This opinion piece in today’s Times makes some good points about the essential conundrum and contradictions of where we are now. It also reiterates the point that this deal is the best we could hope for no matter who was leading the negotiations.
This opinion piece in today’s Times makes some good points about the essential conundrum and contradictions of where we are now. It also reiterates the point that this deal is the best we could hope for no matter who was leading the negotiations.
But it isn’t necessarily true to say that there wouldn’t have been any other deal available regardless of who was negotiating, as the piece suggests.
If it wasn’t for Theresa May’s “red lines” (which is sounds like she’s completely forgotten about with this “deal”) then we could have had a managed transition to a Norway style deal, leaving the EU but staying in the SM/CU with the freedoms intact wrapped up ages ago.
Ok , just assuming that the Brexit you wanted, happened. Please give me some examples of how you expect it to improve your own personal life.
Hi @Southbank . It's three pages back so I just wanted to gently remind you of my question
Admittedly it's three years since I first asked you, so a few more days won't hurt.
Ha! I don't have any expectations either way for my personal life-but I guess you mean my finances/ business life. We have just received a big government order to create a post Brexit thing (can't go into any detail for confidentially reasons) which will create new jobs and would have gone to a different European country pre-Brexit. I imagine there is a lot of that happening. In general I think the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is if we leave or if we do not. As you know economics is not the reason I voted Brexit.
I mean everything in your personal life that you reasonably believe could be made better by government policies. Things that currently make you unhappy enough that you have spent hours of your life resolutely pushing Brexit for the last three years on a football forum. In so far as you have ever explained this obsession, you talk about "sovereignty". What I want to know is, assuming you get your "sovereignty" back, how, in your daily life will it make you feel, and why? For the sake of argument I'll allow you to assume that "the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is" even though I don't believe that for one minute. What will this "return of sovereignty" bring you? There are millions of people I would ask them same thing by the way. They wave around this "sovereignty" thing, and I have not the faintest idea what they expect from it. Or in many cases, if they can even define the loss of 'sovereignty' that they currently feel- you have certainly struggled with that.
Go on, give me a couple of concrete ways in which your own life will be materially better.
So this top secret, hush-hush, nod's-as-good-as-wink thing that's really going to happen, and wouldn't have if the UK was not in the process of leaving the EU ( we are still pre-Brexit by the way - another piece of misdirection by Southbank ). You (Southbank) state that you have "...just received…" this order. So you voted leave in June 2016 so you could gain an order two years and five months hence?
I am calling bullshit on this one. Even if it's true, as Prague says, you are still swerving the question.
Your the cultist, Henry. You'd rather focus on Corbyn than the people who are to blame for this complete mess! Says all that needs saying.
Much as Cameron, May, Johnson, Farage etc etc are to blame for this mess so, in part, is Corbyn and one day you will wake up and realise that.
A life long anti-EUer who did next to nothing in the referendum despite Remain being party policy and who now constantly contradicts the current labour party position. He keeps doing it and Starmer has to be wheeled out again to explain away the inconsistencies.
He gives an interview to a German paper (Meire style media work there) but is almost invisible in the UK debate, preferring to talk about Chile on the day of the People's March. Why? Because he's a leaver but he doesn't want to say that.
You're being played, you've always been played and I think the reason you are trying to make this all about me (there are lots of others on here and elsewhere saying the same thing but you only focus on me and try to make it personal) is that deep down you are starting to realise that. You're lashing out at me but really you know what I and many others are saying might just be closer to the truth than you want to admit.
He did do this - whether it's next to nothing I don't know, but it's pretty clear.
I agree he's been as useful as a chocolate fireguard since the referendum, and I'd like to see the back of him as Labour leader, but I cannot foresee a day when I will wake up and blame him for appeasing the right wing of the Tory party, running scared of a party of extreme nationalists and calling an ill thought out referendum. At least not until someone can point out to me when where that happened...
Anyone care to point out to me where that happened? Or are you blame-Corbyn-for-everything people just ignoring a question you don't like the answer to?
