|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 16, 2018 10:52:01 GMT
Yes, lots of people have proposed an EU army, to which I was referring. Please point me in the direction of how a person would sign up to this army if they were so inclined. They must have a website and be actively recruiting if it exists. Still unsure why an eu army is a bad thing (other than the same reasons any army can be argued to be a bad thing) or how it is different to nato (and so awful in comparison). This seems like ancient history now, after the last day or two but I did say I would get back to you. In a nutshell, NATO is a treaty organisation set up for the mutual protection of its members which has helped maintain peace in Europe and much of the rest of the world since just after the second world war. NATO has no territorial ambitions of its own and, ultimately, would see itself as a defensive peace keeping organisation which is under the political control of its members. I appreciate there may be odd incidences that could be pointed at to attempt to illustrate the contrary, but overwhelmingly NATO acts as a peacekeeper, often too weakly in many peoples view. The EU, on the other hand, is an expansionist organisation run in the main by unelected and unaccountable officials who occasionally allow politicians to rubber stamp their decisions but in the main act to punish member countries who dare step out of line. I would cite Greece, Italy and, indeed, the UK as recent examples. EU expansionist policies toward Ukraine were the trigger for the Russian activities in the east of that country and proved a dangerously destabling influence on eastern European politics. An (expansionist) EU army could prove a treat to world peace in a way that I believe NATA never has (although I will accept that certain NATO members might be that themselves – but not the organisation as a whole). In case you missed it, here is the video of Frau Merkel discussing the assembly of an EU army which you are refusing to accept the reality of (if you don’t want to see it all, watch from 55 seconds),
and here is an article describing the co-opting of divisions from the Dutch, Czech and Romanian armies to form the beginnings of a German led European army. EU Army Building Blocks linkI know you don’t want to hear all this stuff Oggy, but this is what is happening out there in the real world while you bury your head in some kind of fluffy glittery vision of the kind of EU you would like to see, rather than recognising the beast that it actually is.
You would have us believe you are not a fool so might I be so bold as to suggest you stop acting like one, hiding from the multiple truths that have been presented to you on this discussion board over the past year or two and accept that the EU can be seen as a power for good in certain respects (social policies and the like), it is also a potentially disruptive power for bad as it continues its expansionist policies to do with territory, power and economics.
I wonder if the media will bang on about this, so people could factor it in for the "People's Vote"? |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 16, 2018 10:56:08 GMT
I reckon this fucking People's Vote will happen. If it does, and the EU goes to shit in 5 years, do we get another People's Vote? I reckon it doesn't above are the hard facts, nothing changes that we are heading for a No deal  |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 16, 2018 11:01:25 GMT
Jeez this is getting boring - why when we knew most of "the deal" months ago are we going through this charade and fake MSM hysteria of pretending the printed doc makes it even close to LEAVE or that it'd get passed by the multi faceted vested interests .. FFs...tick...tock.. May must be some kind of fucking robot with no emotion, reason or conscience to keep this shameful "fuck you" going; either that or her EU chip is perfectly programmed. What's going on is the perfect example of our destroyed sovereignty and why we need to get it back. While May's world crumbles around her even now she's still got the gal to introduce a third way threat of no Brexit at all, as an alternative to her treason deal or what leave really means - No deal. We didn't vote for a deal we voted to LEAVE. No deal I keep hearing/dismissed would be a disaster soundbite but none seem to explain why? other than hyperbolic speculation based on no facts or debate; or promotes a vision of a free UK - which many on here want and voted for. Of those that have tried they've been shut-down - why? For sure with a clean break we would take some pain initially but we'd win longer term once the EU implodes - Social unrest widespread, bankrupt southern states, shrinking growth (Germany) 3m migrants in Turkey, Merkel's finished after destroying Germany, Micron the rent boy leading the western world with his warmongering EU army "patriotism is the opposite of nationalism" pop at Trump alienating us from people who like us - no wonder Trump and Putin (are close) and view Europe (EU) as the problem child. Is there a remainer out there who can give a good reason to go down with this ship? No deal (LEAVE) delivers this remit and a complete reset for our future (if properly executed) and anyone taking up the challenge of delivering it would get a massive swathe of support as a default IMO. The globalist masters of the EU hold the purse however and our establishment elite we will succumb to PC approved think and do enforced by the cultural Marxists and they'll lie as usual. Where do we go from here? May goes eventually, the EU choose our next leader and we give up voting or caring anymore. Oh and I still don't know what Labour stand for This is where Labour are at with their bollocks 6 tests and the real purpose of those tests is nailed in one reply |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 16, 2018 11:03:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2018 11:04:27 GMT
