' like we use a credit card and that i should view it as such - including the 'credit rating' bollocks too, in which case the debt isn't nesseceraly a bad thing, we just have to make sure we pay it back as and when we agreed to. The bad thing about national debt is that when there is a problem and the economy can't produce enough value one year to meet the payment obligations (cough>greece<cough) they default on payments, their credit rating suffers and borrowing becomes more expensive for them.

On that basis, there is no need for us to make sudden changes, we just have to make sure that we pay what we owe when we said we'd pay it.
Getting our overall debt levels down is something which should happen over a time period longer than 5 years; the appropriate timespan being more like 5 years for each 10% - that was the approximate drop in debt for Denmark, Sweden and Finland from 2004 up to and including 2008 and is probably the best we could do - not 29.2% every five years.
At that rate we could eliminate our entire national debt by 2031 or get back to pre-financial-crash levels by 2025.
Far too fast and by my reconing, unsustainable.

The EU has messed up because allowing countries with poor credit ratings and large national debt to join the EU and euro makes their overall debt to income rise and therefore the IMF doesn't want to give more loans or get them involved in complex international funding arrangments.

Another thing worth noting in that same table that the 'EU' debt row is at a significantly lower level than the 'euro area' row, meaning that the euro is actually dragging down the statistics of the non-euro area nations!

I'm fairly sure even France didn't meet the conditions for the Euro (or they did but every one knew the numbers were BS).

The EU and the UK aren't really comparable when it comes to National Debt. As a sovereign currency we could just print more money to pay ours (though of course this leads to other negative effects).

The Euro was from the very beginning a political project, designed to bind countries together and facilitate "ever closer union". It was always about building a European super state. Economics were at best a secondary consideration.

 SirDonlad wrote:

Perhaps they shouldn't assign the entire opposing argument to a strawman - the uk parliment has created some laws under it's own initiative during the EU serfdom like the 'football (disorder) Act 2000'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(Disorder)_Act_2000

I'm not even entirely sure what your point is here. So the UK produced legislation to combat what for the most part is a unique UK problem in that some morons (a relative minority though) think going to watch football means bashing the brains out of the opposing opposition. Ironically the money in football has meant this has largely been stamped out. If we really were in an evil EU serfdom then would they not have enforced such legislation on us? Alternatively maybe they implement policies that the should make the EU as a whole better and letter country's deal with their own internal problems.

Well, they have a chance to in the next election, or are they going to dismiss it as 'futile' like i hear so many pro-eu voters say? no irony about what their vote means in the eu elections at all though.

Yes well assuming the Tories haven't well and truly rigged the FPTP system with the boundary review. But you can rest assured that I will stamp my feet with anyone that wants to remain and impress on them to go out and vote for either a party that wants to remain (or wants to get back in). And with a bit of luck we can get rid of the clowns we have now and replace them with someone that at least makes sense and has some sense of direction.

They ignore the funding of war-criminals by the eu..
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eu-to-work-with-despot-in-sudan-to-keep-refugees-out-a-1092328.html

RSF Commander Mohamed Hamdan Daglo, (aka Hametti) last week said his forces lost about 150 vehicles in patrolling Sudan’s border with Egypt and Libya, stressing that Sudan is fighting illegal migration on behalf of Europe.
Those illegal migrants sure are taking out a lot of war material on the egyptian and lybian borders! It's quite scary what fear, hunger and sleep deprivation can do to an armoured vehicle at range.

The quite obvious difference is that, yes some money is channelled to areas that is not the intent. The EU are not however deliberately arming anyone, but trying to solve a problem. Yes there is corruption, but you sometimes accept this in order to try and implement change. This is completely opposite to the UK who are knowingly and deliberately supplying countries with weapons that are being used on civilians; there is a massive difference.

'Not this again'?! 'Whats so wrong'?! How about "We are perfectly able to look after ourselves already, why is it an advantage or better to be Europe's military stop-gap?" or "We're one of the four countries in Europe which actually meet our nato funding criteria" http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193 the other countries are Poland, Estonia and Greece. Also, how about "why shouldn't we be interested in doing stuff which benefits us?"
The fact you seem to want the government to act other than in our best interests is quite the reveal on how you got to supporting the EU. Self sacrifice is noble, but futile dude.
Especially when it's for a political identity which you didn't create.

It's 'not this again' because every argument falls flat on it's face in reality and we have discussed this already several times in this thread. But to repeat. No one has ever said the UKs armed forces were to be the EUs stop gap and go off fighting in some random country for the hell of it. In reality given recent history it should be the other EU countries to be worried that the UK might drag them into a pointless war. Secondly suppose some aggressor started with superior numbers/technology started invading the EU and there was no co-ordinated defence then one by on country would fall until the remaining countries realised that they should take action but most likely by that point it is by far to late. WWII would have been completely different if all the EU had been united before even one person stepped out of their own country. Simply it is strength in numbers. It favours the UK just as much as it does the rest of the EU. If the Penguins of Antarctica decided to invade St Helena they would be much more wary of facing 28 annoyed countries than one, which has more tanks in the war museum than in operation and has currently no aircraft carriers to even thing about going on a recovery operation. Allied armies are much less likely to fight against each other because they understand each much better and build relationships rather than mistrust. You can have joint operations in the Mediterranean so rather than a gaggle of independent nations trying to prevent smuggling you can have joined up, planned operation to prevent smuggling as much as possible minimising the 10,000's needless deaths each year. Working together is in our interest, just as the job you have or the football team you play in work together for the benefit of all. Yes you might not get that glory goal that wins you the final, but it would have never been possible without all members pulling together. The only outcome from selfishness will be the end of society as we know it because everyone will look to their own and that just results in fighting for resources, space, food and water.