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
I don't think people really grasp just how much Europe leans on the US and UK for provision of NATO capabilities. It's not just a case of clubbing together with all the kit. In air to air refuelling and strategic airlift alone Europe is massively short of capability and would require a huge investment to match NATO on their own. If you think a Euro army is saving anybody any money, think again.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
I don't think people really grasp just how much Europe leans on the US and UK for provision of NATO capabilities. It's not just a case of clubbing together with all the kit. In air to air refuelling and strategic airlift alone Europe is massively short of capability and would require a huge investment to match NATO on their own. If you think a Euro army is saving anybody any money, think again.
I wasn't thinking of the EU army as an alternative to NATO - maybe I misunderstand?
But if the UK is currently spending £100 on defence, and then 50% of that is divided between the rest of the EU, surely that will represent a saving? Or am I missing something obvious, Missed It?
Your the cultist, Henry. You'd rather focus on Corbyn than the people who are to blame for this complete mess! Says all that needs saying.
Much as Cameron, May, Johnson, Farage etc etc are to blame for this mess so, in part, is Corbyn and one day you will wake up and realise that.
A life long anti-EUer who did next to nothing in the referendum despite Remain being party policy and who now constantly contradicts the current labour party position. He keeps doing it and Starmer has to be wheeled out again to explain away the inconsistencies.
He gives an interview to a German paper (Meire style media work there) but is almost invisible in the UK debate, preferring to talk about Chile on the day of the People's March. Why? Because he's a leaver but he doesn't want to say that.
You're being played, you've always been played and I think the reason you are trying to make this all about me (there are lots of others on here and elsewhere saying the same thing but you only focus on me and try to make it personal) is that deep down you are starting to realise that. You're lashing out at me but really you know what I and many others are saying might just be closer to the truth than you want to admit.
He did do this - whether it's next to nothing I don't know, but it's pretty clear.
I agree he's been as useful as a chocolate fireguard since the referendum, and I'd like to see the back of him as Labour leader, but I cannot foresee a day when I will wake up and blame him for appeasing the right wing of the Tory party, running scared of a party of extreme nationalists and calling an ill thought out referendum. At least not until someone can point out to me when where that happened...
Anyone care to point out to me where that happened? Or are you blame-Corbyn-for-everything people just ignoring a question you don't like the answer to?
I refer you to the answer I gave some days ago blaming Cameron, May, Garage, Johnson, etc but pointing out that Corbyn also has to take some of the blame for what has happened since the referendum was called.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
I don't think people really grasp just how much Europe leans on the US and UK for provision of NATO capabilities. It's not just a case of clubbing together with all the kit. In air to air refuelling and strategic airlift alone Europe is massively short of capability and would require a huge investment to match NATO on their own. If you think a Euro army is saving anybody any money, think again.
I wasn't thinking of the EU army as an alternative to NATO - maybe I misunderstand?
But if the UK is currently spending £100 on defence, and then 50% of that is divided between the rest of the EU, surely that will represent a saving? Or am I missing something obvious, Missed It?
By definition, an EU army would have to be able to act independently of NATO. That means the capabilities provided by non EU NATO countries, the US and soon the UK, like air to air refuelling, strategic airlift, nuclear deterrent, need to be replaced/duplicated to ensure that independent operations are possible. If the EU isn't willing to spend the money to make up the capability gap, there is little point in an EU army. It would be little more than a paper tiger, unable to project meaningful force anywhere in the world.
Donald Trump may be a dick, but he has a point about European nations not pulling their weight in their own defence. They've been hiding behind the US's skirts for too long.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
I don't think people really grasp just how much Europe leans on the US and UK for provision of NATO capabilities. It's not just a case of clubbing together with all the kit. In air to air refuelling and strategic airlift alone Europe is massively short of capability and would require a huge investment to match NATO on their own. If you think a Euro army is saving anybody any money, think again.
One thing any Euro army would not do is save money. Never would this happen and not even Merkel or Macron have claimed this would be the case.