Yes, lots of people have proposed an EU army, to which I was referring. Please point me in the direction of how a person would sign up to this army if they were so inclined. They must have a website and be actively recruiting if it exists. Still unsure why an eu army is a bad thing (other than the same reasons any army can be argued to be a bad thing) or how it is different to nato (and so awful in comparison). This seems like ancient history now, after the last day or two but I did say I would get back to you. In a nutshell, NATO is a treaty organisation set up for the mutual protection of its members which has helped maintain peace in Europe and much of the rest of the world since just after the second world war. NATO has no territorial ambitions of its own and, ultimately, would see itself as a defensive peace keeping organisation which is under the political control of its members. I appreciate there may be odd incidences that could be pointed at to attempt to illustrate the contrary, but overwhelmingly NATO acts as a peacekeeper, often too weakly in many peoples view. The EU, on the other hand, is an expansionist organisation run in the main by unelected and unaccountable officials who occasionally allow politicians to rubber stamp their decisions but in the main act to punish member countries who dare step out of line. I would cite Greece, Italy and, indeed, the UK as recent examples. EU expansionist policies toward Ukraine were the trigger for the Russian activities in the east of that country and proved a dangerously destabling influence on eastern European politics. An (expansionist) EU army could prove a treat to world peace in a way that I believe NATA never has (although I will accept that certain NATO members might be that themselves – but not the organisation as a whole). In case you missed it, here is the video of Frau Merkel discussing the assembly of an EU army which you are refusing to accept the reality of (if you don’t want to see it all, watch from 55 seconds),
and here is an article describing the co-opting of divisions from the Dutch, Czech and Romanian armies to form the beginnings of a German led European army. EU Army Building Blocks linkI know you don’t want to hear all this stuff Oggy, but this is what is happening out there in the real world while you bury your head in some kind of fluffy glittery vision of the kind of EU you would like to see, rather than recognising the beast that it actually is.
You would have us believe you are not a fool so might I be so bold as to suggest you stop acting like one, hiding from the multiple truths that have been presented to you on this discussion board over the past year or two and accept that the EU can be seen as a power for good in certain respects (social policies and the like), it is also a potentially disruptive power for bad as it continues its expansionist policies to do with territory, power and economics.
Thanks for the comparison. But you have compared the EU and Nato, not the EU army (that doesn’t (yet!) exist) and Nato. The EU has never been anything but the antithesis of a threat to peace and has in fact been one of the most successful alliances of nations the world has ever seen. It has, along with other factors such as the UN and Nato, overseen the most peaceful era in its member states’ histories ever. Until the EU army exists (which may be never despite what the soon to be departing Merkel would like), nobody can say what it will be. I would be stunned if it started systematically invading non-EU nations though and I would bet my life on it being more of a peace keeping force than an aggressor, unless the EU is about to abandon all its principles and take a colossal U turn in its objectives and purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 16, 2018 11:11:05 GMT
Yes, lots of people have proposed an EU army, to which I was referring. Please point me in the direction of how a person would sign up to this army if they were so inclined. They must have a website and be actively recruiting if it exists. Still unsure why an eu army is a bad thing (other than the same reasons any army can be argued to be a bad thing) or how it is different to nato (and so awful in comparison). This seems like ancient history now, after the last day or two but I did say I would get back to you. In a nutshell, NATO is a treaty organisation set up for the mutual protection of its members which has helped maintain peace in Europe and much of the rest of the world since just after the second world war. NATO has no territorial ambitions of its own and, ultimately, would see itself as a defensive peace keeping organisation which is under the political control of its members. I appreciate there may be odd incidences that could be pointed at to attempt to illustrate the contrary, but overwhelmingly NATO acts as a peacekeeper, often too weakly in many peoples view. The EU, on the other hand, is an expansionist organisation run in the main by unelected and unaccountable officials who occasionally allow politicians to rubber stamp their decisions but in the main act to punish member countries who dare step out of line. I would cite Greece, Italy and, indeed, the UK as recent examples. EU expansionist policies toward Ukraine were the trigger for the Russian activities in the east of that country and proved a dangerously destabling influence on eastern European politics. An (expansionist) EU army could prove a treat to world peace in a way that I believe NATA never has (although I will accept that certain NATO members might be that themselves – but not the organisation as a whole). In case you missed it, here is the video of Frau Merkel discussing the assembly of an EU army which you are refusing to accept the reality of (if you don’t want to see it all, watch from 55 seconds),
and here is an article describing the co-opting of divisions from the Dutch, Czech and Romanian armies to form the beginnings of a German led European army. EU Army Building Blocks linkI know you don’t want to hear all this stuff Oggy, but this is what is happening out there in the real world while you bury your head in some kind of fluffy glittery vision of the kind of EU you would like to see, rather than recognising the beast that it actually is.
