On the high court case which starts tomorrow: Ewan McGaughey, a senior law lecturer at King’s College London, has written: “The order by the prime minister to trigger Article 50 and negotiate to leave the EU could be declared void. “Now, it’s a big thing to litigate the very validity of Brexit. But if Russian athletes win Olympic medals when they are taking drugs, their victories are not valid. The same is true of a corrupt vote.” There's a crowdfunding website with more details somewhere but can't find the link. Not really paid much attention as in my view this could backfire but the bottom line is that the High Court could rule the referendum null and void. As we have legislation in place to have a referendum this implies a re-run.
On trades unions, neoliberals and the ten years since the crash try viewing these four youtube videos (20 minutes each) and digest the facts the vast numbers and the analysis. Then ask yourself who is going to regulate the system in the future and who is going to power a centre left party into government. Many on here are in agreement that privatisation, unregulated markets, erosion of the tax base and austerity are what have put us in this place and therefore need to be addressed.
Whether Labour has perfect pitch is obviously open to question but they do have policy on Brexit and @ShootersHillGuru has shown that he understands their choices for the next steps. They either go for a no -confidence or they don't and they work with the rest of the opposition and Tory remainers to look for a second referendum or a Norway option, or both. Whatever the criticism of Labour, Sir Keir Starmer is clearly on top of his brief and more than a match for McCluskey when it comes to putting a decision to the various democratic structures within Labour. That might be the Shadow Cabinet, the NEC or an emergency conference.
If @PragueAddick is unimpressed with the trades unions then what's the alternative? Of course it's imperfect but it is what it is. And Labour plus their networks on social media plus the trades unions reach out to millions of ordinary citizens. They operate in a way that has grown their membership and grown their contribution to the political philosophy of our country so it's somewhat bemusing to see such a broadbrush dismissal of 5.5 million union members and their elected leadership. Labour and the Unions are listening to their audience, others are not.
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
Except it can't be acted upon without breaking the Good Friday Agreement. If the UK did that it would be acting in bad faith.
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
I didn't know that about you, TellyTubby, but I want to congratulate you. Coming out is difficult, but to choose to do so on LBC and then repeat it on here is very brave. Very good luck to you.
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
I will come out of my shell just this once or maybe twice, since the guy i hand shook with (3rd one) yes another remainer has broke that pledge several times since...
This week a member of the 3rd battalion said on national radio, since 2014 they have been in training with several European forces (no not NATO) to head up the forthcoming European army..... He also said that in the same period the EU have an office at Northwood ..... As he attended meetings there..touche pussycat........ I am sure he is lying though as a link from an 18 year old journalist from the guardian will tell him so.
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
I will come out of my shell just this once or maybe twice, since the guy i hand shook with (3rd one) yes another remainer has broke that pledge several times since...
This week a member of the 3rd battalion said on national radio, since 2014 they have been in training with several European forces (no not NATO) to head up the forthcoming European army..... He also said that in the same period the EU have an office at Northwood ..... As he attended meetings there..touche pussycat........ I am sure he is lying though as a link from an 18 year old journalist from the guardian will tell him so.
Just so you know at that meeting was fill in the blanks... S.. N........ C..... and the single market commisioner.... You know their name anyway...
I would be interested to know why anyone would think that an EU-wide armed force would be a bad thing for countries within the EU.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
I believe most of the people who voted to leave did so to make some point about the way they feel disrespected or forgotten by the establishment.
Asking them to justify their decision is like asking someone who just sprayed graffiti over a wall what he has achieved. Or asking the 2011 London rioters exactly what was the point of burning down the factories in Croydon.
A similar thing is happening in France with the yellow jackets at the moment.
In the end, they have all achieved something because they have been listened to. I just wish there was some other way to make yourself heard without vandalising property or breaking up hard-won alliances and peace treaties!
Have they really been "listened to"? If so, what was it they were saying? I am trying to listen to @southbank, and @blackpool72 but neither of them want to answer me. As a reminder my simple and politely phrased question was "How do you expect your own personal life to improve as a result of Brexit"?