The Americans have more Electronic Warfare capability in one Division (1st Infantry Division for example) than the entire British Army. I've no doubt that this is true for the rest of the European armies.
I'm all for a trade union, but we have NATO for a reason.
And Putin has stated how keen he is on a European Army. I wonder why?
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
I don't think people really grasp just how much Europe leans on the US and UK for provision of NATO capabilities. It's not just a case of clubbing together with all the kit. In air to air refuelling and strategic airlift alone Europe is massively short of capability and would require a huge investment to match NATO on their own. If you think a Euro army is saving anybody any money, think again.
I wasn't thinking of the EU army as an alternative to NATO - maybe I misunderstand?
But if the UK is currently spending £100 on defence, and then 50% of that is divided between the rest of the EU, surely that will represent a saving? Or am I missing something obvious, Missed It?
By definition, an EU army would have to be able to act independently of NATO. That means the capabilities provided by non EU NATO countries, the US and soon the UK, like air to air refuelling, strategic airlift, nuclear deterrent, need to be replaced/duplicated to ensure that independent operations are possible. If the EU isn't willing to spend the money to make up the capability gap, there is little point in an EU army. It would be little more than a paper tiger, unable to project meaningful force anywhere in the world.
Donald Trump may be a dick, but he has a point about European nations not pulling their weight in their own defence. They've been hiding behind the US's skirts for too long.
So the British Army acts independently of NATO? I see what you are getting at now, it's one or the other, but not both.
Good job the UK has (had) a veto then. Thanks for putting me straight.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
I don't think people really grasp just how much Europe leans on the US and UK for provision of NATO capabilities. It's not just a case of clubbing together with all the kit. In air to air refuelling and strategic airlift alone Europe is massively short of capability and would require a huge investment to match NATO on their own. If you think a Euro army is saving anybody any money, think again.
One thing any Euro army would not do is save money. Never would this happen and not even Merkel or Macron have claimed this would be the case.
The Americans have more Electronic Warfare capability in one Division (1st Infantry Division for example) than the entire British Army. I've no doubt that this is true for the rest of the European armies.
I'm all for a trade union, but we have NATO for a reason.
And Putin has stated how keen he is on a European Army. I wonder why?
a better graph would be percentage of GDP (which USA would still be top of.. by a percent or so). the US is the largest economy in the world, of course its going to spend more in usd compared to luxemberg.
It's worth remembering Trump is threatening to cut funding to the military, not cut funding to nato, what funds go to nato? It's a treaty organisation, the spending commitment to the military as a percentage of gdp is in the terms of NATO membership.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
I don't think people really grasp just how much Europe leans on the US and UK for provision of NATO capabilities. It's not just a case of clubbing together with all the kit. In air to air refuelling and strategic airlift alone Europe is massively short of capability and would require a huge investment to match NATO on their own. If you think a Euro army is saving anybody any money, think again.
I wasn't thinking of the EU army as an alternative to NATO - maybe I misunderstand?
But if the UK is currently spending £100 on defence, and then 50% of that is divided between the rest of the EU, surely that will represent a saving? Or am I missing something obvious, Missed It?
By definition, an EU army would have to be able to act independently of NATO. That means the capabilities provided by non EU NATO countries, the US and soon the UK, like air to air refuelling, strategic airlift, nuclear deterrent, need to be replaced/duplicated to ensure that independent operations are possible. If the EU isn't willing to spend the money to make up the capability gap, there is little point in an EU army. It would be little more than a paper tiger, unable to project meaningful force anywhere in the world.
Donald Trump may be a dick, but he has a point about European nations not pulling their weight in their own defence. They've been hiding behind the US's skirts for too long.
So the British Army acts independently of NATO? I see what you are getting at now, it's one or the other, but not both.
Good job the UK has (had) a veto then. Thanks for putting me straight.
Yes, the British armed forces can and do act independently of NATO and they have paid the money to ensure that they have the capability to do so. The UK can deploy on NATO ops or independently, in Africa, Falklands or Central America. I used to work in RAF air transport and I was amazed at some of the places our blokes were ending up that nobody ever hears about.