You would have us believe you are not a fool so might I be so bold as to suggest you stop acting like one, hiding from the multiple truths that have been presented to you on this discussion board over the past year or two and accept that the EU can be seen as a power for good in certain respects (social policies and the like), it is also a potentially disruptive power for bad as it continues its expansionist policies to do with territory, power and economics.
Unfortunately Yeokel it is a simple fact that Oggy can't accept. The army is simply part of Ever Closer Union, the whole purpose of the EU, Political and Economic union. It's not an " end product" but a process that means exactly what the carefully chosen words mean. Each one is significant....Ever, Closer, Union. It is the basis of every Treaty, the unchallengeable and unchangeable mission of the Commission, the European Court and Parliament. The centralisation of power into the undemocratic bureacrats. Those of us who have followed developments from before the Referendum was even mooted have seen it in action. Scrutiny of the resignation letters indicates that the issue on which they are based is sovereignty, who governs the UK. And the status quo does not exist. Not wanting to be patronising but in my experience it seems that it is the Remainers who either don't know what they voted for or don't want to know because of their construction of what they think the EU is or should be, rather than the actuality. The Attorney General was right when he said that he voted leave because "ever closer union is a price too high to pay" And Benn was right |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2018 11:11:38 GMT
Apparently the PM gets 48 hours notice of the letters reaching 48 before they go public with it. I cannot believe the tories want a leadership battle in a time of national crisis of which we have not seen since the last world war. I hope the Tories are never, ever allowed to forgot how they have torn the nation in two. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2018 11:12:22 GMT
This seems like ancient history now, after the last day or two but I did say I would get back to you. In a nutshell, NATO is a treaty organisation set up for the mutual protection of its members which has helped maintain peace in Europe and much of the rest of the world since just after the second world war. NATO has no territorial ambitions of its own and, ultimately, would see itself as a defensive peace keeping organisation which is under the political control of its members. I appreciate there may be odd incidences that could be pointed at to attempt to illustrate the contrary, but overwhelmingly NATO acts as a peacekeeper, often too weakly in many peoples view. The EU, on the other hand, is an expansionist organisation run in the main by unelected and unaccountable officials who occasionally allow politicians to rubber stamp their decisions but in the main act to punish member countries who dare step out of line. I would cite Greece, Italy and, indeed, the UK as recent examples. EU expansionist policies toward Ukraine were the trigger for the Russian activities in the east of that country and proved a dangerously destabling influence on eastern European politics. An (expansionist) EU army could prove a treat to world peace in a way that I believe NATA never has (although I will accept that certain NATO members might be that themselves – but not the organisation as a whole). In case you missed it, here is the video of Frau Merkel discussing the assembly of an EU army which you are refusing to accept the reality of (if you don’t want to see it all, watch from 55 seconds),
and here is an article describing the co-opting of divisions from the Dutch, Czech and Romanian armies to form the beginnings of a German led European army. EU Army Building Blocks linkI know you don’t want to hear all this stuff Oggy, but this is what is happening out there in the real world while you bury your head in some kind of fluffy glittery vision of the kind of EU you would like to see, rather than recognising the beast that it actually is.
You would have us believe you are not a fool so might I be so bold as to suggest you stop acting like one, hiding from the multiple truths that have been presented to you on this discussion board over the past year or two and accept that the EU can be seen as a power for good in certain respects (social policies and the like), it is also a potentially disruptive power for bad as it continues its expansionist policies to do with territory, power and economics.
