The Politics Thread 2019

[cstand]

10 minutes ago, cstand said:

 

If the Ukraine joins the EU,  Putin will send in the tanks so we would be automatically at war with Russia if we joined an EU army a scary prospect indeed. 

 

 

I always thought this will be the next world war conflict hopefully I am wrong.

[Igorlegend11]

29 minutes ago, eddie said:

More obvious Guardian lies about the EU Army...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/25/brexiters-european-army-myths-franco-german

That's a decent read. 

It is far fetched having s EU army and it would be do insignificant as to irrelevant as long as we stayed out of any EU army.

I'm surprised, but I also note how keenly an EU army would be welcomed by most remainers (if the ones recently posting are a true reflection of remainers position ) 

It's also hard to find what a remainer actually thinks on most subjects. 

Would you like an EU army or would you like us to join the Franco prussian/German link up ?

So it remains to be seen if the keenness to have a EU army gets replicated across the EU and it might happen.  

Any idea why Germany and France would unite and pool their armies? Seems all so 1870's to me and we know where that ended up 

 

And should I research further or stick at the Groniad?

https://www.businessinsider.com/eu-countries-agree-mega-army-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

"23 EU countries, including Germany and France, have agreed to integrate their defense forces. The pact will be made legally binding when it is signed in December."

[eddie]

23 minutes ago, cstand said:

The only way to guarantee not to be in an EU army is not to be in the EU.

The problem is, anti-EU people are anti-an EU army, and the fact of whether or not Britain (soon to be England) are a member becomes irrelevant. If an EU army is formed (which is extremely unlikely unless Trump caves NATO in) and Britain are not part of it, the anti-EU brigade would still whine.

[eddie]

15 minutes ago, Igorlegend11 said:

That's a decent read. 

It is far fetched having s EU army and it would be do insignificant as to irrelevant as long as we stayed out of any EU army.

I'm surprised, but I also note how keenly an EU army would be welcomed by most remainers (if the ones recently posting are a true reflection of remainers position ) 

It's also hard to find what a remainer actually thinks on most subjects. 

Would you like an EU army or would you like us to join the Franco prussian/German link up ?

So it remains to be seen if the keenness to have a EU army gets replicated across the EU and it might happen.  

Any idea why Germany and France would unite and pool their armies? Seems all so 1870's to me and we know where that ended up 

 

And should I research further or stick at the Groniad?

https://www.businessinsider.com/eu-countries-agree-mega-army-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

"23 EU countries, including Germany and France, have agreed to integrate their defense forces. The pact will be made legally binding when it is signed in December."

The fact that 23 countries agreed to integrate their defence forces surely also implies that 5 did not?

Edit: it's actually 25.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/12/11/defence-cooperation-pesco-25-member-states-participating/

Edit2: it talks about co-operation, not unification.

[Igorlegend11]

9 minutes ago, eddie said:

The fact that 23 countries agreed to integrate their defence forces surely also implies that 5 did not?

Edit: it's actually 25.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/12/11/defence-cooperation-pesco-25-member-states-participating/

Edit2: it talks about co-operation, not unification.

Rightly or wrongly i tend to go with the direction of travel, which is towards a joint army and joint foreign policy ( which is meaningless without an army to have available )

It may never come to fruition, and we wouldn't ever join it even if we were within the EU.   

It would also fail the minute the French are asked to share their nuclear capability with the EU

I was interested observing the implied warmth towards it from some remainers here 

[G STAR RAM]

On 06/07/2019 at 22:52, Highgate said:

The problem for me is, when the UK presented it's population with the referendum, the question was vague, nobody knew what sort of Brexit was being offered (If there is one thing referendums are not meant to be it's vague !). 

Leave the EU or remain part of the EU. Nothing vague about that at all.

I don't remember this sort of reaction to the Scottish Independence referendum which was almost exactly the same 'vague' question, but there again the politicians got the result they wanted that time so no need to kick up a fuss.

[Rev]

I won't post in here again until I'm convinced that whoever attacked @Igorlegend11 personally and directly has been dealt with.