An EU army was never going to happen while the UK was in the EU as we believed NATO was the most effective organisation for European defence. It's no bad thing that the EU is finally taking defence and security seriously but an independent EU army would need massive investment to bring it up to a capability on a par with NATO. It's going to cost a lot more money than Europe is paying at the moment. I smell the same sort of hubris around an EU army as I did the Euro.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
I don't think people really grasp just how much Europe leans on the US and UK for provision of NATO capabilities. It's not just a case of clubbing together with all the kit. In air to air refuelling and strategic airlift alone Europe is massively short of capability and would require a huge investment to match NATO on their own. If you think a Euro army is saving anybody any money, think again.
One thing any Euro army would not do is save money. Never would this happen and not even Merkel or Macron have claimed this would be the case.
The Americans have more Electronic Warfare capability in one Division (1st Infantry Division for example) than the entire British Army. I've no doubt that this is true for the rest of the European armies.
I'm all for a trade union, but we have NATO for a reason.
And Putin has stated how keen he is on a European Army. I wonder why?
a better graph would be percentage of GDP (which USA would still be top of.. by a percent or so). the US is the largest economy in the world, of course its going to spend more in usd compared to luxemberg.
It's worth remembering Trump is threatening to cut funding to the military, not cut funding to nato, what funds go to nato? It's a treaty organisation, the spending commitment to the military as a percentage of gdp is in the terms of NATO membership.
Indeed, and the NATO national defence spending target of 2% of GDP is only met by Estonia, Greece, Poland, UK and USA.
Ok , just assuming that the Brexit you wanted, happened. Please give me some examples of how you expect it to improve your own personal life.
Hi @Southbank . It's three pages back so I just wanted to gently remind you of my question
Admittedly it's three years since I first asked you, so a few more days won't hurt.
Ha! I don't have any expectations either way for my personal life-but I guess you mean my finances/ business life. We have just received a big government order to create a post Brexit thing (can't go into any detail for confidentially reasons) which will create new jobs and would have gone to a different European country pre-Brexit. I imagine there is a lot of that happening. In general I think the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is if we leave or if we do not. As you know economics is not the reason I voted Brexit.
I mean everything in your personal life that you reasonably believe could be made better by government policies. Things that currently make you unhappy enough that you have spent hours of your life resolutely pushing Brexit for the last three years on a football forum. In so far as you have ever explained this obsession, you talk about "sovereignty". What I want to know is, assuming you get your "sovereignty" back, how, in your daily life will it make you feel, and why? For the sake of argument I'll allow you to assume that "the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is" even though I don't believe that for one minute. What will this "return of sovereignty" bring you? There are millions of people I would ask them same thing by the way. They wave around this "sovereignty" thing, and I have not the faintest idea what they expect from it. Or in many cases, if they can even define the loss of 'sovereignty' that they currently feel- you have certainly struggled with that.
Go on, give me a couple of concrete ways in which your own life will be materially better.
My basic belief is that democracy can only function within a nation state, where individual citizens have a direct relationship with those in power through the ballot box. We can only make our politicians truly accountable if they are making the decisions which affect us and we have the power to kick them out if we don't like what they do.
The EU does not work like that and is one of the reasons I have always been opposed to it. The EU is impervious to direct democracy through the careful creation of layers of decision making which take power further and further away from individual citizens.
I am not against international organisations by the way, into which individual nations enter with clear lines of accountability and the ability to leave when they wish. The EU is a supranational body which takes power away from individual countries and deposits it in a largely unaccountable bureaucracy.
Democracy is not some optional 'nice to have' in my life but the main way I enter into society as an equal person. So to answer your question of how would it make me feel were we to actually leave the EU (not May's BINO which is a worse outcome than the status quo), I would feel that we live in a democracy where individual citizens have the power to make their governments do what we wish.
Ok , just assuming that the Brexit you wanted, happened. Please give me some examples of how you expect it to improve your own personal life.
