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.
Cameron was right to call a referendum even if he did it for the wrong reasons, but you can't make a move like that and then proceed to call a large amount of the population idiots, it merely drives them towards the extremes.
I don't think he was right to call it at all; it was for the wrong reasons and I'm not sure there was any popular support for it, beyond the UKIP defectors. It was poorly thought out, and since no one expected a leave result to be possible it was half-assed into the mess we're in now.
It was purely a ploy to bring party rebels under control, it was badly implemented and it backfired massively.
Had we had PR, and UKIP got its fair share of the votes (not that I like UKIP, but it's only fair), and pushed through a proposal to leave the EU beyond "lets leave", then it'd have been the right thing to do.
If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
It was serious, geopolitical stuff.
These days, a government minister has resigned over secret meetings with Israeli officials, and it all added up to some crackpot scheme of supplying the Israeli army with halberds and cannonballs or something!
We can't even do scandal in this country anymore - that's how far we've fallen.
We're a laughing stock. Non-British dakka members must regard this nation with pity and wonder what the feth is going on.
Cameron was right to call a referendum even if he did it for the wrong reasons, but you can't make a move like that and then proceed to call a large amount of the population idiots, it merely drives them towards the extremes.
I don't think he was right to call it at all; it was for the wrong reasons and I'm not sure there was any popular support for it, beyond the UKIP defectors. It was poorly thought out, and since no one expected a leave result to be possible it was half-assed into the mess we're in now.
It was purely a ploy to bring party rebels under control, it was badly implemented and it backfired massively.
Had we had PR, and UKIP got its fair share of the votes (not that I like UKIP, but it's only fair), and pushed through a proposal to leave the EU beyond "lets leave", then it'd have been the right thing to do.
But...but...David Cameron had confidence! CONFIDENCE!
That was one of the bullgak reasons that I heard some Tory voters give when they explained why they voted Tory in 2015.
Confidence? Yes. Ability? one of our worst PMs ever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 10:45:13
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
Accountability wasn't as big a thing back then. In this case, independent of why she was there, her actions as contradicted the official stance on the occupation of Golan Heights.
The biggest scandal however, is that she resigned for having meetings without No. 10 knowing, but we've had various statements that No. 10 did in fact know. This reeks of coverup, and she was involved in something dodgy - presumably more arms sales to the Israelis. There was also this thing about using UK aid money to fund Israeli Army work. That's all sorts of wrong, and people should be getting jailed for this. In reality though, Patel is still an MP, and has got away with essentially no disgrace.
We're a laughing stock. Non-British dakka members must regard this nation with pity and wonder what the feth is going on.
Yup. We are. We're losing international credibility by the day.
Confidence? Yes. Ability? one of our worst PMs ever.
Yet you felt he was still capable of generating the Brexit you wanted.
I know. I'm saying that Scotland was never part of that loading for Labour (or for the Tories when they dominated it) because it's been an electoral irrelevance in almost every Westminster election ever.
Well, considering we're talking about historical perceptions in the past (the SNP wave has long since engulfed Scotland), you can put it at the top of your 'Wrongs to right' list for when you invent a time machine.
Honestly, "confidence but no ability" might as well be the Brexit slogan by this point. Alternatives are "how hard can it be?" and "here, hold by beer!".
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I know. I'm saying that Scotland was never part of that loading for Labour (or for the Tories when they dominated it) because it's been an electoral irrelevance in almost every Westminster election ever.
Well, considering we're talking about historical perceptions in the past (the SNP wave has long since engulfed Scotland), you can put it at the top of your 'Wrongs to right' list for when you invent a time machine.
That's an interesting way of saying 'ah yes, sorry, I was wrong about Scotland being a boon to Labour that they never acknowledged because it actually had no part in deciding elections'.
Edit: in other news, I've just seen that some 'senior EU figures' are apparently planning for the potential impact on Brexit talks of a May departure. Nice to know someone is thinking ahead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 11:22:27
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
Accountability wasn't as big a thing back then. In this case, independent of why she was there, her actions as contradicted the official stance on the occupation of Golan Heights.
The biggest scandal however, is that she resigned for having meetings without No. 10 knowing, but we've had various statements that No. 10 did in fact know. This reeks of coverup, and she was involved in something dodgy - presumably more arms sales to the Israelis. There was also this thing about using UK aid money to fund Israeli Army work. That's all sorts of wrong, and people should be getting jailed for this. In reality though, Patel is still an MP, and has got away with essentially no disgrace.