Your argument is dangerous anyway. In 1989 Greenwich Council decided to ignore and treat with contempt the 1,000 of us who packed into Woolwich Town Hall. A lot of us walked out in disgust. Quite a few felt like going out and smashing some windows. Instead we formed the Valley Party and did things properly. We argued our case carefully, and a whole load of people who didn't even care about Charlton as a football club, voted for us. And the rest is history . That was a listening process.
Quite right! "Achieving" was the wrong choice of words! I definitely don't believe vandalising things ever achieves anything!
But offering the original referendum was like handing out free hammers to the 1000 ignored Charlton supporters as they left the hall that night! "We don't care what you really want but maybe breaking a few windows will make you feel better".
For what it's worth, I suspect that, amongst other things, @southbank and @blackpool72 know that this country currently relies on constant and growing immigration to maintain a steady standard of living. Without it we would all be lost! That's got to be a bit worrying!
For some reason (which they cannot really explain) they hoped that leaving the EU might somehow change this. Unfortunately my view is that they've just smashed a few windows and achieved nothing!
There's still a call to smash windows through a No Deal Brexit - the associated drop in GDP will inevitably be blamed on the EU! And the majority of Leave voters appear to support a No Deal outcome whereas only a minority support the WA - but so what?!
Every month some Leave voters are changing their minds. What is required is a steady climb in the polls for either Remain or a Norway style BINO AND a steady climb for a second referendum. There are millions of Leave voters who are intransigent and married to their 2016 decision. But the polls now show a large gap between Remain and the WA which are the only two options on the table. And they also show that support for a second referendum has climbed by a few points.
This in turn indicates a swing of a couple of million voters over the last few months. So we can listen to all shades of Leave voters and their concerns, real or otherwise. And we know that Brexit solves nothing, especially a Brexit that leaves us locked into the CU forever which is clearly a worse deal than that which we enjoy today. Therefore the answer is to win over new voters and those Leave voters who show some remorse or even anger at the 2016 decision. This is important for the country to thrive in the long run - we need a majority, ideally 60:40 to vote for either Remain or BINO at the appropriate time.
In the meantime the High Court starts a case tomorrow looking into fraud and associated secret (foreign) donations to the Leave campaigns. This has been fast-tracked and is likely to finish before Christmas. One outcome may be to annul the 2016 referendum!
Is that even theoretically possible?
I doubt it.
The electoral commission can only levy fines and has no power to annul the result (especially as the referendum was only advisory).
There's a high court case starting tomorrow - just found this link
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
I will come out of my shell just this once or maybe twice, since the guy i hand shook with (3rd one) yes another remainer has broke that pledge several times since...
This week a member of the 3rd battalion said on national radio, since 2014 they have been in training with several European forces (no not NATO) to head up the forthcoming European army..... He also said that in the same period the EU have an office at Northwood ..... As he attended meetings there..touche pussycat........ I am sure he is lying though as a link from an 18 year old journalist from the guardian will tell him so.
Just so you know at that meeting was fill in the blanks... S.. N........ C..... and the single market commisioner.... You know their name anyway...
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
I will come out of my shell just this once or maybe twice, since the guy i hand shook with (3rd one) yes another remainer has broke that pledge several times since...
This week a member of the 3rd battalion said on national radio, since 2014 they have been in training with several European forces (no not NATO) to head up the forthcoming European army..... He also said that in the same period the EU have an office at Northwood ..... As he attended meetings there..touche pussycat........ I am sure he is lying though as a link from an 18 year old journalist from the guardian will tell him so.
Just so you know at that meeting was fill in the blanks... S.. N........ C..... and the single market commisioner.... You know their name anyway...
Yes indeed... Your hero... Now if that was arron banks... Single market commissioner is... Without googling... What is their famous quote.. After all you knew what you were voting for....
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
You should have stayed tuned in as although i hate this twat on jobs show this week, a british business man said why he voted leave and why he was relocating his businesses back to the UK from france and Germany.... He said the french were lazy and got fed up with the EU crats who kept meddling in his business, butt were not doing it with his French competition. Naturally poor guy wasn't allowed to finish a sentence as mr UKA knew better.... BTW... More British jobs...as he said...