Hi @Southbank . It's three pages back so I just wanted to gently remind you of my question
Admittedly it's three years since I first asked you, so a few more days won't hurt.
Ha! I don't have any expectations either way for my personal life-but I guess you mean my finances/ business life. We have just received a big government order to create a post Brexit thing (can't go into any detail for confidentially reasons) which will create new jobs and would have gone to a different European country pre-Brexit. I imagine there is a lot of that happening. In general I think the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is if we leave or if we do not. As you know economics is not the reason I voted Brexit.
I mean everything in your personal life that you reasonably believe could be made better by government policies. Things that currently make you unhappy enough that you have spent hours of your life resolutely pushing Brexit for the last three years on a football forum. In so far as you have ever explained this obsession, you talk about "sovereignty". What I want to know is, assuming you get your "sovereignty" back, how, in your daily life will it make you feel, and why? For the sake of argument I'll allow you to assume that "the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is" even though I don't believe that for one minute. What will this "return of sovereignty" bring you? There are millions of people I would ask them same thing by the way. They wave around this "sovereignty" thing, and I have not the faintest idea what they expect from it. Or in many cases, if they can even define the loss of 'sovereignty' that they currently feel- you have certainly struggled with that.
Go on, give me a couple of concrete ways in which your own life will be materially better.
My basic belief is that democracy can only function within a nation state, where individual citizens have a direct relationship with those in power through the ballot box. We can only make our politicians truly accountable if they are making the decisions which affect us and we have the power to kick them out if we don't like what they do.
The EU does not work like that and is one of the reasons I have always been opposed to it. The EU is impervious to direct democracy through the careful creation of layers of decision making which take power further and further away from individual citizens.
I am not against international organisations by the way, into which individual nations enter with clear lines of accountability and the ability to leave when they wish. The EU is a supranational body which takes power away from individual countries and deposits it in a largely unaccountable bureaucracy.
Democracy is not some optional 'nice to have' in my life but the main way I enter into society as an equal person. So to answer your question of how would it make me feel were we to actually leave the EU (not May's BINO which is a worse outcome than the status quo), I would feel that we live in a democracy where individual citizens have the power to make their governments do what we wish.
Except we don't. In every UK general election the party that forms the government has less votes than the other parties. So most people end up with a government they didn't vote for.
Ok , just assuming that the Brexit you wanted, happened. Please give me some examples of how you expect it to improve your own personal life.
Hi @Southbank . It's three pages back so I just wanted to gently remind you of my question
Admittedly it's three years since I first asked you, so a few more days won't hurt.
Ha! I don't have any expectations either way for my personal life-but I guess you mean my finances/ business life. We have just received a big government order to create a post Brexit thing (can't go into any detail for confidentially reasons) which will create new jobs and would have gone to a different European country pre-Brexit. I imagine there is a lot of that happening. In general I think the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is if we leave or if we do not. As you know economics is not the reason I voted Brexit.
I mean everything in your personal life that you reasonably believe could be made better by government policies. Things that currently make you unhappy enough that you have spent hours of your life resolutely pushing Brexit for the last three years on a football forum. In so far as you have ever explained this obsession, you talk about "sovereignty". What I want to know is, assuming you get your "sovereignty" back, how, in your daily life will it make you feel, and why? For the sake of argument I'll allow you to assume that "the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is" even though I don't believe that for one minute. What will this "return of sovereignty" bring you? There are millions of people I would ask them same thing by the way. They wave around this "sovereignty" thing, and I have not the faintest idea what they expect from it. Or in many cases, if they can even define the loss of 'sovereignty' that they currently feel- you have certainly struggled with that.
Go on, give me a couple of concrete ways in which your own life will be materially better.
My basic belief is that democracy can only function within a nation state, where individual citizens have a direct relationship with those in power through the ballot box. We can only make our politicians truly accountable if they are making the decisions which affect us and we have the power to kick them out if we don't like what they do.
