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.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.

The EU is currently the world leader in science. The US is typically less focused on international projects due to its huge size (except for when it can't get its particle accelerators to work and then it comes to borrow data from CERN).

How is leaving the world leader to go and work with countries with smaller budgets and less resources going to help UK science?

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.

Ahem... 'murrica here. We 'bout big as EU:


We have thinking places...

So you're point is it took what 20 of you guys to be on the same footing as the USA? Yeah i guess you sure do win when 20 of you combine. Also equal footing doesn't mean the usa is irrelevant now. It's more like europe is relevant again.

28. Well, 27 now.

Just about every one of the professors or doctors I've talked to in the past year have said how negative brexit will be on the community. When it comes to working with other people why would they want to work with the UK over going straight to the EU? A lack of EU funding is going to cause a drastic slowing down of progress and the loss of man power as less people are coming to work here are going to make the UK a less appealing partner.

There's also the problem that many other countries aren't exactly great at sharing research and can be quite secretive about their work.

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.

Ahem... 'murrica here. We 'bout big as EU:


We have thinking places...

You are and you do, however US science is quite some way behind the EU when it comes to cooperative work.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or Brexit is such an absolute nightmare that even competent politicians would falter and fail. You're underestimating the difficulties involved.

You may think it odd for a Scottish nationalist to say this, but as far as I'm concerned, Great Britain is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The legacy and achievements of this small island are second to nobody, and I mean nobody. Even the USA, that mighty and great nation, was built on the foundations of Britain. It's language is Britain's. It's constitution is the English bill of rights 1688, and it's love of liberty can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. For better or for worse, the British empire made the modern world what it is.

Even putting that aside, Britain's legacy in the arts, the sciences, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, changed the path of humanity for evermore.

We fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best, to quote Apollo Creed

That is who we are, that is what we have done. That is our roots and the foundation we were built on. To cut to the point, we no longer seem to believe in ourselves, or what we're capable of.

Leaving the EU won't be easy, but we as a nation have overcome bigger challenges long before the EU rolled into town.

I am confident that the people of this island, as they have done so many times before, will overcome this obstacle.

Past is irrelevant. What matters is now and future and UK is trying to fight against inevitable. Sorry but you do that, you lose.

UK seems to think world is same as it was 300 years ago but newsflash. It isn't. It keeps changing. What worked 300 years ago is so far outdated it doesn't apply anymore so just because Brtain was great in the past doesn't amount to anything now. Those who are great now are those who understand now rather than past.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
28. Well, 27 now.

You're still a part of the EU for quite some time.

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spoiler:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or Brexit is such an absolute nightmare that even competent politicians would falter and fail. You're underestimating the difficulties involved.
I
You may think it odd for a Scottish nationalist to say this, but as far as I'm concerned, Great Britain is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The legacy and achievements of this small island are second to nobody, and I mean nobody. Even the USA, that mighty and great nation, was built on the foundations of Britain. It's language is Britain's. It's constitution is the English bill of rights 1688, and it's love of liberty can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. For better or for worse, the British empire made the modern world what it is.

Even putting that aside, Britain's legacy in the arts, the sciences, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, changed the path of humanity for evermore.

We fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best, to quote Apollo Creed

That is who we are, that is what we have done. That is our roots and the foundation we were built on. To cut to the point, we no longer seem to believe in ourselves, or what we're capable of.

Leaving the EU won't be easy, but we as a nation have overcome bigger challenges long before the EU rolled into town.

I am confident that the people of this island, as they have done so many times before, will overcome this obstacle.

Past is irrelevant. What matters is now and future and UK is trying to fight against inevitable. Sorry but you do that, you lose.

UK seems to think world is same as it was 300 years ago but newsflash. It isn't. It keeps changing. What worked 300 years ago is so far outdated it doesn't apply anymore so just because Brtain was great in the past doesn't amount to anything now. Those who are great now are those who understand now rather than past.

Not to be snarky, but 48% of us don't think that, which is why we said leaving was a fething stupid idea.

Also good to see the "we don't have to deal with the EU, there's everyone else" idea being trotted out again; can some one please explain to me how not working with one of the biggest financial, trade and research organisations in the world is better than working with it? Also how does being a small, isolated, country make you more attractive than a large, outwardly engaging, organisation if you are that prospective "someone else"?

 Jadenim wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spoiler:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or Brexit is such an absolute nightmare that even competent politicians would falter and fail. You're underestimating the difficulties involved.
I
You may think it odd for a Scottish nationalist to say this, but as far as I'm concerned, Great Britain is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The legacy and achievements of this small island are second to nobody, and I mean nobody. Even the USA, that mighty and great nation, was built on the foundations of Britain. It's language is Britain's. It's constitution is the English bill of rights 1688, and it's love of liberty can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. For better or for worse, the British empire made the modern world what it is.