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
I will come out of my shell just this once or maybe twice, since the guy i hand shook with (3rd one) yes another remainer has broke that pledge several times since...
This week a member of the 3rd battalion said on national radio, since 2014 they have been in training with several European forces (no not NATO) to head up the forthcoming European army..... He also said that in the same period the EU have an office at Northwood ..... As he attended meetings there..touche pussycat........ I am sure he is lying though as a link from an 18 year old journalist from the guardian will tell him so.
Just so you know at that meeting was fill in the blanks... S.. N........ C..... and the single market commisioner.... You know their name anyway...
Yes indeed... Your hero... Now if that was arron banks... Single market commissioner is... Without googling... What is their famous quote.. After all you knew what you were voting for....
Sorry, I shouldn't have encouraged you. I forgot that Thursday night is Wincarnis night.
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
Maybe once Leave wins without breaking the law then we should consider leaving the EU.
I would be interested to know why anyone would think that an EU-wide armed force would be a bad thing for countries within the EU.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
I suspect the EU will come to its senses when it has a cold, hard look at how much it would cost to assemble an armed force that could stand toe to toe with Russia for more than 36 hours. The capability gap of European armed forces without US and UK participation is absolutely enormous.
The EU are happy to spend millions on promoting European values (whatever they are). I don't see anything like the same same enthusiasm to spend cash, steel and blood to defend European values.
Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
I will come out of my shell just this once or maybe twice, since the guy i hand shook with (3rd one) yes another remainer has broke that pledge several times since...
This week a member of the 3rd battalion said on national radio, since 2014 they have been in training with several European forces (no not NATO) to head up the forthcoming European army..... He also said that in the same period the EU have an office at Northwood ..... As he attended meetings there..touche pussycat........ I am sure he is lying though as a link from an 18 year old journalist from the guardian will tell him so.
Just so you know at that meeting was fill in the blanks... S.. N........ C..... and the single market commisioner.... You know their name anyway...
S, N and C?
Would that be Sensible cooling capacity, Near azeotrope and Condenser?
I wouldn't be too surprised, I have worked in places where a number of staff members did not know who the PM was (Cameroon) and certainly didn't know who the leader of the opposition was.
I would be interested to know why anyone would think that an EU-wide armed force would be a bad thing for countries within the EU.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
I suspect the EU will come to its senses when it has a cold, hard look at how much it would cost to assemble an armed force that could stand toe to toe with Russia for more than 36 hours. The capability gap of European armed forces without US and UK participation is absolutely enormous.
The EU are happy to spend millions on promoting European values (whatever they are). I don't see anything like the same same enthusiasm to spend cash, steel and blood to defend European values.
I'm not sure NATO could have done much better during the Cold War if it became hot without going nuclear.
In those days NATO could unequivocally rely on the US. Think Reagan and George Bush Snr. Trump is much less concerned with Europe so it makes sense for Europeans to have their own collective and independent defence capability.
I am not sure that there is a need for blood and steel. Although that is an option. Remember that France has a truly independent nuclear capability. Also there are other forms of warfare that can be deployed against a potential adversary.
I would be interested to know why anyone would think that an EU-wide armed force would be a bad thing for countries within the EU.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
I suspect the EU will come to its senses when it has a cold, hard look at how much it would cost to assemble an armed force that could stand toe to toe with Russia for more than 36 hours. The capability gap of European armed forces without US and UK participation is absolutely enormous.
The EU are happy to spend millions on promoting European values (whatever they are). I don't see anything like the same same enthusiasm to spend cash, steel and blood to defend European values.
Military forces from all round Europe play their role in NATO. They just don't get reported in the British media so you wouldn't know. Two months ago three Czech soldiers on NATO duty in Afghanistan were blown up by a Taliban roadside bomb. The Czechs said it wouldn't go unanswered, and were as good as their word, playing a leading role in taking out the gang who had been identified as the culprits. Why do you think they would not be equally resolute closer to home?
Why do you also think that the idea of an EU armed force is to replace NATO forces? Nobody is suggesting this. The worst case scenario is that with the current twat in the White House, it is easy for Putin to intimidate the Baltic States, so if he sends a sub into Estonian waters it might be greeted by a French anti-sub destroyer.