The EU does not work like that and is one of the reasons I have always been opposed to it. The EU is impervious to direct democracy through the careful creation of layers of decision making which take power further and further away from individual citizens.
I am not against international organisations by the way, into which individual nations enter with clear lines of accountability and the ability to leave when they wish. The EU is a supranational body which takes power away from individual countries and deposits it in a largely unaccountable bureaucracy.
Democracy is not some optional 'nice to have' in my life but the main way I enter into society as an equal person. So to answer your question of how would it make me feel were we to actually leave the EU (not May's BINO which is a worse outcome than the status quo), I would feel that we live in a democracy where individual citizens have the power to make their governments do what we wish.
We have never lived in a direct democracy, we live in a representative democracy.
Ok , just assuming that the Brexit you wanted, happened. Please give me some examples of how you expect it to improve your own personal life.
Hi @Southbank . It's three pages back so I just wanted to gently remind you of my question
Admittedly it's three years since I first asked you, so a few more days won't hurt.
Ha! I don't have any expectations either way for my personal life-but I guess you mean my finances/ business life. We have just received a big government order to create a post Brexit thing (can't go into any detail for confidentially reasons) which will create new jobs and would have gone to a different European country pre-Brexit. I imagine there is a lot of that happening. In general I think the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is if we leave or if we do not. As you know economics is not the reason I voted Brexit.
I mean everything in your personal life that you reasonably believe could be made better by government policies. Things that currently make you unhappy enough that you have spent hours of your life resolutely pushing Brexit for the last three years on a football forum. In so far as you have ever explained this obsession, you talk about "sovereignty". What I want to know is, assuming you get your "sovereignty" back, how, in your daily life will it make you feel, and why? For the sake of argument I'll allow you to assume that "the UK economy will carry on pretty much as it is" even though I don't believe that for one minute. What will this "return of sovereignty" bring you? There are millions of people I would ask them same thing by the way. They wave around this "sovereignty" thing, and I have not the faintest idea what they expect from it. Or in many cases, if they can even define the loss of 'sovereignty' that they currently feel- you have certainly struggled with that.
Go on, give me a couple of concrete ways in which your own life will be materially better.
My basic belief is that democracy can only function within a nation state, where individual citizens have a direct relationship with those in power through the ballot box. We can only make our politicians truly accountable if they are making the decisions which affect us and we have the power to kick them out if we don't like what they do.
The EU does not work like that and is one of the reasons I have always been opposed to it. The EU is impervious to direct democracy through the careful creation of layers of decision making which take power further and further away from individual citizens.
I am not against international organisations by the way, into which individual nations enter with clear lines of accountability and the ability to leave when they wish. The EU is a supranational body which takes power away from individual countries and deposits it in a largely unaccountable bureaucracy.
Democracy is not some optional 'nice to have' in my life but the main way I enter into society as an equal person. So to answer your question of how would it make me feel were we to actually leave the EU (not May's BINO which is a worse outcome than the status quo), I would feel that we live in a democracy where individual citizens have the power to make their governments do what we wish.
That is a powerful and well reasoned argument.
It was the reason I almost voted leave, as like you I value democracy and parliamentary sovereignty.
But I couldn't see a clear picture of what a post-Brexit would be or how it would work. The £350m and unicorns for everyone clearly wasn't true and I couldn't trust those who said all will be for the best in the best of possible worlds.
So I voted remain.
But the majority voted leave. Since then we've seen a government try to take more and more power for itself (the Henry VIII) rules to ignore parliament (which has to be the centre of our democracy, not just one referendum vote IMHO) with any dissenters in the house called traitors and enemies of the people.
Anyway it reminded me of my dad's favourite Aesop fable that he used to re-tell to me as a child.
"There was once a Wolf who got very little to eat because the Dogs of the village were so wide awake and watchful. He was really nothing but skin and bones, and it made him very downhearted to think of it.
One night this Wolf happened to fall in with a fine fat House Dog who had wandered a little too far from home. The Wolf would gladly have eaten him then and there, but the House Dog looked strong enough to leave his marks should he try it. So the Wolf spoke very humbly to the Dog, complimenting him on his fine appearance.