Stop seaching for internal problems for a second (thats all you'll need), and have a peek at the stuff looming on the EU fiscal/economic horizon..
https://brexit.efinancialnews.com/european-banks-have-more-to-worry-about-than-just-brexit-89c20b749670#.l76i42wus
http://www.wsj.com/articles/deutsche-bank-profit-plunges-1469597166
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-07/it-s-time-to-start-worrying-about-the-health-of-european-banks
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2016/jul/26/italy-economy-banks-loans-crisis-europe

I don't get the point? You mentioned that the UK was doing OK at the moment, so what has this got to do with the EU banks? What I was pointing out was that assessing the long term viability on the outcome of service use in a pleasant summer month is a bit care free when all the implications of Brexit have not even been though about yet, never mind discussed how they are going to be dealt with. And lets just be clear to keep that UK selfishness in check; the UK has never had to contribute and never will have to bail out any of the EU's banks, just like the EU didn't need to help the UK when ours imploded. Of course if the EU had helped the forced austerity wouldn't have needed to have been as harsh and there would have been less excuse to damn those most vulnerable to poverty, but then that would be self sacrifice wouldn't it and we wouldn't want that now would we? (yes thick sarcasm implied).

Thats why he's trying to meddle in the politics of a country he doesn't even have the right to vote in! Because he's a poisonous snake of a human that tries to scaremonger entire countries to turn a quick buck!

Well that's one less person you have to worry about then isn't. You'll just have to make do with all the others that are making a quick buck as the Tory's remove vast quantities of environmental and social rights just so they can maintain their profits. If there is one thing that gambling on currency does is that is has negligible impact on our day to day lives. You're angry because he is rich, whereas you should be angry at the governments like ours that fail to tax them significantly whilst allowing those on low incomes to prop up the tax system; which to point out just in case you aren't clear is a UK issue not an EU one (in fact they try and ensure people are taxed appropriately and not state-aided which brings nothing in for the EU only the country the company resides in).

In fact everything this person did in the lead up to the vote was to convince financial and media types that brexit would be a fiscal disaster for everyone. The 'wobble' and 'stabilization' afterward showed that most people don't believe his BS anyway and wait to see what he actually does.

Two months is not an adequate timescale to make this assumption on. Especially when nothing has been agreed, we haven't left the EU and the harsh reality of keeping big businesses happy bites. It will be years before we see the full impacts. Two month analysis shows a complete lack of understanding as to how the economy works. It's like a tanker ship it takes time to turn around; it's not a speed boat.

The decisions of the UK affect the economy of Sweden. It is easier for us Swedes to vote out an EU government than a UK government. Therefore, the EU is more democratic than the UK.


This, of course, is an absolutely silly argument.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Spoiler:

 SirDonlad wrote:

Perhaps they shouldn't assign the entire opposing argument to a strawman - the uk parliment has created some laws under it's own initiative during the EU serfdom like the 'football (disorder) Act 2000'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(Disorder)_Act_2000

I'm not even entirely sure what your point is here.

Spoiler:

So the UK produced legislation to combat what for the most part is a unique UK problem in that some morons (a relative minority though) think going to watch football means bashing the brains out of the opposing opposition. Ironically the money in football has meant this has largely been stamped out. If we really were in an evil EU serfdom then would they not have enforced such legislation on us? Alternatively maybe they implement policies that the should make the EU as a whole better and letter country's deal with their own internal problems.

You stated that "Most were pretty flabbergasted by the number of people that got duped into the thinking the EU was the result of all our woes" and i brought up a peice of legislation to show that the uk parliment still makes some of it's own decisions and therefore the eu can't be 'the result of all our woes'.
In order for them to be the sole cause of every problem would require them being in direct control over everything britain does and they don't.

Spoiler:

Well, they have a chance to in the next election, or are they going to dismiss it as 'futile' like i hear so many pro-eu voters say? no irony about what their vote means in the eu elections at all though.

Yes well assuming the Tories haven't well and truly rigged the FPTP system with the boundary review. But you can rest assured that I will stamp my feet with anyone that wants to remain and impress on them to go out and vote for either a party that wants to remain (or wants to get back in). And with a bit of luck we can get rid of the clowns we have now and replace them with someone that at least makes sense and has some sense of direction.

The whole voting boundaries thing really gets to me - it's voting fraud in my book.
yeah, not really happy with the current lot - i'm hoping the lack of developments toward triggering article 50 is planned obfuscation to gain better leverage in negotiations, but i'm not brimming with confidence tbh.