Unfortunately Yeokel it is a simple fact that Oggy can't accept. The army is simply part of Ever Closer Union, the whole purpose of the EU, Political and Economic union. It's not an " end product" but a process that means exactly what the carefully chosen words mean. Each one is significant....Ever, Closer, Union. It is the basis of every Treaty, the unchallengeable and unchangeable mission of the Commission, the European Court and Parliament. The centralisation of power into the undemocratic bureacrats. Those of us who have followed developments from before the Referendum was even muted have seen it in action. Scrutiny of the resignation letters indicates that the issue on which they are based is sovereignty, who governs the UK. And the status quo does not exist. Not wanting to be patronising but in my experience it seems that it is the Remainers who either don't know what they voted for or don't want to know because of their construction of what they think the EU is or should be, rather than the actuality. The Attorney General was right when he said that he voted leave because "ever closer union is a price too high to pay" And Benn was right The EU army does not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 16, 2018 11:13:10 GMT
This seems like ancient history now, after the last day or two but I did say I would get back to you. In a nutshell, NATO is a treaty organisation set up for the mutual protection of its members which has helped maintain peace in Europe and much of the rest of the world since just after the second world war. NATO has no territorial ambitions of its own and, ultimately, would see itself as a defensive peace keeping organisation which is under the political control of its members. I appreciate there may be odd incidences that could be pointed at to attempt to illustrate the contrary, but overwhelmingly NATO acts as a peacekeeper, often too weakly in many peoples view. The EU, on the other hand, is an expansionist organisation run in the main by unelected and unaccountable officials who occasionally allow politicians to rubber stamp their decisions but in the main act to punish member countries who dare step out of line. I would cite Greece, Italy and, indeed, the UK as recent examples. EU expansionist policies toward Ukraine were the trigger for the Russian activities in the east of that country and proved a dangerously destabling influence on eastern European politics. An (expansionist) EU army could prove a treat to world peace in a way that I believe NATA never has (although I will accept that certain NATO members might be that themselves – but not the organisation as a whole). In case you missed it, here is the video of Frau Merkel discussing the assembly of an EU army which you are refusing to accept the reality of (if you don’t want to see it all, watch from 55 seconds),
and here is an article describing the co-opting of divisions from the Dutch, Czech and Romanian armies to form the beginnings of a German led European army. EU Army Building Blocks linkI know you don’t want to hear all this stuff Oggy, but this is what is happening out there in the real world while you bury your head in some kind of fluffy glittery vision of the kind of EU you would like to see, rather than recognising the beast that it actually is.
You would have us believe you are not a fool so might I be so bold as to suggest you stop acting like one, hiding from the multiple truths that have been presented to you on this discussion board over the past year or two and accept that the EU can be seen as a power for good in certain respects (social policies and the like), it is also a potentially disruptive power for bad as it continues its expansionist policies to do with territory, power and economics.
Thanks for the comparison. But you have compared the EU and Nato, not the EU army (that doesn’t (yet!) exist) and Nato. The EU has never been anything but the antithesis of a threat to peace and has in fact been one of the most successful alliances of nations the world has ever seen. It has, along with other factors such as the UN and Nato, overseen the most peaceful era in its member states’ histories ever. Until the EU army exists (which may be never despite what the soon to be departing Merkel would like), nobody can say what it will be. I would be stunned if it started systematically invading non-EU nations though and I would bet my life on it being more of a peace keeping force than an aggressor, unless the EU is about to abandon all its principles and take a colossal U turn in its objectives and purposes. You have not seen Star Wars then  Why does a trading organisation with no foreign policy need an army ? The aim is very clear to create an organisation that is impossible to leave. |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Nov 16, 2018 11:16:15 GMT
This seems like ancient history now, after the last day or two but I did say I would get back to you. In a nutshell, NATO is a treaty organisation set up for the mutual protection of its members which has helped maintain peace in Europe and much of the rest of the world since just after the second world war. NATO has no territorial ambitions of its own and, ultimately, would see itself as a defensive peace keeping organisation which is under the political control of its members. I appreciate there may be odd incidences that could be pointed at to attempt to illustrate the contrary, but overwhelmingly NATO acts as a peacekeeper, often too weakly in many peoples view. The EU, on the other hand, is an expansionist organisation run in the main by unelected and unaccountable officials who occasionally allow politicians to rubber stamp their decisions but in the main act to punish member countries who dare step out of line. I would cite Greece, Italy and, indeed, the UK as recent examples. EU expansionist policies toward Ukraine were the trigger for the Russian activities in the east of that country and proved a dangerously destabling influence on eastern European politics. An (expansionist) EU army could prove a treat to world peace in a way that I believe NATA never has (although I will accept that certain NATO members might be that themselves – but not the organisation as a whole). In case you missed it, here is the video of Frau Merkel discussing the assembly of an EU army which you are refusing to accept the reality of (if you don’t want to see it all, watch from 55 seconds),
and here is an article describing the co-opting of divisions from the Dutch, Czech and Romanian armies to form the beginnings of a German led European army. EU Army Building Blocks linkI know you don’t want to hear all this stuff Oggy, but this is what is happening out there in the real world while you bury your head in some kind of fluffy glittery vision of the kind of EU you would like to see, rather than recognising the beast that it actually is.