We're a laughing stock. Non-British dakka members must regard this nation with pity and wonder what the feth is going on.
Yup. We are. We're losing international credibility by the day.
Confidence? Yes. Ability? one of our worst PMs ever.
Yet you felt he was still capable of generating the Brexit you wanted.
I didn't expect Cameron to abandon ship and head for the lifeboats. And I certainly didn't expect him to tell the Civil Service not to plan for a Leave victory.
I can't predict the future.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 11:32:54
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Funding other countries militaries could be in our interest though. You can still be a fan of "Britain First" whilst paying someone else to do something for you.
Funding other countries militaries of dubious intention via some misused aid budget is deplorable though. All the cloak and dagger shows the know how dodgy/unpopular it'll be.
I mean, I doubt we'd be paying the Israeli army to build infrastructure in Palestine or anything.
I didn't expect Cameron to abandon ship and head for the lifeboats. And I certainly didn't expect him to tell the Civil Service not to plan for a Leave victory.
But you must have been expecting an incompetent PM who's hand was forced to be, well, incompetent and reluctant?
Edit: in other news, I've just seen that some 'senior EU figures' are apparently planning for the potential impact on Brexit talks of a May departure. Nice to know someone is thinking ahead.
This last scandal is nudging Mays departure much closer to "when" from "if". I'd be worried if people weren't considering it as an option.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/11/09 12:06:56
I know. I'm saying that Scotland was never part of that loading for Labour (or for the Tories when they dominated it) because it's been an electoral irrelevance in almost every Westminster election ever.
Well, considering we're talking about historical perceptions in the past (the SNP wave has long since engulfed Scotland), you can put it at the top of your 'Wrongs to right' list for when you invent a time machine.
That's an interesting way of saying 'ah yes, sorry, I was wrong about Scotland being a boon to Labour that they never acknowledged because it actually had no part in deciding elections'.
Mate, it had every part in helping to decide an election. They're seats. Seats in Parliament. The more of them that you can count on, the less of them you need elsewhere. I'm not sure how much more of a part in 'deciding' elections you want. It works in exactly the same way as every other batch of super-safe home seats with various factors contributing to that status. If the Tories split off another five 'super safe seats', they'd function in exactly the same way as seats in Scotland used to for Labour, both in prior political calculations and the final election results.
What you're trying to pick a fight on (and why I have no idea) is the concept that Scottish votes alone should be the difference between winning and losing an election for Labour. Which is a very separate and distinct idea from what I'm discussing. I'm not sure what else I can do here to differentiate the two for you.
If you look back to my original statement, the item under discussion is how the Labour Party didn't used to care about boundaries, or evening out the electoral system so long as they though they had a greater inbuilt advantage in terms of 'super safe seats'. They didn't perceive it as a problem, and the Tories correspondingly did. Now that they have lost a goodly chunk of their earlier 'super safe seats', and the Tories look to be maybe scraping a small handful extra together for themselves, it's the greatest injustice the world has ever seen, and requires immediate redress.
In other words, their issue isn't with the system. It's just that the system is working less in their favour than it used to, and they don't like the shoe being more on the opposition's foot than theirs.
This last scandal is nudging Mays departure much closer to "when" from "if". I'd be worried if people weren't considering it as an option.
Well, the Tory majority, even with DUP support, is two or three seats right now. If Labour/the Lib Dems/SNP can scrape even half a dozen Tory rebels, they can issue a vote of no confidence, and bring down the Government. Why haven't they done so?
Simple really. If they take over now, they become responsible for Brexit. Corbyn is in favour of Brexit and wants it to happen, but wants to avoid any fallout. So he'll not move in any capacity until the ink is dry on whatever treaty is signed. May's government is competent enough to keep the country ticking over, and undisputed legislation flowing. He's banking on her keeping the place running until he picks that moment after Brexit, and then we'll go to the polls.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2017/11/09 12:15:06
My foreign policy position can be summed up in one sentence: keep the hell away from the Middle East
We'll call it the DINLT doctrine for short.
Back in the day of Empire, Britain bankrolled the Prussians, so they could buy muskets for the new armies raised against the French.
This was in Britain's interest, because we were obviously at war with France back then.
If we still had Egypt, and needed to safeguard the Suez canal to India, then yes, bankrolling the Israeli army would be a sound move. It would provide a friendly country with military help.
But we don't and it's not.
Israel has a powerful patron called the USA. Let the Americans waste their time and money in the Middle East, and let them learn the hard lesson that empires before them have learned:
That the Middle East is not worth the bones of one good US Marine...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
There's no suggestion that the UK is going to bankroll the Israeli Army.