Spoiler:

They ignore the funding of war-criminals by the eu..
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eu-to-work-with-despot-in-sudan-to-keep-refugees-out-a-1092328.html

RSF Commander Mohamed Hamdan Daglo, (aka Hametti) last week said his forces lost about 150 vehicles in patrolling Sudan’s border with Egypt and Libya, stressing that Sudan is fighting illegal migration on behalf of Europe.
Those illegal migrants sure are taking out a lot of war material on the egyptian and lybian borders! It's quite scary what fear, hunger and sleep deprivation can do to an armoured vehicle at range.

The quite obvious difference is that, yes some money is channelled to areas that is not the intent. The EU are not however deliberately arming anyone, but trying to solve a problem. Yes there is corruption, but you sometimes accept this in order to try and implement change. This is completely opposite to the UK who are knowingly and deliberately supplying countries with weapons that are being used on civilians; there is a massive difference.

To be fair, when you sell weapons to a military you supply them with stuff for money and what they decide to do with that stuff after the fact is on their head; when you supply money to a known war criminal you prop up their regime and everything it stands for. Supplying money to isis makes you a terrorist, but being the shop which sold the guy the gun who then went out shooting people doesn't.
Theres also the contractual angle to it - military hardware isn't something which is kept until sale, it's commissioned production and a contract can take years to fulfill depending on the tech - even bulk production of small arms and ammunition takes time to deliver in large numbers securely - if you agree to deliver something it doesn't matter to the banks what the other party goes on to do with it - if you refuse to deliver, it has to be on legal grounds. fethed up, but our vote can't affect that, sadly.

Spoiler:

'Not this again'?! 'Whats so wrong'?! How about "We are perfectly able to look after ourselves already, why is it an advantage or better to be Europe's military stop-gap?" or "We're one of the four countries in Europe which actually meet our nato funding criteria" http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193 the other countries are Poland, Estonia and Greece. Also, how about "why shouldn't we be interested in doing stuff which benefits us?"
The fact you seem to want the government to act other than in our best interests is quite the reveal on how you got to supporting the EU. Self sacrifice is noble, but futile dude.
Especially when it's for a political identity which you didn't create.

It's 'not this again' because every argument falls flat on it's face in reality and we have discussed this already several times in this thread. But to repeat. No one has ever said the UKs armed forces were to be the EUs stop gap and go off fighting in some random country for the hell of it.

Oh really? http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf

A stronger Union also requires
investing in all dimensions of foreign policy. In particular, investment
in security and defence is a matter of urgency. Full spectrum defence
capabilities are necessary to respond to external crises, build our partners’
capacities, and to guarantee Europe’s safety. Member States remain
sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, to acquire and maintain
many of these capabilities, defence cooperation must become the norm.

Who's forces are they going to be cooperating with when they decide that they all want their own SAS and SBS? or trident access?
Would saying no count as 'making our own defence decisions' or would the obligation to 'cooperate' with directives override that?
It sounds like it wasn't discussed enough (or the debaters were biased).

In reality given recent history it should be the other EU countries to be worried that the UK might drag them into a pointless war.

Don't you mean 'America'? and isn't blair in some gak over what he did/said in relation to that?

Secondly suppose some aggressor started with superior numbers/technology started invading the EU and there was no co-ordinated defence then one by on country would fall until the remaining countries realised that they should take action but most likely by that point it is by far to late. WWII would have been completely different if all the EU had been united before even one person stepped out of their own country.

Sorry, but thats a laughable assertion. When you're talking about the technical and tactical advancement the German military had available to them, teaming up to be shot in a group won't change anything. apart from the bodycount and ammunition expenditure of course.

Simply it is strength in numbers. It favours the UK just as much as it does the rest of the EU. If the Penguins of Antarctica decided to invade St Helena they would be much more wary of facing 28 annoyed countries than one, which has more tanks in the war museum than in operation and has currently no aircraft carriers to even thing about going on a recovery operation. Allied armies are much less likely to fight against each other because they understand each much better and build relationships rather than mistrust.

like the joint exercises NATO calls for?

You can have joint operations in the Mediterranean so rather than a gaggle of independent nations trying to prevent smuggling you can have joined up, planned operation to prevent smuggling as much as possible minimising the 10,000's needless deaths each year.

Isn't that what interpol is for?

Working together is in our interest, just as the job you have or the football team you play in work together for the benefit of all. Yes you might not get that glory goal that wins you the final, but it would have never been possible without all members pulling together.

Wasn't that what NATO was for?-that there was unilateral reaction by all members if a member was attacked? I want to know what the prize is for winning the game of EU football? we already have peace between member states; the EU is the result of German and French distrust and paranoia to such a degree that they feel like they need to engage in a bizarre control scheme to prove that they wont attack each other again. And we seem to need America or integrating another state that's engaged in a war to get involved in them. Working together on a fantasy harms us all - by allowing the delusion we fuel the scope of the inevitable disaster when we finally realize how far down the road we've gone.

The only outcome from selfishness will be the end of society as we know it because everyone will look to their own and that just results in fighting for resources, space, food and water.

Mankind is, was and always will be selfish. (love the post-apocalyptic strawman though! fallout ftw!)