“You can be as well-fed as I am if you want to,” replied the Dog. “Leave the woods; there you live miserably. Why, you have to fight hard for every bite you get. Follow my example and you will get along beautifully.”
“What must I do?” asked the Wolf.
“Hardly anything,” answered the House Dog. “Chase people who carry canes, bark at beggars, and fawn on the people of the house. In return you will get tidbits of every kind, chicken bones, choice bits of meat, sugar, cake, and much more beside, not to speak of kind words and caresses.”
The Wolf had such a beautiful vision of his coming happiness that he almost wept. But just then he noticed that the hair on the Dog’s neck was worn and the skin was chafed.
“What is that on your neck?”
“Nothing at all,” replied the Dog.
“What! nothing!”
“Oh, just a trifle!”
“But please tell me.”
“Perhaps you see the mark of the collar to which my chain is fastened.”
“What! A chain!” cried the Wolf. “Don’t you go wherever you please?”
“Not always! But what’s the difference?” replied the Dog.
“All the difference in the world! I don’t care a rap for your feasts and I wouldn’t take all the tender young lambs in the world at that price.” And away ran the Wolf to the woods"
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
*** Attention Disco***
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
I don't think people really grasp just how much Europe leans on the US and UK for provision of NATO capabilities. It's not just a case of clubbing together with all the kit. In air to air refuelling and strategic airlift alone Europe is massively short of capability and would require a huge investment to match NATO on their own. If you think a Euro army is saving anybody any money, think again.
One thing any Euro army would not do is save money. Never would this happen and not even Merkel or Macron have claimed this would be the case.
The Americans have more Electronic Warfare capability in one Division (1st Infantry Division for example) than the entire British Army. I've no doubt that this is true for the rest of the European armies.
I'm all for a trade union, but we have NATO for a reason.
And Putin has stated how keen he is on a European Army. I wonder why?
a better graph would be percentage of GDP (which USA would still be top of.. by a percent or so). the US is the largest economy in the world, of course its going to spend more in usd compared to luxemberg.
It's worth remembering Trump is threatening to cut funding to the military, not cut funding to nato, what funds go to nato? It's a treaty organisation, the spending commitment to the military as a percentage of gdp is in the terms of NATO membership.
Agreed, only US, Estonia and UK meet the 2% target which is what Trump's administration (rightly) feel is wrong.
But the chart above shows the dollar value of being in a treaty with the US....a list of equipment and manpower it equates to also dwarfs any potential EU army.
NATO was created to combat USSR, and is a successful coalition.
It is interesting to see Putin's recent defence spending. 20 years of successive growth (and a cut last year) has seen their army modernise and specialise beyond most Europeans understanding. The EU army couldnt lance a boil on a Russian General's arse.
Comments
If it wasn’t for Theresa May’s “red lines” (which is sounds like she’s completely forgotten about with this “deal”) then we could have had a managed transition to a Norway style deal, leaving the EU but staying in the SM/CU with the freedoms intact wrapped up ages ago.
I am calling bullshit on this one. Even if it's true, as Prague says, you are still swerving the question.
Having your had your "argument" shot down in flames, do you care to respond?
I for one never had a problem with an EU army, as far as I am aware it would be not so different to NATO? Domestic defence forces would still exist, and a load of money could be saved in pooling resources, as happens in education, science, policing and many other ways. Maybe some of the money saved could go towards the NHS?
Or something.
How does she even survive as an MP? One of life's mysteries.
But if the UK is currently spending £100 on defence, and then 50% of that is divided between the rest of the EU, surely that will represent a saving? Or am I missing something obvious, Missed It?
Donald Trump may be a dick, but he has a point about European nations not pulling their weight in their own defence. They've been hiding behind the US's skirts for too long.
The Americans have more Electronic Warfare capability in one Division (1st Infantry Division for example) than the entire British Army. I've no doubt that this is true for the rest of the European armies.