Anyway the primary purpose of an EU military unit would be to defend the external border, where the current threat is the activity of people-smugglers. Currently the burden of defending falls too much on individual states such as Italy, Greece and Bulgaria. Less people smuggling=less illegal immigrants= less illegal immigrants arriving in the UK, which I presume you are in favour of?
I wouldn't be too surprised, I have worked in places where a number of staff members did not know who the PM was (Cameroon) and certainly didn't know who the leader of the opposition was.
It's Philémon Yang, but you need really special Googling skills to know that.
I would be interested to know why anyone would think that an EU-wide armed force would be a bad thing for countries within the EU.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
I suspect the EU will come to its senses when it has a cold, hard look at how much it would cost to assemble an armed force that could stand toe to toe with Russia for more than 36 hours. The capability gap of European armed forces without US and UK participation is absolutely enormous.
The EU are happy to spend millions on promoting European values (whatever they are). I don't see anything like the same same enthusiasm to spend cash, steel and blood to defend European values.
I'm not sure NATO could have done much better during the Cold War if it became hot without going nuclear.
In those days NATO could unequivocally rely on the US. Think Reagan and George Bush Snr. Trump is much less concerned with Europe so it makes sense for Europeans to have their own collective and independent defence capability.
I am not sure that there is a need for blood and steel. Although that is an option. Remember that France has a truly independent nuclear capability. Also there are other forms of warfare that can be deployed against a potential adversary.
It certainly couldn't as it is structured today. I've seen reports that estimate current NATO forces as currently deployed in Europe would last about 60 hours against Russia in a full on Baltic invasion.
France has a policy of strictly minimum deterrence, the smallest number of weapons to maintain a plausible threat. It has 300 deployable nuclear warheads, mostly strategic and sub launched with only limited tactical type weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons were a central part of NATO's cold war deterrent against overwhelming Russian numbers. I used to know a guy in the army whose job when the balloon went up was basically to sit in a hole in the woods and call down a battlefield nuclear strike on his own position when the time came. As they say, f@ck that for a game of soldiers!
As for other forms of warfare, the west is already way behind Russia, China and even North Korea in cyber warfare, they have thousands and thousands deployed on this. The latest NATO exercise in the Baltic saw all sorts of interference and aggravation from Russian electronic warfare, full spectrum from hacking, phone phishing, to GPS blocking and spooking. We are woefully undermanned in this field.
The west can do serious damage to Russia financially, but the EU has hitched themselves to Gazprom's wagon so don't expect too much on that front.
I would be interested to know why anyone would think that an EU-wide armed force would be a bad thing for countries within the EU.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
I suspect the EU will come to its senses when it has a cold, hard look at how much it would cost to assemble an armed force that could stand toe to toe with Russia for more than 36 hours. The capability gap of European armed forces without US and UK participation is absolutely enormous.
The EU are happy to spend millions on promoting European values (whatever they are). I don't see anything like the same same enthusiasm to spend cash, steel and blood to defend European values.
Military forces from all round Europe play their role in NATO. They just don't get reported in the British media so you wouldn't know. Two months ago three Czech soldiers on NATO duty in Afghanistan were blown up by a Taliban roadside bomb. The Czechs said it wouldn't go unanswered, and were as good as their word, playing a leading role in taking out the gang who had been identified as the culprits. Why do you think they would not be equally resolute closer to home?
Why do you also think that the idea of an EU armed force is to replace NATO forces? Nobody is suggesting this. The worst case scenario is that with the current twat in the White House, it is easy for Putin to intimidate the Baltic States, so if he sends a sub into Estonian waters it might be greeted by a French anti-sub destroyer.
Anyway the primary purpose of an EU military unit would be to defend the external border, where the current threat is the activity of people-smugglers. Currently the burden of defending falls too much on individual states such as Italy, Greece and Bulgaria. Less people smuggling=less illegal immigrants= less illegal immigrants arriving in the UK, which I presume you are in favour of?