Spoiler:

Stop seaching for internal problems for a second (thats all you'll need), and have a peek at the stuff looming on the EU fiscal/economic horizon..
https://brexit.efinancialnews.com/european-banks-have-more-to-worry-about-than-just-brexit-89c20b749670#.l76i42wus
http://www.wsj.com/articles/deutsche-bank-profit-plunges-1469597166
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-07/it-s-time-to-start-worrying-about-the-health-of-european-banks
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2016/jul/26/italy-economy-banks-loans-crisis-europe

I don't get the point? You mentioned that the UK was doing OK at the moment, so what has this got to do with the EU banks?

because they are about to have a shitstorm hit them when italy's financial problems come home to roost.

What I was pointing out was that assessing the long term viability on the outcome of service use in a pleasant summer month is a bit care free when all the implications of Brexit have not even been though about yet, never mind discussed how they are going to be dealt with. And lets just be clear to keep that UK selfishness in check; the UK has never had to contribute and never will have to bail out any of the EU's banks, just like the EU didn't need to help the UK when ours imploded.

rightly so.

Of course if the EU had helped the forced austerity wouldn't have needed to have been as harsh and there would have been less excuse to damn those most vulnerable to poverty, but then that would be self sacrifice wouldn't it and we wouldn't want that now would we? (yes thick sarcasm implied).

They could have helped by not setting annual minimum improvement for a start.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1412159031745&uri=CELEX:32005R1056

(10)In order to ensure a prompt correction of excessive deficits, it is necessary for Member States that are in a situation of excessive deficit to take effective action and to achieve an annual minimum fiscal improvement in their cyclically adjusted balance, net of one-off and temporary measures. As a benchmark, countries in excessive deficit will be required to achieve an annual minimum fiscal effort in cyclically adjusted terms, net of one-off and temporary measures.

Spoiler:

Thats why he's trying to meddle in the politics of a country he doesn't even have the right to vote in! Because he's a poisonous snake of a human that tries to scaremonger entire countries to turn a quick buck!

Well that's one less person you have to worry about then isn't. You'll just have to make do with all the others that are making a quick buck as the Tory's remove vast quantities of environmental and social rights just so they can maintain their profits.

yeah, the fracking thing took a blow with the reduction in oil price, but it's not dead yet.

If there is one thing that gambling on currency does is that is has negligible impact on our day to day lives.

Yopu're ignoring my point because you agree with him - he should have no say in our affairs, but the level of money he has available to him is of a treasonous corrupting influence kind of amount and i don't think the people in charge have the honour to refuse (despite insisting on calling each other that when in parliment)

You're angry because he is rich,

no, angry because of corruption fueled by his money.

whereas you should be angry at the governments like ours that fail to tax them significantly whilst allowing those on low incomes to prop up the tax system;

way ahead of you on that one - i just consider typing about it on dakka to be futile

which to point out just in case you aren't clear is a UK issue not an EU one (in fact they try and ensure people are taxed appropriately and not state-aided which brings nothing in for the EU only the country the company resides in).

I'm pretty sure that ireland/apple/taxation will remain an EU issue for some time to come given that the irish are fighting the decision - i'm willing to bet a shiny pound and it's postage that ireland will win with it's counter-arguments and apple will continue paying almost no tax. (bet only available to 'whirlwind')

Spoiler:

In fact everything this person did in the lead up to the vote was to convince financial and media types that brexit would be a fiscal disaster for everyone. The 'wobble' and 'stabilization' afterward showed that most people don't believe his BS anyway and wait to see what he actually does.

Two months is not an adequate timescale to make this assumption on. Especially when nothing has been agreed, we haven't left the EU and the harsh reality of keeping big businesses happy bites. It will be years before we see the full impacts. Two month analysis shows a complete lack of understanding as to how the economy works. It's like a tanker ship it takes time to turn around; it's not a speed boat.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Mr Burning

I forgot about that. It was my understanding too that the EU cooked the books to get Greece in. Under their own rules Greece was in no fit state to join and yet here we are..

The Greeks cooked the books, with most of the heavy lifting done by Goldman Sachs and their creative accounting wizards (who incidentally got something like €600m for a job well done)

Here's what bloombeg had to say about the issue.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-06/goldman-secret-greece-loan-shows-two-sinners-as-client-unravels

So today's the day then ....


http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html

So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months.

...

hmm .... seems these deals might be a bit scarce on the ground then ?

Clearly all those comments about us having to wait are part some cunning ruse.

And not at all evidence of the people running our Brexit being essentially clueless.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html

Why are we linking to a scam site?

And not at all evidence of the people running our Brexit being essentially clueless.

Yeah, unfortunately it appears they are more dangerously deluded. 12-24 months is a ridiculously short time to negotiate trade deals, when the department for doing it has currently all of one man and his dog to manage it. It will take 6 months before you've even got a decent team in place that is at least trying to work together. The US already has a large trade deal working team and some of the countries highlighted have long standing relationships both militarily and economically. We are starting from scratch with no experience, and lots of promises. Many which will fall by the wayside when we realise that those people we have in charge of the whole process are incompetent at pretty much anything other than spinning a load of old garbage. As I said before the working people will suffer because it will the cuts at the edge that slowly skin the country alive that will prove costly, the red tape environmental and social ones. People see big changes they miss the little ones that are death by a thousand cuts. I also see he is peddling the downright misleading more immigration = lower pay which is ridiculous economics. If all pay goes up, all that does it drive price increases and inflation, because the companies cost is more and they put up the prices to compensate. You may be being paid double, but everything costs double too - you can't actually afford anything else! The only thing that you have effectively done is devalued your currency for those people. Also I fail to see how he expects an economy that currently has 85% of its business based on services, of which 50% of it's exports currently go to the EU will suddenly after two years switch to a more industrialised base exporting to here there and everywhere. Yes a few companies will benefit but for most it won't.