Patel's idea was to give some funding to an Israeli Army hospital operating in the Golan Heights are, which was providing medical services to Palestinian inhabitants.
This idea was shot down very quickly once it got into the hands of competent foreign office staff.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
Can I ask a serious question - do you play Dwarfs in WFB?
Trust and respect your allies, but never ever ever forget that they are foreigners.
Germans, French, Americans, Israelis...
Britain first, first, and always first.
No they are not, they are human just like everyone with the same hopes and fears. If you treat everyone with suspicion then they will respond in kind. We really don't need a return of petty kingdoms all looking after their own leaders personal interests as that just leads to squabbling and arguing whilst the world suffers. Working together together towards a united front is in Britain's interest so I guess you support Remaining in the EU now?
Anyway don't you support Scottish Independence? How is that in Britain's interest?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 19:24:43
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
On the whole 'international credibility' thing....
How many countries actually *have* that right now?
America, well, no comment.
Australia is currently racing back to the 1950's themselves.
Canada's heading further back centuries earlier with various issues involving indigenous peoples...
Spain, well... Catalan...
And so on and so on...
I think the world is just going down the pan as a whole, to be honest...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, "confidence but no ability" might as well be the Brexit slogan by this point. Alternatives are "how hard can it be?" and "here, hold by beer!".
Meanwhile British PM celebrates with Dacre, editor of the pro-Brexit Nationalist Daily Mail, which is based in Bermuda and whose proprietor lives in France, to avoid paying taxes in Britain.
The British government pushed to water down key parts of an EU crackdown on corporate tax havens at a European Council meeting this week, days after the Paradise Papers leak revealed more evidence of tax dodging in UK overseas territories.
Ahead of Tuesday’s ECOFIN meeting of European finance ministers, EU commissioner Pierre Moscovici had called for countries to “rapidly adopt a European tax haven list” in light of the revelations, as well as arguing that such a list should be enforced with “credible and meaningful” sanctions.
The UK, however, is reported by Politico to have teamed up Luxembourg and Malta to push back against the inclusion of such sanctions, which would likely include British territories such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, which were implicated in the Paradise Papers.
... hmmm ..
how does it go again ...
I'm not against joining things that are in Britain's national interest e.g NATO.
....Britain first, first, and always first
... remember this next time Scottish independence crops up yeah ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 20:05:03
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Shocking. In this age of mass migration, Islamic extremist terrorism, the rise of the Russian Empire, and nationalist authoritarianism in Turkey, it's absolutely disgraceful that the UK is not cutting itself off from EU defence co-operation.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, "confidence but no ability" might as well be the Brexit slogan by this point. Alternatives are "how hard can it be?" and "here, hold by beer!".
Meanwhile British PM celebrates with Dacre, editor of the pro-Brexit Nationalist Daily Mail, which is based in Bermuda and whose proprietor lives in France, to avoid paying taxes in Britain.
The British government pushed to water down key parts of an EU crackdown on corporate tax havens at a European Council meeting this week, days after the Paradise Papers leak revealed more evidence of tax dodging in UK overseas territories.
Ahead of Tuesday’s ECOFIN meeting of European finance ministers, EU commissioner Pierre Moscovici had called for countries to “rapidly adopt a European tax haven list” in light of the revelations, as well as arguing that such a list should be enforced with “credible and meaningful” sanctions.
The UK, however, is reported by Politico to have teamed up Luxembourg and Malta to push back against the inclusion of such sanctions, which would likely include British territories such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, which were implicated in the Paradise Papers.
... hmmm ..
how does it go again ...
I'm not against joining things that are in Britain's national interest e.g NATO.
....Britain first, first, and always first
... remember this next time Scottish independence crops up yeah ?
You are making the critical mistake to think that the UK is not run by the owner of the Daily Mail.
I assume the timeline goes something likes this...
EU want to try and introduce controls on offshore tax havens -> Daily Fail invite TM over for dinner -> Daily Fail warn TM that those damn EU people are trying take their money again and use it to help the populace -> TM warned that this might have impacts on their support -> TM metaphorically goes to Brussels to state although it is terrible the populace is missing out on £billions that it really is important than millionaires and billionaires minimise their contribution to the world whilst large numbers of people suffer (oh and my friends at the Daily Fail don't like paying).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/11/09 20:14:47
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
So far France, Germany, Italy, Spain and around 16 other EU countries have pledged to join the pact, which could formally be launched when EU leaders meet in December. Some other members, including Denmark, Portugal, Malta and Ireland, have yet to commit themselves publicly.