You would have us believe you are not a fool so might I be so bold as to suggest you stop acting like one, hiding from the multiple truths that have been presented to you on this discussion board over the past year or two and accept that the EU can be seen as a power for good in certain respects (social policies and the like), it is also a potentially disruptive power for bad as it continues its expansionist policies to do with territory, power and economics.
Thanks for the comparison. But you have compared the EU and Nato, not the EU army (that doesn’t (yet!) exist) and Nato. The EU has never been anything but the antithesis of a threat to peace and has in fact been one of the most successful alliances of nations the world has ever seen. It has, along with other factors such as the UN and Nato, overseen the most peaceful era in its member states’ histories ever. Until the EU army exists (which may be never despite what the soon to be departing Merkel would like), nobody can say what it will be. I would be stunned if it started systematically invading non-EU nations though and I would bet my life on it being more of a peace keeping force than an aggressor, unless the EU is about to abandon all its principles and take a colossal U turn in its objectives and purposes. So why do we need it and why is it already being set up when we have NATO to perform the functions outlined above. Why do we need both?
"...and I would bet my life on it being more of a peace keeping force than an aggressor" I don't agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2018 11:18:09 GMT
Thanks for the comparison. But you have compared the EU and Nato, not the EU army (that doesn’t (yet!) exist) and Nato. The EU has never been anything but the antithesis of a threat to peace and has in fact been one of the most successful alliances of nations the world has ever seen. It has, along with other factors such as the UN and Nato, overseen the most peaceful era in its member states’ histories ever. Until the EU army exists (which may be never despite what the soon to be departing Merkel would like), nobody can say what it will be. I would be stunned if it started systematically invading non-EU nations though and I would bet my life on it being more of a peace keeping force than an aggressor, unless the EU is about to abandon all its principles and take a colossal U turn in its objectives and purposes. You have not seen Star Wars then Why does a trading organisation with no foreign policy need an army ? The aim is very clear to create an organisation that is impossible to leave. Sorry, I don’t follow. Do you think the EU wants an army to “strongarm” its member states into not leaving? I mean there are conspiracy theories and then there is this!! The existence of an EU army would not change article 50. Any nation can leave by serving notice to do so, as we have done. It’s very simple. The EU army (that doesn’t exist) has nothing to do with leaving. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Nov 16, 2018 11:18:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 16, 2018 11:19:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2018 11:22:28 GMT
Thanks for the comparison. But you have compared the EU and Nato, not the EU army (that doesn’t (yet!) exist) and Nato. The EU has never been anything but the antithesis of a threat to peace and has in fact been one of the most successful alliances of nations the world has ever seen. It has, along with other factors such as the UN and Nato, overseen the most peaceful era in its member states’ histories ever. Until the EU army exists (which may be never despite what the soon to be departing Merkel would like), nobody can say what it will be. I would be stunned if it started systematically invading non-EU nations though and I would bet my life on it being more of a peace keeping force than an aggressor, unless the EU is about to abandon all its principles and take a colossal U turn in its objectives and purposes. So why do we need it and why is it already being set up when we have NATO to perform the functions outlined above. Why do we need both? "...and I would bet my life on it being more of a peace keeping force than an aggressor" I don't agree.