Even if we had a 100 trade deals lined up, EU law still prevents us from completing them, because we're still a member of the er, EU

Everybody knows this. Having them ready to be activated when we officially BREXIT is the sensible thing to do.

 SirDonlad wrote:
[You stated that "Most were pretty flabbergasted by the number of people that got duped into the thinking the EU was the result of all our woes" and i brought up a peice of legislation to show that the uk parliment still makes some of it's own decisions and therefore the eu can't be 'the result of all our woes'.
In order for them to be the sole cause of every problem would require them being in direct control over everything britain does and they don't.

But that's the point, whatever was the flavour of the day was pointed at the EU as the issue because of 'red tape' or 'not being democratic'. Yet in reality many of the issues had complex roots and a few share of them could be pointed at how the UK has legislated rather than the raw EU policy. But it has been easy for politicians historically (which came to haunt them) or others during the Brexit campaign to mislead the public. Take for example Boris's stand on Asparagus and that the EU 'tells us' what it can look and feel like and leaving the EU will allow us to do what we want with asparagus. When in actuality it is the UN that defined such standards and had nothing to do with the EU; it was deliberately misleading the public.

To be fair, when you sell weapons to a military you supply them with stuff for money and what they decide to do with that stuff after the fact is on their head; when you supply money to a known war criminal you prop up their regime and everything it stands for. Supplying money to isis makes you a terrorist, but being the shop which sold the guy the gun who then went out shooting people doesn't. Theres also the contractual angle to it - military hardware isn't something which is kept until sale, it's commissioned production and a contract can take years to fulfill depending on the tech - even bulk production of small arms and ammunition takes time to deliver in large numbers securely - if you agree to deliver something it doesn't matter to the banks what the other party goes on to do with it - if you refuse to deliver, it has to be on legal grounds. fethed up, but our vote can't affect that, sadly.

Last time I looked Sudan's leaders weren't encouraging people to blow up innocents in other parts of the world because they didn't agree with a fanatical interpretation of a form of religion. I' afraid to say the best way to leverage change is through money even though it may leave a particularly bad taste in the mouth to start with. You offer money, let it settle for a bit; when people get comfortable you start using the pressure of money to influence the changes. We have tried the remove with force approach in both Iraq and Libya and that just lead to chaos and infestation by fanatics. In some ways a beneficent Dictator is better than utter chaos. As I said before the difference with money is it is there to help and hopefully some will get through and in time you can use that money to influence change. With weapons they have only one use, and that's to kill or injure. It is not impossible to stop sales of weapons to countries that are using them in inappropriate sales. After all France did it with a warship.

Oh really? http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf

Who's forces are they going to be cooperating with when they decide that they all want their own SAS and SBS? or trident access?
Would saying no count as 'making our own defence decisions' or would the obligation to 'cooperate' with directives override that?
It sounds like it wasn't discussed enough (or the debaters were biased).

It says co-operation not 'theft of armed forces'. In fact it specifically states that Countries will have control over their own armies. The idea being that if something bad happens then all countries can be able to co-ordinate a joint plan and support each other. Because of the way the EU works that almost certainly means only ever a defensive force, because every nation state would need to agree to it. Suppose someone did invade Greece and the UK agreed to assist by using the SAS; how's that an issue? I hardly think they are going to need Trident. They already do assist many countries in joint operations (but not really visibly). In fact there are not many recent wars that our forces have not been under control of another nation states co-ordinated operations. Iraq and Syria was the US, Libya was France. Even WWII retake of Europe was under the control of the US. The only few we have been directly in control of were only just short of a FUBAR.

Don't you mean 'America'? and isn't blair in some gak over what he did/said in relation to that?

We were just as complicit. But that's the point, given recent history it's more likely that the UK will act aggressively than the EU.

Sorry, but thats a laughable assertion. When you're talking about the technical and tactical advancement the German military had available to them, teaming up to be shot in a group won't change anything. apart from the bodycount and ammunition expenditure of course.

No not really, if it had been Europe vs Germany at the beginning of WWII then it would have never got off the ground. The French and British Navy was vastly superior in strength and numbers at the beginning than what Germany had. Our fighter planes were technically superior in dog fights to the Germans (if not the bombers and raw speed). Our radar was technically superior. The total forces that could have been arrayed against Germany would have probably been even too much for a Blitzkrieg if they were properly managed and co-ordinated and you could have simply starved them out (effectively what happened at the end). Instead the Germans were allowed to fight on their terms encircling isolated forces and removing them. By the time any co-ordinated action was taken it was by far too late and meant the forces were stretched far too thinly trying to hold back a more manoeuvrable opponent (and led to friendly fire incidents too like sinking the French fleet just in case).