But it was clear that Britain, which intends to leave the bloc following the Brexit referendum of June 2016, would not participate, officials said. Britain has long sought to block EU defense cooperation, fearing it could result in an EU army.
Asked where he first found the freeman ideology, his answer is telling and explains how the idea has travelled from North America to the UK: “I think the internet opened our eyes to a lot of this. Before the internet you had to go to the library and read all this. But now it’s at your fingertips. And everyone has a smartphone or a computer at home and it’s opened up this world of information.
what a time to be alive eh ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I like his home and it's a pity it is going to be torn down. If he had got planning permission it would have been okay.
It's amusing to read that freemen don't think the law applies to them, but somehow expect the protection of the law they don't believe in when the police arrest them.
I'm sure his children who he, presumably, isn't supporting in any financial way are really grateful for his stance.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Kilkrazy wrote: I like his home and it's a pity it is going to be torn down. If he had got planning permission it would have been okay.
It's amusing to read that freemen don't think the law applies to them, but somehow expect the protection of the law they don't believe in when the police arrest them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Shocking. In this age of mass migration, Islamic extremist terrorism, the rise of the Russian Empire, and nationalist authoritarianism in Turkey, it's absolutely disgraceful that the UK is not cutting itself off from EU defence co-operation.
Of all the people on dakka, you'd be the last person I'd expect to buy into the myth of the 'Russian Empire.'
But they invaded Ukraine!
Yes, they did, but what about those 100,000 US Marines and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?
They must have gotten lost en route to Artic warfare training in North Canada.
Its being signed into final stage on monday and yes the uk is planning to sign up......even after the brexit vote.
Fake news. 100% fake news. Remainers have been telling me for years that the EU has NEVER been interested in EU defence cooperation or an EU army or anything like that.
He who must not be named in Washington must have obviously made this up.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
Can I ask a serious question - do you play Dwarfs in WFB?
Trust and respect your allies, but never ever ever forget that they are foreigners.
Germans, French, Americans, Israelis...
Britain first, first, and always first.
No they are not, they are human just like everyone with the same hopes and fears. If you treat everyone with suspicion then they will respond in kind. We really don't need a return of petty kingdoms all looking after their own leaders personal interests as that just leads to squabbling and arguing whilst the world suffers. Working together together towards a united front is in Britain's interest so I guess you support Remaining in the EU now?
Anyway don't you support Scottish Independence? How is that in Britain's interest?
In answer to your first question, no, I don't play Dwarves.
In answer to your second point, I see the world how it is, and not how I want it to be...
Of course the French and the Germans and North Koreans etc etc are human beings, and we'd all love to live in a Star Trek utopia.
But human nature is what it is. I know it, you know it, and NM certainly knew it what he wrote the Prince and was demonised for it.
NM wasn't telling rulers they should be despots, he showed them the world was already full of despots, and told people how to survive in that world. Sometimes you have to be a despot to defeat a despot.
In WW2, Britain and the USA had to ally themselves with a wicked regime in order to defeat another wicked regime.
I take a pragmatic and IMO realistic approach in dealing with the world as it is.
So for example, if for argument's sake people say the EU should be a United Europe, my response is to say, well, people are quite attached to their national flag, and might take it badly i.e Brexit.
And yet, because I have that simple understanding of human nature and people's emotional attachment to a flag, a nation, I'm seen as a racist, a bigot etc etc
Please note, I not accusing you of calling me that, Whirlwind, but others outside of dakka have.
But the bottom line is this: The French want to be French. The Germans want to be German. The Italians want to be Italian. Loyalty to a nation, a flag, an idea, has been built into European DNA for at least a 1000 years. Do you honestly think that attachment will vanish overnight?
Do you not think that some people will reactly badly to that identity being absorbed into an EU project?
It's why I'm against the EU, Common market? sign me up. Loose cooperation on security and environmental issues? No problem. I'm wearing the T-shirt.
A system that leaves people feeling cut off from the elites and mourning their national identity? Never x 1000
because it leads to trouble, to violence, to the rise of AFD and UKIP.
And it leads to Brexit. And they in EUHQ can't see it. They'll never see it. And they still can't see it when one of their most important members is heading for the exit door.