I'm not doubting that EU troops would be resolute defending their home soil. However, it remains a stone cold fact that they are lacking in most of the higher capabilities and weight of numbers that the US provide to NATO. Individual bravery doesn't count for much when you're being rolled up by 10,000 Russian tanks without the resources to fight back effectively for any length of time.
If the EU is to have it's own armed forces, by definition they have to be able to operate independently of NATO and without US assistance. If they aren't going to get involved in expeditionary operations outside of Europe, then what is the point of duplicating the command structures and capabilities of NATO?
Defending EU borders against illegal immigration is not really a military issue. Trump is trying that little game on the Mexican border and the mythical caravan of refugees. The EU has created its own problems there by failing to come to any workable agreement to share the load, widely ignoring its own Dublin rules and allowing free movement across internal borders.
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality. As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo. I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after Brexit is betrayed.
I would be interested to know why anyone would think that an EU-wide armed force would be a bad thing for countries within the EU.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
I suspect the EU will come to its senses when it has a cold, hard look at how much it would cost to assemble an armed force that could stand toe to toe with Russia for more than 36 hours. The capability gap of European armed forces without US and UK participation is absolutely enormous.
The EU are happy to spend millions on promoting European values (whatever they are). I don't see anything like the same same enthusiasm to spend cash, steel and blood to defend European values.
Let's have a "cold, hard look" at the numbers then, shall we?
Let's assume that, like NATO and the UN, the EU-wide military service were to comprise members of individual states' current military personnel. That would mean the total additional spending would be nil.
But let's also have a think about how EU military would be able to "stand toe to toe" with Russia. The Russian military budget is $52bn (2015 - latest full set of figures I have to hand). The total military spend of EU states is €192.5 billion ($219bn). So, on the basis that EU military spending is more than four times that of Russian spending, I expect the 36 hours you mention to be very one-sided.
Russia has 1.027m active military personnel. The EU has 1.551m. (For comparison, the US active military numbers are 1.282m).
You may not be able to "see" the cash, steel and blood that Europe spends on defence. But that's a good thing really. The spending is committed, so it doesn't need to be exercised.
Here's a question for you, @Missed It - are you one of the people that's been fooled into thinking that Russian military power is anywhere close to being in the same order of the Soviet military? I won't be surprised if you have fallen for that, as lots of people think so too. It's one of Putin's biggest achievements: making the western world think Russia has military "might" to the same extent to which the Soviet Union did.
And, another question for anyone - would you prefer to be in the biggest military in the world, or outside it?
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality. As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo. I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after Brexit is betrayed.
Comments
On trades unions, neoliberals and the ten years since the crash try viewing these four youtube videos (20 minutes each) and digest the facts the vast numbers and the analysis. Then ask yourself who is going to regulate the system in the future and who is going to power a centre left party into government. Many on here are in agreement that privatisation, unregulated markets, erosion of the tax base and austerity are what have put us in this place and therefore need to be addressed.
Whether Labour has perfect pitch is obviously open to question but they do have policy on Brexit and @ShootersHillGuru has shown that he understands their choices for the next steps. They either go for a no -confidence or they don't and they work with the rest of the opposition and Tory remainers to look for a second referendum or a Norway option, or both. Whatever the criticism of Labour, Sir Keir Starmer is clearly on top of his brief and more than a match for McCluskey when it comes to putting a decision to the various democratic structures within Labour. That might be the Shadow Cabinet, the NEC or an emergency conference.
If @PragueAddick is unimpressed with the trades unions then what's the alternative? Of course it's imperfect but it is what it is. And Labour plus their networks on social media plus the trades unions reach out to millions of ordinary citizens. They operate in a way that has grown their membership and grown their contribution to the political philosophy of our country so it's somewhat bemusing to see such a broadbrush dismissal of 5.5 million union members and their elected leadership. Labour and the Unions are listening to their audience, others are not.
I hope your partner is allowed to stay though.