Mankind is, was and always will be selfish. (love the post-apocalyptic strawman though! fallout ftw!)

That's not really true, because then there would be no donations of kidneys or bone marrow. There would be no donations to charity, no 'Feed the World' songs and so on. We are very altruistic when it comes to the 'family' because from an evolutionary stand point that means our genes are more likely to be passed along. The issue is when we stop seeing other people as part of the family and they become 'enemies' that we must compete with. That's why so many people like Humans vs Aliens films like Independence day because it is about a 'family' standing up against an enemy/rival. Rather than seeing the EU as a rival we need to see them as a family by learning and getting to know people and their cultures - it strengthens both us and them.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1412159031745&uri=CELEX:32005R1056

(10)In order to ensure a prompt correction of excessive deficits, it is necessary for Member States that are in a situation of excessive deficit to take effective action and to achieve an annual minimum fiscal improvement in their cyclically adjusted balance, net of one-off and temporary measures. As a benchmark, countries in excessive deficit will be required to achieve an annual minimum fiscal effort in cyclically adjusted terms, net of one-off and temporary measures.

Is it that unreasonable to expect countries to live within their means (it's not as if they held a gun up to their head forcing them to do it. But after Greece debted itself up to the eyeballs is not unreasonable to expect some form of fiscal sense when managing their own finances? And to point our the UK's austerity went miles beyond what the EU recommended. The EU never said that you had to punish the most vulnerable so you can be debt free after 5 years. The UK put forward forced austerity measures as a method for more privatisation and funding big business.

Yeah, the fracking thing took a blow with the reduction in oil price, but it's not dead yet.

And the Tories don't want it to be either. We are actually in a rather bizarre situation where the OPEC countries are pumping out more oil than we really need to try and kill off the opposition. However we are past the point of peak extraction (i.e. every unit of oil is now getting more expensive to extract, because it is in harder less accessible places) so eventually fuel will go back upwards. We're currently benefiting from this because it's keeping food production, haulage etc prices reasonable but it effectively hiding a bigger issue. Once fuel starts heading upwards things are going to get really messy as inflation rises which is outside the control of the individual nations. Which is why the UK government is quite happy to pass laws allowing extraction in a national parks or other areas of natural protected areas.

I'm pretty sure that ireland/apple/taxation will remain an EU issue for some time to come given that the irish are fighting the decision - i'm willing to bet a shiny pound and it's postage that ireland will win with it's counter-arguments and apple will continue paying almost no tax. (bet only available to 'whirlwind')

I don't think they will win, the bill might go down. The real question is whether Ireland will actually apply it because they know the incentives for such companies to stay there will significantly diminish. There needs to be a radical overhaul of the tax system for the globalised era but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 SirDonlad wrote:
How about "We are perfectly able to look after ourselves already, why is it an advantage or better to be Europe's military stop-gap?" or "We're one of the four countries in Europe which actually meet our nato funding criteria"

We can't look after ourselves already as we lack capability in a number of areas (not least manpower) despite meeting the NATO funding requirement which highlights why an 'EU army*' is a good idea.

*It won't actually be an EU army; it will still be under national controls and will merely share resources and expertise.

One thing I don't get is the whole trade negotiator thing.

The UK has Ambassadors in practically every country in the world. Dr on everything I've seen on TV, they are some of the cleverest and most charismatic people in public service. Wasn't one of William Hague's plans for them back in the coalition that they would be the focus on trade with other countries?

Is it kind of less that Britain lacks trade negotiators and more we lack trade lawyers?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
How about "We are perfectly able to look after ourselves already, why is it an advantage or better to be Europe's military stop-gap?" or "We're one of the four countries in Europe which actually meet our nato funding criteria"

We can't look after ourselves already as we lack capability in a number of areas (not least manpower) despite meeting the NATO funding requirement which highlights why an 'EU army*' is a good idea.

*It won't actually be an EU army; it will still be under national controls and will merely share resources and expertise.

That's only the first step. The next step will be to merge commands and regiments etc for " efficiency ". The EU works on the principle of gradualism, salami slicing away little bits of national sovereignty at a time. They won't outright create an EU army, they'll just foster closer and closer cooperation and blur the lines enough until opposition to an EU army fades away.

 Compel wrote:
One thing I don't get is the whole trade negotiator thing.

The UK has Ambassadors in practically every country in the world. Dr on everything I've seen on TV, they are some of the cleverest and most charismatic people in public service. Wasn't one of William Hague's plans for them back in the coalition that they would be the focus on trade with other countries?

Is it kind of less that Britain lacks trade negotiators and more we lack trade lawyers?