Even putting that aside, Britain's legacy in the arts, the sciences, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, changed the path of humanity for evermore.

We fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best, to quote Apollo Creed

That is who we are, that is what we have done. That is our roots and the foundation we were built on. To cut to the point, we no longer seem to believe in ourselves, or what we're capable of.

Leaving the EU won't be easy, but we as a nation have overcome bigger challenges long before the EU rolled into town.

I am confident that the people of this island, as they have done so many times before, will overcome this obstacle.

Past is irrelevant. What matters is now and future and UK is trying to fight against inevitable. Sorry but you do that, you lose.

UK seems to think world is same as it was 300 years ago but newsflash. It isn't. It keeps changing. What worked 300 years ago is so far outdated it doesn't apply anymore so just because Brtain was great in the past doesn't amount to anything now. Those who are great now are those who understand now rather than past.

Not to be snarky, but 48% of us don't think that, which is why we said leaving was a fething stupid idea.

Also good to see the "we don't have to deal with the EU, there's everyone else" idea being trotted out again; can some one please explain to me how not working with one of the biggest financial, trade and research organisations in the world is better than working with it? Also how does being a small, isolated, country make you more attractive than a large, outwardly engaging, organisation if you are that prospective "someone else"?

I am fine with EU as a partnership in trade.
But not as a political federation super state.

It did not need to gp as far as it did in binding everyone with banks, currency and more.

As much as I dislike the EU, I think they deserve some credit for the masterful propaganda trick they have played on some sections of the British public.

They have managed to convince people that black is white and white is black.

I am of course talking about EU funding. Considering that Britain was a net contributor, talk of EU funding cuts is a red herring.

The EU have been bribing us for years with our own money, and yet, they talked us into thinking this was a generous act from Brussells.

Like I said, a masterclass in propaganda. Fair play to the EU for pulling it off.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spoiler:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or Brexit is such an absolute nightmare that even competent politicians would falter and fail. You're underestimating the difficulties involved.
I
You may think it odd for a Scottish nationalist to say this, but as far as I'm concerned, Great Britain is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The legacy and achievements of this small island are second to nobody, and I mean nobody. Even the USA, that mighty and great nation, was built on the foundations of Britain. It's language is Britain's. It's constitution is the English bill of rights 1688, and it's love of liberty can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. For better or for worse, the British empire made the modern world what it is.

Even putting that aside, Britain's legacy in the arts, the sciences, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, changed the path of humanity for evermore.

We fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best, to quote Apollo Creed

That is who we are, that is what we have done. That is our roots and the foundation we were built on. To cut to the point, we no longer seem to believe in ourselves, or what we're capable of.

Leaving the EU won't be easy, but we as a nation have overcome bigger challenges long before the EU rolled into town.

I am confident that the people of this island, as they have done so many times before, will overcome this obstacle.

Past is irrelevant. What matters is now and future and UK is trying to fight against inevitable. Sorry but you do that, you lose.

UK seems to think world is same as it was 300 years ago but newsflash. It isn't. It keeps changing. What worked 300 years ago is so far outdated it doesn't apply anymore so just because Brtain was great in the past doesn't amount to anything now. Those who are great now are those who understand now rather than past.

Not to be snarky, but 48% of us don't think that, which is why we said leaving was a fething stupid idea.

Also good to see the "we don't have to deal with the EU, there's everyone else" idea being trotted out again; can some one please explain to me how not working with one of the biggest financial, trade and research organisations in the world is better than working with it? Also how does being a small, isolated, country make you more attractive than a large, outwardly engaging, organisation if you are that prospective "someone else"?

I am fine with EU as a partnership in trade.
But not as a political federation super state.

It did not need to gp as far as it did in binding everyone with banks, currency and more.

Exactly. I never had a problem with a common market, which was what we thought we signed up to, but a European super-state with its own army? To hell with that!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Exactly. I never had a problem with a common market, which was what we thought we signed up to, but a European super-state with its own army? To hell with that!

Could we please stop with that tired old line?

The move towards a United States of Europe predates UK membership. It's not bank loan fine print, it was there if you bothered to read the actual treaties and the discussions leading to them.

That's why the UK set up the EFTA. That's why de Gaulle wouldn't let the UK in.

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.

Ahem... 'murrica here. We 'bout big as EU:


We have thinking places...