This week a member of the 3rd battalion said on national radio, since 2014 they have been in training with several European forces (no not NATO) to head up the forthcoming European army..... He also said that in the same period the EU have an office at Northwood ..... As he attended meetings there..touche pussycat........ I am sure he is lying though as a link from an 18 year old journalist from the guardian will tell him so.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
https://www.sncformer.com/en/home
The EU are happy to spend millions on promoting European values (whatever they are). I don't see anything like the same same enthusiasm to spend cash, steel and blood to defend European values.
Would that be Sensible cooling capacity, Near azeotrope and Condenser?
In those days NATO could unequivocally rely on the US. Think Reagan and George Bush Snr. Trump is much less concerned with Europe so it makes sense for Europeans to have their own collective and independent defence capability.
I am not sure that there is a need for blood and steel. Although that is an option. Remember that France has a truly independent nuclear capability. Also there are other forms of warfare that can be deployed against a potential adversary.
Why do you also think that the idea of an EU armed force is to replace NATO forces? Nobody is suggesting this. The worst case scenario is that with the current twat in the White House, it is easy for Putin to intimidate the Baltic States, so if he sends a sub into Estonian waters it might be greeted by a French anti-sub destroyer.
Anyway the primary purpose of an EU military unit would be to defend the external border, where the current threat is the activity of people-smugglers. Currently the burden of defending falls too much on individual states such as Italy, Greece and Bulgaria. Less people smuggling=less illegal immigrants= less illegal immigrants arriving in the UK, which I presume you are in favour of?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/no-deal-brexit-could-cause-chaos-across-kent-warns-council
It certainly couldn't as it is structured today. I've seen reports that estimate current NATO forces as currently deployed in Europe would last about 60 hours against Russia in a full on Baltic invasion.
France has a policy of strictly minimum deterrence, the smallest number of weapons to maintain a plausible threat. It has 300 deployable nuclear warheads, mostly strategic and sub launched with only limited tactical type weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons were a central part of NATO's cold war deterrent against overwhelming Russian numbers. I used to know a guy in the army whose job when the balloon went up was basically to sit in a hole in the woods and call down a battlefield nuclear strike on his own position when the time came. As they say, f@ck that for a game of soldiers!
As for other forms of warfare, the west is already way behind Russia, China and even North Korea in cyber warfare, they have thousands and thousands deployed on this. The latest NATO exercise in the Baltic saw all sorts of interference and aggravation from Russian electronic warfare, full spectrum from hacking, phone phishing, to GPS blocking and spooking. We are woefully undermanned in this field.
The west can do serious damage to Russia financially, but the EU has hitched themselves to Gazprom's wagon so don't expect too much on that front.
If the EU is to have it's own armed forces, by definition they have to be able to operate independently of NATO and without US assistance. If they aren't going to get involved in expeditionary operations outside of Europe, then what is the point of duplicating the command structures and capabilities of NATO?
Defending EU borders against illegal immigration is not really a military issue. Trump is trying that little game on the Mexican border and the mythical caravan of refugees. The EU has created its own problems there by failing to come to any workable agreement to share the load, widely ignoring its own Dublin rules and allowing free movement across internal borders.
As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo.
I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after
Brexit is betrayed.
Let's assume that, like NATO and the UN, the EU-wide military service were to comprise members of individual states' current military personnel. That would mean the total additional spending would be nil.
But let's also have a think about how EU military would be able to "stand toe to toe" with Russia. The Russian military budget is $52bn (2015 - latest full set of figures I have to hand). The total military spend of EU states is €192.5 billion ($219bn). So, on the basis that EU military spending is more than four times that of Russian spending, I expect the 36 hours you mention to be very one-sided.
Russia has 1.027m active military personnel. The EU has 1.551m. (For comparison, the US active military numbers are 1.282m).
You may not be able to "see" the cash, steel and blood that Europe spends on defence. But that's a good thing really. The spending is committed, so it doesn't need to be exercised.
Here's a question for you, @Missed It - are you one of the people that's been fooled into thinking that Russian military power is anywhere close to being in the same order of the Soviet military? I won't be surprised if you have fallen for that, as lots of people think so too. It's one of Putin's biggest achievements: making the western world think Russia has military "might" to the same extent to which the Soviet Union did.
And, another question for anyone - would you prefer to be in the biggest military in the world, or outside it?