It's not as simple as this unfortunately. The 'trade negotiators' actually write the agreements rather than the lawyers. The lawyers basically read it and check that it meets the legal requirements and probably draft the standard terms and conditions. The negotiators are the 'technical experts', they are the ones that know what they are trying to achieve and write the 'specifications'. It's their responsibility to ensure there aren't any issues with how things are written or areas that are contradictory or confusing. It does mean there is some cross over, the negotiators need to have an understanding of the legal duties but not be experts in it, whereas the lawyers need some understanding of the technical side. You don't want the lawyers writing the technical side of it because they simply don't have the knowledge of the implications of what they are writing. You don't want the negotiators writing the legal side of things because they won't be aware of all the case law and legal implications. They work together to ensure the documents are as sound as possible. I work in contracts and a similar thing happens. I write the contract as the technical expert and then consult with a lawyer (and stakeholders) to ensure that it meets legal obligations. This might take several iterations because something the lawyer wants in doesn't work with how I need the contract to work, or maybe I want to soften or harden part of the contract in case of failure or as a result of the negotiations. Only then is the document sent to the other party who will then have their own technical experts and lawyers who will go over it, make modifications and then 'post' it back. Some will be agreed, some will be compromised on (within the agreed trade framework and here you want good negotiators also) and some will be rejected. It's the ones that are rejected that are the issue. In terms of trade deals this is when (and only when) the MPs/Ambassadors get involved because ultimately they have the final say on how these sticking points are agreed, what they don't do is write every single clause.

This is why I always scoff at MPs saying that they could get trade deals done in 12 months because unless it's scope is very limited (say only on the sale of Sheep) a complex all encompassing contract (and likely trade deal) takes at least 18 months of hard work continuously to get it right. And in reality you always want to be writing the trade deals because when you are reading something complex or a borderline issue there's always the human tendency to let it lie - and it's these things at the edge that end up being costly in the long run.

So this is why you want experienced negotiators and lawyers. If you don't have these some of things at the edge will be missed because the links between different areas of the trade deal are missed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


That's only the first step. The next step will be to merge commands and regiments etc for " efficiency ". The EU works on the principle of gradualism, salami slicing away little bits of national sovereignty at a time. They won't outright create an EU army, they'll just foster closer and closer cooperation and blur the lines enough until opposition to an EU army fades away.

Yes there's obvious evidence for this isn't there. This is just fear-mongering. We provide joint forces for both the UN and NATO and these organisations have been running for 10's of years and not once have they suddenly decided to make one all encompassing army and 'steal' our armed forces. If the EU even thought about this then it wouldn't just have the UK objecting it would have France, Germany, Spain and pretty much all the rest saying the same thing.


Good to know we have the right people on the job.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37324491

What a way to go about promoting international business

France maybe but the standing Forces of most other EU nations are not up to scratch for any serious operations nevermind war-fighting.

The onus of an European Army would have centred on France and the UK. The rest would provide token contribution and look to save on defence spending as much as possible.

Fortunately this isn't our consideration any more.

 notprop wrote:
France maybe but the standing Forces of most other EU nations are not up to scratch for any serious operations nevermind war-fighting.

The onus of an European Army would have centred on France and the UK. The rest would provide token contribution and look to save on defence spending as much as possible.

Fortunately this isn't our consideration any more.

Hmmm Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland etc may tend to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

Maybe it would be worth looking at this first. Strictly speaking per person of their population Malta would provide a greater number of personnel than the UK would.

 notprop wrote:
France maybe but the standing Forces of most other EU nations are not up to scratch for any serious operations nevermind war-fighting.

What makes you think that the UK is? In Iraq and Afghan we were a small cog in a much bigger machine, there is no way that the UK could have conducted an operation on that scale anymore. We could field a division (if we throw everything at the deployment) but we won't be able to sustain it for anything other than home defense. The days of the UK being a military super power have been over since WWII (if not WWI), today we will always be part of a multinational force when it comes to military action, we have no choice in the matter.

And yet we have the biggest cog in the EU, so........

We are not the 'biggest cog'... The forces we have are technically superior, but there are massive gaps in our capabality. This is especially true at sea. The fact is other nations, particularly Germany in a war time situation would be able to assemble a much larger force relatively quickly compared to what they currently have set out as a standing army, meanwhile the UK would be looking in all the armouries trying to find enough bits to get another Battalions worth of L85 together.

 notprop wrote:
And yet we have the biggest cog in the EU, so........

A cog by itself is little use.

The United Kingdom ranks higher than France, Germany and Italy in military expenditures, but these other three countries are still in the top 15 countries in the world when it comes to military spending.

It makes me wonder who exactly Europe as a continent - not as a bloc of EU or non-EU states - needs to fear when only China and the UAE spend substantially more money on their forces, with Russia just spending a little bit more than the UK. Yes, Russia has 1.2 million soldiers listed in service, but then, regardless of EU or not, NATO is still a thing, so calculating that number of soldiers against any single nation, while ignoring tech levels, is also not very sensible in my opinion.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Yes there's obvious evidence for this isn't there.

There is actually. 4 Decades of European mission creep. Its inevitable, this is the MO of the EU and how it's always operated. Decades ago, the British people were sold on the idea of the EEC as a free trade zone, and were assured there would be no political union. Fast forward a couple of decades, several treaties signed by British Prime Ministers transferring sovereignty without direct democratic approval (referenda)... and its now a political union.

Today, people like you are assuring us that the EU simply wants European militaries to "cooperate" and there'll never be a European army, and are scoffing at the idea as "fear mongering". You'll have to forgive me for assuming that you and the EU elite are lying through your teeth, based on the EU's past behaviour.