Aren't your thinking places having real funding/future issues due to the administration essentially being anti-science?

I'm half expecting a fairly major influx of US scientists into the EU if things get any worse.

The 'we used to be world leaders in science and education in the 19th century so there's no reason why we won't be again' is the very height of hubris. There's a reason we were so dominant in terms of research and discovery: empire.

You know who else have equally impressive backgrounds in science and education? All the other imperial European nations. These great achievements aren't the result of some innate British greatness. They're the result of having loads of money to chuck at stuff for a long time.

Well 20 guys doesn't sound so bad compared to 50 guys

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/877788633155194880

"Philip Hammond concedes Brexit transition period could be 4 years: "When you buy a house you don't move all your stuff in on the first day."


... err....
yeah, you do.





..then again of course most of us only have 1 house so ....

Herzlos wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.

Ahem... 'murrica here. We 'bout big as EU:


We have thinking places...

Aren't your thinking places having real funding/future issues due to the administration essentially being anti-science?

No. Far from it.

I'm half expecting a fairly major influx of US scientists into the EU if things get any worse.

Don't hold your breath.

All the European 'imperial' wand waving going on in this thread aside, much of it is somewhat factually incorrect.

The British were lamenting their lack of technical education in their workforce all throughout the 19th century. France had a far greater scientific base going all the way back to Napoleon's day. The Germans, meanwhile, had a system of vocational education in place that was the envy of the British from just before the turn of the century. Even the Americans were shocked at how many British firms relied upon inefficient manpower heavy methods to perform tasks that had long been automated out in the states (where population was far lower and machines consequently more necessary).

So whatever achievements Britain may or may not have had in that period, it would be inaccurate to point to our scientific/educational system as the basis for them. The flip side of that coin is that future British status/power in the world also may well not be reliant upon those things, as indeed, they clearly weren't in the past.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

It'll be clearer what the full costs of renting is, as it's spread out on the monthly rent and you know what your regular payment is. As currently stands, you get the advertised monthly rent and then whenever the contract needs renewing, they get a bonus off you of whatever they want - or you leave the property. I know which system I prefer.

What does it say about this industry that they're worried that buy-to-lets aren't as viable because they can't find dubious ways screw money from people in ways other than the monthly rent.

Yet it can make things worse because all your costs are now 'hidden' in one monthly cost. Companies will still charge these fees, some will continue to be cheaper, but now you have no idea how much they are including on them. There are companies out there that likely don't exploit the circumstances. Now they will have to make a judgement, suppose they have long term rents where customers can give 6 months notice and they charge lets say £60 as a one off charge to do the checks (regardless of how long you stay in a property). They want to recoup that cost somewhere so they take the minimum term of 6 months and split it equally over that time (£10 a month). So they add this on to your monthly bill. Instead of a £550/month rent they now charge £560/month. Now suppose you live in a property for three years. You've now just spent £300 more than you needed to because it is a monthly charge. You don't know this, but it's 'free' money to the company. A more unscrupulous company will just slowly raise the amount over a few years until they have recovered the loss from losing that income. The difference is now that you can't see that's what they are doing, you just have a higher monthly charge.

I'm not saying it needs to be resolved, but I am unsure this is the way to do it and not just have people paying more.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.

We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.

You mean maybe for the last 70, even WWI was perhaps less about freedoms and more about which rich person short which other rich person. Before that it would be highly questionable whether we were there defending peace liberty and freedom given what we did as the British Empire.

However, there is always a cost to in trying to lead from the front. If you let others do it then you might find the direction they have gone in, doesn't favour the country at all or you turn around one day and wonder why we lost this or that because no one was there to stand up for it. The world and the way it works is no longer isolationist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If you force the Queen to miss Ascot, don't be surprised if she turns up in a giant EU hat
Was it an accident, this nakedly pro-Brussels bonnet? One suspects we will never know the truth, but given one commenter on the Daily Mail website was sufficiently enraged to describe the Queen herself as a “left liberal luvvie traitor!!!” we probably do not need to

Spoiler:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/queens-speech-ascot-eu-flag-hat-a7801611.html?cmpid=facebook-post

I think this might be more representative that she supports the EU and us being in it and making a point in the only way she is allowed (despite what Gove leaks...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As much as I dislike the EU, I think they deserve some credit for the masterful propaganda trick they have played on some sections of the British public.

They have managed to convince people that black is white and white is black.

I am of course talking about EU funding. Considering that Britain was a net contributor, talk of EU funding cuts is a red herring.