I don’t think we need an army. I don’t think the EU needs an army either and I don’t think they should proceed with it as defence spending is huge (although an EU army would presumably lower the cost of member states’ defence budgets) But an eu army doesn’t exist. I don’t think there needs to be a Europe wide army either. Or a north atlantic army, or a scandinavian army or a russian american army, or a north and south korea army. None of them exist either. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 16, 2018 11:24:18 GMT
You have not seen Star Wars then Why does a trading organisation with no foreign policy need an army ? The aim is very clear to create an organisation that is impossible to leave. Sorry, I don’t follow. Do you think the EU wants an army to “strongarm” its member states into not leaving? I mean there are conspiracy theories and then there is this!! The existence of an EU army would not change article 50. Any nation can leave by serving notice to do so, as we have done. It’s very simple. The EU army (that doesn’t exist) has nothing to do with leaving. And there is making straw man arguments and then there is this. The EU is already so much more entangled into Law and agreements then people were ever told or agreed to and voted for that the its all too complicated to leave argument has already been advanced imagine then if the EU effectively takes over your defence, these countries wouldn't have their own armies there would be an EU army with EU equipment / hardware that would all be gone if any country voted to leave the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 16, 2018 11:29:51 GMT
I'm surprised you are going for "the best deal we could possibly get" line, fyd. If this is true you must concede that May and even moderate Tories have been guilty of the most wreckless and irresponsible statements these past two years and by wreckless and irresponsible, I mean downright lies!
|
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 16, 2018 11:31:05 GMT
You have not seen Star Wars then  Why does a trading organisation with no foreign policy need an army ? The aim is very clear to create an organisation that is impossible to leave. Sorry, I don’t follow. Do you think the EU wants an army to “strongarm” its member states into not leaving? I mean there are conspiracy theories and then there is this!! The existence of an EU army would not change article 50. Any nation can leave by serving notice to do so, as we have done. It’s very simple. The EU army (that doesn’t exist) has nothing to do with leaving. What do you think the purpose is of discussing an EU Army at the highest echelons such as Macron & Merkel? |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 16, 2018 11:31:47 GMT
Unfortunately Yeokel it is a simple fact that Oggy can't accept. The army is simply part of Ever Closer Union, the whole purpose of the EU, Political and Economic union. It's not an " end product" but a process that means exactly what the carefully chosen words mean. Each one is significant....Ever, Closer, Union. It is the basis of every Treaty, the unchallengeable and unchangeable mission of the Commission, the European Court and Parliament. The centralisation of power into the undemocratic bureacrats. Those of us who have followed developments from before the Referendum was even muted have seen it in action. Scrutiny of the resignation letters indicates that the issue on which they are based is sovereignty, who governs the UK. And the status quo does not exist. Not wanting to be patronising but in my experience it seems that it is the Remainers who either don't know what they voted for or don't want to know because of their construction of what they think the EU is or should be, rather than the actuality. The Attorney General was right when he said that he voted leave because "ever closer union is a price too high to pay" And Benn was right The EU army does not exist. Oggy In the real world that's not really the point. As you know Merkel,Juncker and Verhostadt have clearly said that is their/the direction of travel....to much support in the EU parliament. As usual to deny the obvious ( what the organisation itself says it stands for and itself says that it intend s to do) is to completely undermine any argument you might have. A totally laughable and diversionary stance......the elephant in the room comes to mind if you can't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 16, 2018 11:32:33 GMT
Apparently the PM gets 48 hours notice of the letters reaching 48 before they go public with it. I cannot believe the tories want a leadership battle in a time of national crisis of which we have not seen since the last world war. I hope the Tories are never, ever allowed to forgot how they have torn the nation in two. This is the natural result of what has been a two year phoney war by the looks of it. |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Nov 16, 2018 11:33:16 GMT
I think he should lay off the sherry before his next interview. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Nov 16, 2018 11:33:55 GMT
I think he should lay off the sherry before his next interview. Why? Because he's calling out the cunts for who they are? |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Nov 16, 2018 11:36:40 GMT
So why do we need it and why is it already being set up when we have NATO to perform the functions outlined above. Why do we need both? "...and I would bet my life on it being more of a peace keeping force than an aggressor" I don't agree.