This is just fear-mongering. We provide joint forces for both the UN and NATO and these organisations have been running for 10's of years and not once have they suddenly decided to make one all encompassing army and 'steal' our armed forces.

Neither of them are a political union with a political elite that have openly expressed ambitions of creating a European super state. This is a false equivalence and you know it.

If the EU even thought about this then it wouldn't just have the UK objecting it would have France, Germany, Spain and pretty much all the rest saying the same thing.

Some of them ARE saying the same thing. Case in point: the meteoric rise of the German AFD and French Front Nationale parties.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


There is actually. 4 Decades of European mission creep. Its inevitable, this is the MO of the EU and how it's always operated. Decades ago, the British people were sold on the idea of the EEC as a free trade zone, and were assured there would be no political union.

That's not evidence, that's extrapolation of past events to an uncertain conclusion. It's the same as me saying that because we had more rain today than yesterday, that tomorrow we'll have even more rain than today and the day after that even more rain - it's nonsense without proper evidence.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Fast forward a couple of decades, several treaties signed by British Prime Ministers transferring sovereignty without direct democratic approval (referenda)... and its now a political union.

For the billionth time, referenda is not the UK democratic process and for good reason as it is simply too much to ask the population and understand all the details of everything (and that sort of democracy leads to demagogues and populists driving forward policies even when they are completely crazy. A democratic process in the UK is where we have government chosen by the whole population through elected representatives. If people don't like what happens then they vote for representatives that you feel represents your interests. If you want a process where decisions are made by the public then it should apply to all decisions (whether that is the speed limit to the finer points of tax law) not just a few at the whim of the government so they can escape responsibility for their actions.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You'll have to forgive me for assuming that you and the EU elite are lying through your teeth, based on the EU's past behaviour.

No one lied, there has always been an open dialogue with member states as to what policies should be put in place. Nothing stays the same; if you bought a car and realised it would be nice to have a sat nav for it, you don't not buy one because the car didn't come with one in the first place. No one hid the process of trying to improve the EU area by having joint policies to allow better sharing of products and ideas. the idea that the EU was sprung on us by some shifty side door is just false. Yes it has changed, but then so do we all.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Neither of them are a political union with a political elite that have openly expressed ambitions of creating a European super state. This is a false equivalence and you know it.

But how do you know that? Have you read every document NATO has written on the issue? I think you might find it hard to find such documents. You are quite happy to say the EU is secretly trying to make a superstate army and point to publicly available documents on the such ideas; whereas you'll blindly believe NATO isn't despite the fact that any such documents would confidential and never see the light of day? Seems you case is slightly ironic.

Some of them ARE saying the same thing. Case in point: the meteoric rise of the German AFD and French Front Nationale parties.

Yeah excuse me whilst I don't really want to give much consideration to parties led by bigoted crazy people. But it's the same issue as UKIP, populist ideas and blaming a distant thing for all the complex country's issues. Though only thing I thing the EU is bad at doing is promoting the good things it does (but then I suppose they'd get hammered by the same people for wasting money)

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


There is actually. 4 Decades of European mission creep. Its inevitable, this is the MO of the EU and how it's always operated. Decades ago, the British people were sold on the idea of the EEC as a free trade zone, and were assured there would be no political union.

That's not evidence, that's extrapolation of past events to an uncertain conclusion. It's the same as me saying that because we had more rain today than yesterday, that tomorrow we'll have even more rain than today and the day after that even more rain - it's nonsense without proper evidence.

I'll be blunt, extrapolation of past events for future predictions is the entire basis of empiricism and the scientific method. Otherwise I'm left guessing if a rock will still fall to the ground next time I drop it, or if my car will spontaneously turn into a fish next time I unlock it.

I know you're on a mission to fight every even vaguely pro-Brexit or anti-EU statement in this thread to the bitter death, but there's a point at which it becomes silly, you know?

 Ketara wrote:

I know you're on a mission to fight every even vaguely pro-Brexit or anti-EU statement in this thread to the bitter death, but there's a point at which it becomes silly, you know?

He hasn't reached that point yet.

The Scientific Method is far more than the simple extrapolation of past events, for one thing there needs to be reproducability.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 notprop wrote:
And yet we have the biggest cog in the EU, so........

A cog by itself is little use.

Tell that to the Machine God. But hey, it's your metaphor...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Optio wrote:
We are not the 'biggest cog'... The forces we have are technically superior, but there are massive gaps in our capabality. This is especially true at sea. The fact is other nations, particularly Germany in a war time situation would be able to assemble a much larger force relatively quickly compared to what they currently have set out as a standing army, meanwhile the UK would be looking in all the armouries trying to find enough bits to get another Battalions worth of L85 together.

Big equates to effective/trained/experienced/whatever.

The last war the Germans were involved in (Afganistan) resulted in their troops (the much vaunted Fallschrimjaeger no less) being holed up in base until they had been suitably brought up to speed. No doubting their equipment and resolve but six decades of enforced pacifism has denuded them of the cutting edge they once had.

@wirlwind.

Who ever said they're doing it secretly? They're quite open about their plans for future European integration. See the Five Presidents report.