Yes we are a net contributor, because we are a well off nation and spending the money on less well off people is the point of being in a social society. If you don't want that then you are advocating not paying taxes and only paying for things you need when you need it (the Tory parties wet dream). However this screws over everyone that is less off and in the long term is counter productive. A nation that is relatively poor now can develop its country to being more wealthy and hence needs more expensive luxury goods that support a growing UK economy. Being outside the UK means that we are likely to see some trade barriers to this and other countries will benefit. Our growth suffers (we are already joint bottom of the G8 nations) and we fall further behind as we have less money compared to other countries and the cycle repeats as we can't invest.

The other thing you are missing is the indirect benefits from the '£350m a week'. The taxes we bring in whether that be from bankers to migrant workers. A lot of this has the potential to disappear and high grade jobs are going to go. In directly leaving is likely to cost much more than £350m a year and that 'saving' will probably only partially plug that gap, so holistically is not a saving at all, but rather a cost. And then you will see further cuts to the side endeavours like science funding and so on.

The focus of the news is on May's trip to Brussells, but with each passing day I thank God I had the courage to vote to leave the EU, because what I saw and heard today scares the gak out of me, and if the cost of Brexit is 5p on the price of a Mars Bar, I can live with that, because the alternative is much worse, and this is the alternative:

1. The EU have agreed to increase funding for an EU defence fund

2. There was a few study group meetings/seminars about Ukraine joining the EU. I wondered why the Ukraine flag was on display.

The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund?

And Ukraine as a member? The geopolitical ramifications of this i.e going up against Russia, need not be explained.

This is concentrated madness, and the prospect of unelected penpushers in the EU Kremlin having a military policy scares the gak out of me.

I think Britain had a narrow escape.

@Whirlwind. In response to your reply about my post, you can dress it up anyway you want, but essentially, the EU are bribing us with our own money, and they have managed to convince people this is an act of charity. Like I said, I respect their masterful use of propaganda to meet their goal. They have a lot of people in Britain fooled.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The focus of the news is on May's trip to Brussells, but with each passing day I thank God I had the courage to vote to leave the EU, because what I saw and heard today scares the gak out of me, and if the cost of Brexit is 5p on the price of a Mars Bar, I can live with that, because the alternative is much worse, and this is the alternative:

1. The EU have agreed to increase funding for an EU defence fund

2. There was a few study group meetings/seminars about Ukraine joining the EU. I wondered why the Ukraine flag was on display.

The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund?

And Ukraine as a member? The geopolitical ramifications of this i.e going up against Russia, need not be explained.

This is concentrated madness, and the prospect of unelected penpushers in the EU Kremlin having a military policy scares the gak out of me.

I think Britain had a narrow escape.

@Whirlwind. In response to your reply about my post, you can dress it up anyway you want, but essentially, the EU are bribing us with our own money, and they have managed to convince people this is an act of charity. Like I said, I respect their masterful use of propaganda to meet their goal. They have a lot of people in Britain fooled.

Ukraine is Russian back yard. It's long held sphere of influence.
No gpod cones from messing in that zone full stop.

And on EU defence finding. We have Nato. UN, allies and treaties not effected by EU and far older and deeper....

I'm in full agreement with you jhe90.

Why does this common market, this trading bloc, need a defence fund? It's a question I've asked many a time, and I've yet to have a good answer, or any answer, for that matter.

I 100% get the reason why they have a European court - to settle trade disputes and regulation problems between member nations, but when they start talking about tanks, then for me, alarm bells start ringing.

I am deeply uneasy about this European defence fund.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The focus of the news is on May's trip to Brussells, but with each passing day I thank God I had the courage to vote to leave the EU, because what I saw and heard today scares the gak out of me, and if the cost of Brexit is 5p on the price of a Mars Bar, I can live with that, because the alternative is much worse, and this is the alternative:

1. The EU have agreed to increase funding for an EU defence fund

Yeah I hear that a former member is going all nationalistic and they are worried about aggressive remarks from the politicians.

What's so wrong with this? Trump has pretty much demanded that more NATO members increase defence spending to 2%. This means that rather than every country doing a little bit of everything, one country can concentrate on one area (say air defence); another on sea defence and so on with more spent on a group to co-ordinate all the different areas. I'm not sure why people seem so terrified of a joint working task force. Given Trumps comments I can see why they want to become more self reliant. It's not like the EU has ever voted to gallivanting across the globe to invade/bomb etc. another country (which is what we can't say about the UK).

I'm just thinking people folks are scared by having another organisation have a larger military force than ours on our door step whilst ours is in decline.

2. There was a few study group meetings/seminars about Ukraine joining the EU. I wondered why the Ukraine flag was on display.