I don’t think we need an army. I don’t think the EU needs an army either and I don’t think they should proceed with it as defence spending is huge (although an EU army would presumably lower the cost of member states’ defence budgets) But an eu army doesn’t exist. I don’t think there needs to be a Europe wide army either. Or a north atlantic army, or a scandinavian army or a russian american army, or a north and south korea army. None of them exist either. " I don’t think there needs to be a Europe wide army either. Or a north atlantic army, or a scandinavian army or a russian american army, or a north and south korea army. None of them exist either." There have been no steps towards any of those as far as I am aware. I agree with your comments above though. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 16, 2018 11:37:42 GMT
48 letters are in [Beth Rigby BBC] Edit:No idea how many in, 20 made public [Laura Kuenssberg BBC] FFS |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Nov 16, 2018 11:38:57 GMT
I think he should lay off the sherry before his next interview. Why? Because he's calling out the cunts for who they are? I don’t think profanities add weight to an argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 11:40:41 GMT
The EU army does not exist. Oggy In the real world that's not really the point. As you know Merkel,Juncker and Verhostadt have clearly said that is their/the direction of travel....to much support in the EU parliament. As usual to deny the obvious ( what the organisation itself says it stands for and itself says that it intend s to do) is to completely undermine any argument you might have. A totally laughable and diversionary stance......the elephant in the room comes to mind if you can't see it. It was only a year or two back that farage warned of an eu army and the media and other eudiophiles laughed and rubbished his statements..... seems some of the people driving the eu are out of the woodwork and pushing the plans they once refused to admit to And still you get posters here refusing to open their eyes |
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Nov 16, 2018 11:42:28 GMT
Why? Because he's calling out the cunts for who they are? I don’t think profanities add weight to an argument.  |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 16, 2018 11:44:57 GMT
I'm surprised you are going for "the best deal we could possibly get" line, fyd. If this is true you must concede that May and even moderate Tories have been guilty of the most wreckless and irresponsible statements these past two years and by wreckless and irresponsible, I mean downright lies! I don't see it saying anywhere the best deal we could possibly get, it says quite clearly parliament has already passed the law that means we automatically leave the EU on 29 March. The problem most people seem to have is with the backstop that ONLY applies should we fail to agree an alternative arrangement for the NI border as part of the future trading relationship, I say get out and into the transition and use these two years or whatever it is to make sure no deal preparations are fully ready if the EU wants to carry on being dicks, their mantra is nothing is agreed until all is agreed so we can say thanks and good luck at any point until the final deal is signed. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2018 11:46:14 GMT
The EU army does not exist. Oggy In the real world that's not really the point. As you know Merkel,Juncker and Verhostadt have clearly said that is their/the direction of travel....to much support in the EU parliament. As usual to deny the obvious ( what the organisation itself says it stands for and itself says that it intend s to do) is to completely undermine any argument you might have. A totally laughable and diversionary stance......the elephant in the room comes to mind if you can't see it. Does that mean an EU “death star” is inevitable? When has the EU ever invaded other nations? The direction of travel is not for the EU to try to invade the world/rest of europe with a military force! In fact ever closer union suggests the absolute opposite to me. It suggests we want to be close and so peaceful with each other and not fight each other. The EU army does not exist. It may in future but I have my doubts. Merkel is on the way out. There is a more isolationist approach of some member states and the heads of the member states have the power in the EU. They decide. Getting money to fund it will be extremely difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2018 11:48:23 GMT
Sorry, I don’t follow. Do you think the EU wants an army to “strongarm” its member states into not leaving? I mean there are conspiracy theories and then there is this!! The existence of an EU army would not change article 50. Any nation can leave by serving notice to do so, as we have done. It’s very simple. The EU army (that doesn’t exist) has nothing to do with leaving. What do you think the purpose is of discussing an EU Army at the highest echelons such as Macron & Merkel? To discuss whether it would be beneficial, affordable, and possible, I would have thought. At the moment, it is not affordable (not easily) and it is probably not possible with the politics of member states right now. The beneficial argument is a matter of opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2018 11:50:27 GMT
Sorry, I don’t follow. Do you think the EU wants an army to “strongarm” its member states into not leaving? I mean there are conspiracy theories and then there is this!! The existence of an EU army would not change article 50. Any nation can leave by serving notice to do so, as we have done. It’s very simple. The EU army (that doesn’t exist) has nothing to do with leaving. And there is making straw man arguments and then there is this. The EU is already so much more entangled into Law and agreements then people were ever told or agreed to and voted for that the its all too complicated to leave argument has already been advanced imagine then if the EU effectively takes over your defence, these countries wouldn't have their own armies there would be an EU army with EU equipment / hardware that would all be gone if any country voted to leave the EU. It’s very simple to leave. Serve notice and wait 2 years and you are out. Getting a better deal when we are out than remaining in it is impossibleand solving the problems the EU solves by its mere existence is much, much harder (eg irish border). |
|
Why does a trading organisation with no foreign policy need an army ? The aim is very clear to create an organisation that is impossible to leave. 
Why does a trading organisation with no foreign policy need an army ? The aim is very clear to create an organisation that is impossible to leave. 