Who can argue against peace and prosperity in Europe? Not me. Never. But the path we're going down will ironically, IMO, lead to a situation that threatens that peace and prosperity.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/11/09 22:45:25
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The Scottish nationalist is worried that we'll lose national identity if we end up merging into a European super state. Colour me exceedingly confused.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 22:49:41
Kilkrazy wrote: Shocking. In this age of mass migration, Islamic extremist terrorism, the rise of the Russian Empire, and nationalist authoritarianism in Turkey, it's absolutely disgraceful that the UK is not cutting itself off from EU defence co-operation.
Of all the people on dakka, you'd be the last person I'd expect to buy into the myth of the 'Russian Empire.'
But they invaded Ukraine!
Yes, they did, but what about those 100,000 US Marines and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?
They must have gotten lost en route to Artic warfare training in North Canada.
I must have missed the part where the US held a referendum confirming the people of Iraq and Afghanistan wanted to join the glorious United States
Alternative: what if they took a massive vacation for the group discount?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/09 23:11:28
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
I saw this post on Quora today and thought it very neatly sums up the conflicting positions and ethos of the UK and the EU.
Spoiler:
What did the EU do wrong to drive the UK away? Is the EU really a bloated bureaucracy?
It wasn't the EU’s fault. It wasn't the UK’s fault. What they did to drive us away, is nothing.
I like to go back to the words of Winston Churchill, who declared that there should be an EU. We must create a sort of United States of Europe, he said after WW2. But we shouldn't be in it.
The UK and the EU see things differently. They have a different view of politics, a different view of economics, law and most fundamentally of all, a different view of the malleability of political institutions in response to change.
When I was a young lad, I knew all these things. But I hoped that over time, our differences would be ironed out, that we would slowly converge and become a successful union. I expected give and take from both sides.
Today, as a professional of 20 years’ standing, working in the domain of EU regulation, single market and economic policy, I see the differences as fundamental and irreconcilable. The give and take required to make it work, just isn't there, on either side.
To consider these differences individually:
Political. Fundamental in the UK is the notion of legitimacy and consent. The EU doesn't work like that. The EU’s mindset is, we lead, you follow. Public opinion is a bit dirty. This provokes an extreme and highly emotional reaction in the UK, which is never sustainable in the long term. Call a UK politician “out of touch” and he knows there's a problem. Call an EU politician out of touch and the response is a bemused, “your point is?”.
Economic. The UK has a much more Atlanticist world view. It believes more in pure competition, market outcomes, private ownership and freedom to act within the law. The EU on the other hand is an uneasy fusion between the French and German models. On the one hand you have the German model, which is about occupying the commanding heights; to caricature a little (but only a little) it translates to “we make the rules, you obey them, we do when it suits us” and the French model, which is fundamentally protectionist and is hostile to free market outcomes.
Law. There is a difference in legal cultures. The UK believes in light regulation, prohibition by exception, general guidelines and case history to assist in complying with the spirit of a terse and sparsely worded primary law. The EU’s legal philosophy is pretty much the opposite; it is centered around permission by exception, detailed rules and voluminous primary legal documents.
Malleability. The UK believes, if something doesn't work, change it. Most complaints in the UK are about things not changing fast enough. Every political arrangement is viewed pragmatically as existing for a time and for a purpose. The UK is concerned about the future of the House of Lords, yet such a discussion could never happen in the EU, except as a result of a major trauma. Witness also the difference between the UK’s flexibility when faced with the threat of Scotland leaving the union by promising devolution, with the EU’s inflexible response to the UK potentially leaving. The UK couldn't understand why the EU wouldn't show any flexibility at all in response to very real and genuine concerns. The EU meanwhile misjudged the climate in the UK. We have a clash of mindsets: one pragmatic, the other dogmatic. Neither understands the other.
Those incompatibilities are being played out today in front of our very eyes in the phoney war over the negotiation. The EU is still of the belief that it runs the negotiation. It will not show flexibility because that's not how it works. The UK on the other hand will not do as it’s told. That's not how the UK works. It will not comply with the EU’s negotiation strategy of meekly signing up to a large financial settlement before being fobbed off with a lousy trade deal. The UK would rather be damaged than humiliated by the EU.
The EU believes it will win because it refuses to believe the UK will walk. It will sign whatever is put in front of it. But this is to make the exact mistake that it has always made; it’s a misjudgement of how UK politics work.
There are increasing signs of concern in the ranks of the EU that their strategy is not working. Witness the shock of Juncker when he finally came to understand that May was serious that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, and the childish behaviour that ensued. Much of the tough-talk on the EU side is because they really do think we are bluffing. The occasional reality checks that we’re not, are met with sanctimonious fits of rage. This is what happens when a dogmatic voice speaks to a pragmatic ear and vice versa. The one literally does not hear the other.