The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see.

And Ukraine as a member? The geopolitical ramifications of this i.e going up against Russia, need not be explained.

The western half of Ukraine have wanted to join the EU for a long time because they see the benefits it brings (something 50% of the UK want to ignore). That's not imperialism or expansionism; it's more development of a social group that want to work together towards a common goal. They are not invading or forcing Ukraine to join. And worrying about Russia is just letting fear rule the roost. If Russia wants a party of their own and would like countries to join them then they should make there policies and country more likeable and not throw in jail any sign of opposition because they are an inconvenience. If Russia invaded the Batlics or Ukraine we'd still support them and things would likely escalate pretty quickly whether they are in the EU or not and we'd end up somewhere along these lines (warning long!):-

I think Britain had a narrow escape.

If you mean by having strong growth, scientific endeavours and part of the political world community and not be a laughing stock then yes we have had a narrow escape from this. I'm not sure it's something to be proud of though!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm in full agreement with you jhe90.

Why does this common market, this trading bloc, need a defence fund? It's a question I've asked many a time, and I've yet to have a good answer, or any answer, for that matter.

I 100% get the reason why they have a European court - to settle trade disputes and regulation problems between member nations, but when they start talking about tanks, then for me, alarm bells start ringing.

I am deeply uneasy about this European defence fund.

Russia is not the soviet big beast or was but it still ain't weak more will like EU drive into Ukraine.
That's long held Russain territory, influence and long been a Kremlin buffer.

If you think they will let you in that zone without making all manner of trouble diplomatically, hacking, or otherwise you are a fool.

@whirlwind

It's a blatant power grab by the EU and a naked attempt to undercut NATO, the shield that protected Western Europe for decades. The idea that the EU preserved peace in Europe is risible nonsense. It was thousands of American military personnel hanging around West Germany that preserved the peace, not the EEC.

If European NATO members want to get together to save money on stuff and pool resources on major projects then that's fine by me, and they should bring it up at the NATO council, but as far as I'm concerned, the EU has no business sticking its nose into NATO. It should keep the hell away.

Legally, the UK is still a EU member, so I hope they turn this crackpot EU defence fund into a dumpster fire with their veto, if this can be vetoed.

The future of NATO is for NATO members, which includes a few non-EU members.

The EU needs to sling its hook.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm in full agreement with you jhe90.

Why does this common market, this trading bloc, need a defence fund? It's a question I've asked many a time, and I've yet to have a good answer, or any answer, for that matter.

I 100% get the reason why they have a European court - to settle trade disputes and regulation problems between member nations, but when they start talking about tanks, then for me, alarm bells start ringing.

I am deeply uneasy about this European defence fund.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-4088_en.htm

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Legally, the UK is still a EU member, so I hope they turn this crackpot EU defence fund into a dumpster fire with their veto, if this can be vetoed.

The future of NATO is for NATO members, which includes a few non-EU members.

The EU needs to sling its hook.

you guys gave up your veto power when you voted for Brexit.

Contrary to what some of the you hardliner brexiteers think, no, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Legally, the UK is still a EU member, so I hope they turn this crackpot EU defence fund into a dumpster fire with their veto, if this can be vetoed.

The future of NATO is for NATO members, which includes a few non-EU members.

The EU needs to sling its hook.

you guys gave up your veto power when you voted for Brexit.

No we didn't. We havn't left yet, as people here are so fond of reminding us Leavers.

Contrary to what some of the you hardliner brexiteers think, no, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes we can, right up until the point we actually do Leave.

Does the UK think New York would be better off outside the American Union?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No we didn't. We havn't left yet, as people here are so fond of reminding us Leavers.

We can hold off the vote until you guys are out in two years time.

For many years Uk have been a roadblocked for further integration in the EU. This will come to an end very soon.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm in full agreement with you jhe90.

Why does this common market, this trading bloc, need a defence fund? It's a question I've asked many a time, and I've yet to have a good answer, or any answer, for that matter.

To go with a famous quote, war is the continuation of politics by other means. The EU is a (major) political entity, and as such it needs a defence component as part of their common external policy.

It's nothing new, though. The EDA is some 15 years old, and its formation can be traced back to the EPC in the 70s but not really put in motion until after the war in the Balkans.

It just turns out that the US might just not be there when needed, and that the UK made sounds hinting it might put defence and intelligence as bargain chips in a trade negotiation table, so that's probably pushed things forward a little faster.

In any case, nothing changes for NATO. The EU was already an interlocutor with NATO, and even was already allowed to draw NATO resources if needed under Berlin Plus, and ran defence operations abroad.