I'm all for a trade union, but we have NATO for a reason.
And Putin has stated how keen he is on a European Army. I wonder why?
Good job the UK has (had) a veto then. Thanks for putting me straight.
It's worth remembering Trump is threatening to cut funding to the military, not cut funding to nato, what funds go to nato? It's a treaty organisation, the spending commitment to the military as a percentage of gdp is in the terms of NATO membership.
An EU army was never going to happen while the UK was in the EU as we believed NATO was the most effective organisation for European defence. It's no bad thing that the EU is finally taking defence and security seriously but an independent EU army would need massive investment to bring it up to a capability on a par with NATO. It's going to cost a lot more money than Europe is paying at the moment. I smell the same sort of hubris around an EU army as I did the Euro.
The EU does not work like that and is one of the reasons I have always been opposed to it. The EU is impervious to direct democracy through the careful creation of layers of decision making which take power further and further away from individual citizens.
I am not against international organisations by the way, into which individual nations enter with clear lines of accountability and the ability to leave when they wish. The EU is a supranational body which takes power away from individual countries and deposits it in a largely unaccountable bureaucracy.
Democracy is not some optional 'nice to have' in my life but the main way I enter into society as an equal person. So to answer your question of how would it make me feel were we to actually leave the EU (not May's BINO which is a worse outcome than the status quo), I would feel that we live in a democracy where individual citizens have the power to make their governments do what we wish.
Next...
It was the reason I almost voted leave, as like you I value democracy and parliamentary sovereignty.
But I couldn't see a clear picture of what a post-Brexit would be or how it would work. The £350m and unicorns for everyone clearly wasn't true and I couldn't trust those who said all will be for the best in the best of possible worlds.
So I voted remain.
But the majority voted leave. Since then we've seen a government try to take more and more power for itself (the Henry VIII) rules to ignore parliament (which has to be the centre of our democracy, not just one referendum vote IMHO) with any dissenters in the house called traitors and enemies of the people.
Anyway it reminded me of my dad's favourite Aesop fable that he used to re-tell to me as a child.
"There was once a Wolf who got very little to eat because the Dogs of the village were so wide awake and watchful. He was really nothing but skin and bones, and it made him very downhearted to think of it.
One night this Wolf happened to fall in with a fine fat House Dog who had wandered a little too far from home. The Wolf would gladly have eaten him then and there, but the House Dog looked strong enough to leave his marks should he try it. So the Wolf spoke very humbly to the Dog, complimenting him on his fine appearance.
“You can be as well-fed as I am if you want to,” replied the Dog. “Leave the woods; there you live miserably. Why, you have to fight hard for every bite you get. Follow my example and you will get along beautifully.”
“What must I do?” asked the Wolf.
“Hardly anything,” answered the House Dog. “Chase people who carry canes, bark at beggars, and fawn on the people of the house. In return you will get tidbits of every kind, chicken bones, choice bits of meat, sugar, cake, and much more beside, not to speak of kind words and caresses.”
The Wolf had such a beautiful vision of his coming happiness that he almost wept. But just then he noticed that the hair on the Dog’s neck was worn and the skin was chafed.
“What is that on your neck?”
“Nothing at all,” replied the Dog.
“What! nothing!”
“Oh, just a trifle!”
“But please tell me.”
“Perhaps you see the mark of the collar to which my chain is fastened.”
“What! A chain!” cried the Wolf. “Don’t you go wherever you please?”
“Not always! But what’s the difference?” replied the Dog.
“All the difference in the world! I don’t care a rap for your feasts and I wouldn’t take all the tender young lambs in the world at that price.” And away ran the Wolf to the woods"
But the chart above shows the dollar value of being in a treaty with the US....a list of equipment and manpower it equates to also dwarfs any potential EU army.
NATO was created to combat USSR, and is a successful coalition.
It is interesting to see Putin's recent defence spending. 20 years of successive growth (and a cut last year) has seen their army modernise and specialise beyond most Europeans understanding. The EU army couldnt lance a boil on a Russian General's arse.