We are seeing a microcosm of the EU-UK relationship playing out in front of our very eyes, in all the wretched disfunctionality that has plagued its history from the outset.
The EU has misjudged the UK at every turn. Their response to Cameron’s warning that “you better take us seriously or we could leave” was “yeah right”; their response to “Brexit means Brexit” was laughter; “no deal is better than a bad deal” was met with pitying derision. Reading the German press leaves one with the impression that the decision to leave the EU has yet to be taken. They do not believe we are serious. Their mindset does not allow for the possibility that we are. Each proof is met only with a hardening of their line. They think they have to go that little bit further to make us see “sense”.
There is today, a very real risk of a no-deal outcome. This would be a traumatic and disruptive exit and bad for both sides. We have to hope this doesn't happen. But if the EU think that it can be avoided by carrying on as they are, they've misjudged (again). The UK and the EU are approaching the situation from different universes. Each side truly believes the other is deluded.
Fake news. 100% fake news. Remainers have been telling me for years that the EU has NEVER been interested in EU defence cooperation or an EU army or anything like that.
Fake news. 100% fake news. Remainers have been telling me for years that the EU has NEVER been interested in EU defence cooperation or an EU army or anything like that.
The realities of modern warfare make cooperation a must. No country other than the USA can go at it alone.
Because NATO and none of those other entities are a Political Union with a shared Government and political structure, slowly coalescing into a super state. NATO is strictly a military alliance. Cooperating closely with military allies is one thing; cooperating closely and establishing integrated chains of command and task forces with countries that you are closely politically integrated with is quite another thing entirely, and arguably a precursor and building block to a future European Union Army.
Comparing NATO to the EU is disingenuous, they are not at all equivalent and you bloody well know it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 23:31:12
The realities of modern warfare make cooperation a must. No country other than the USA can go at it alone.
Speaking as someone with some knowledge of these things; this is quite untrue. 'Modern warfare' is no different to warfare of the last hundred years in its fundamentals. There are a few grains of truth within Mary Kaldor's conception of the Baroque Arsenal, and any form of genuine need would quickly result in an alternative form of procurement, industrial strategy, and logistics being adopted.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/11/09 23:38:11
The realities of modern warfare make cooperation a must. No country other than the USA can go at it alone.
Speaking as someone with some knowledge of these things; this is quite untrue. 'Modern warfare' is no different to warfare of the last hundred years in its fundamentals. There are a few grains of truth within Mary Kaldor's conception of the Baroque Arsenal, and any form of genuine need would quickly result in an alternative form of procurement, industrial strategy, and logistics being adopted.
I have to disagree. Modern procurement and development of defense equipment makes it very difficult for small and medium-sized countries to keep a modern military.
A few decades back any decent-sized country could afford to keep a domestic defence industry. Build and design their ships and combat aircraft almost to specification, with today's development and unit costs that's just not possible anymore.
That's why the UK and France got within a hair of sharing aircraft carriers, that's why NATO keeps a common fleet of AWACS and C-17 planes paid by different European countries (the E3As registered in Luxembourg and the C17s in Hungary, all with NATO markings, where each participating country gets use shares), and the trend seems to continue on that direction. Aircraft and navy fleets get smaller every decade because each unit is much more expensive to build and maintain than the one it replaced.
It's not new, and we'll see more and more of it in the future basically because it makes economic sense.
I have to disagree. Modern procurement and development of defense equipment makes it very difficult for small and medium-sized countries to keep a modern military.A few decades back any decent-sized country could afford to keep a domestic defence industry. Build and design their ships and combat aircraft almost to specification, with today's development and unit costs that's just not possible anymore.
With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely, I'm not being sarcastic, patronising, or offensive), unless you have some degree of specialism in the field of military procurement, you will find it difficult to convince me otherwise. My preferred area of historical study/research is military procurement within the pre-WW1 era; but I read very widely and generally outside of that time period on the subject. I have to, in order to contrast and apply different methodologies and perceptions of military-industrial interaction over technological development and military procurement.
If you do have that knowledge, then please do say, and we can have a damn interesting discussion/debate on the matter via PM! Otherwise, I'll leave this one there, as it'll spin off track exceedingly fast, and far OT from British politics.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/11/10 00:23:25
Non-British dakka members must regard this nation with pity and wonder what the feth is going on. 
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