Despicable behaviour that should have no place, online or otherwise.

Assuming of course that it was a direct and personal attack, rather than just a response in this thread.

 

[Igorlegend11]

1 minute ago, reverendo de duivel said:

I won't post in here again until I'm convinced that whoever attacked @Igorlegend11 personally and directly has been dealt with.

Despicable behaviour that should have no place, online or otherwise.

Assuming of course that it was a direct and personal attack, rather than just a response in this thread.

 

It was no big deal. Post removed and away we all go    ( I just stay logged in and the ignore function is cool )

Hope you read this reply ??

[Highgate]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Leave the EU or remain part of the EU. Nothing vague about that at all.

I don't remember this sort of reaction to the Scottish Independence referendum which was almost exactly the same 'vague' question, but there again the politicians got the result they wanted that time so no need to kick up a fuss.

I've already explained why I think it was vague and inappropriately designed, I'm not going to do it again. 

Do you think a No Deal Brexit would be more popular with the British electorate than Remain?

[GboroRam]

24 minutes ago, Igorlegend11 said:

I was interested observing the implied warmth towards it from some remainers here 

I presume you mean me. Never gave warmth to the idea, just asked a stupid question. Lots of the responses seemed a bit paranoid. In fact I'd say there's less chance of an EU army being deployed against domestic troublemakers. Would the rest of the EU want to be involved in Orgreave? I think the driver would be national politicians more than EU politicians. 

Not saying I'm in favour of it, but some of the arguments against an EU army seem a bit overly paranoid. 

[cstand]

46 minutes ago, eddie said:

The problem is, anti-EU people are anti-an EU army, and the fact of whether or not Britain (soon to be England) are a member becomes irrelevant. If an EU army is formed (which is extremely unlikely unless Trump caves NATO in) and Britain are not part of it, the anti-EU brigade would still whine.

The problem is anti British remainers will always be anti British remain or leave.  If Trump demands back payments from the EU countries that have not paid their full contributions to NATO over the years there will be an EU army.

I never thought Blair would go to war with Iraq but we did and what a disaster that was never again hopefully

 

 

[eddie]

29 minutes ago, Igorlegend11 said:

Rightly or wrongly i tend to go with the direction of travel, which is towards a joint army and joint foreign policy ( which is meaningless without an army to have available )

It may never come to fruition, and we wouldn't ever join it even if we were within the EU.   

It would also fail the minute the French are asked to share their nuclear capability with the EU

I was interested observing the implied warmth towards it from some remainers here 

Fair comment.

For myself, I have no objection to how other countries address their joint defence concerns, but I likewise share your concerns with respect to nuclear proliferation. I should imagine that France would feel the same way.

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I've already explained why I think it was vague and inappropriately designed, I'm not going to do it again. 

Do you think a No Deal Brexit would be more popular with the British electorate than Remain?

Yes but probably for the wrong reasons.

[Highgate]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes but probably for the wrong reasons.

Don't know how your reached that conclusion or what you consider the right or wrong reasons.  I'm not sure what's more popular to be honest, but i think the best way to sort it out would be a second referendum

People generally didn't consider a No Deal Brexit a realistic possibly during the first referendum debate so I don't see why that referendum result is especially relevant if a No Deal Brexit becomes the reality. 

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Don't know how your reached that conclusion or what you consider the right or wrong reasons.  I'm not sure what's more popular to be honest, but i think the best way to sort it out would be a second referendum

People generally didn't consider a No Deal Brexit a realistic possibly during the first referendum debate so I don't see why that referendum result is especially relevant if a No Deal Brexit becomes the reality. 

I think people would vote for a no deal Brexit even if they didn't believe in it, just to see democracy served.

People didn't consider a no deal Brexit because it was impossible, no negotiations could take place before the debate.

The first Referendum is relevant because people voted to leave the EU. The Remain Campaign had there chance to spell out all of the pitfalls, they even had £9m of taxpayers money to do it with.

A second Referendum would set a dangerous precedent.

[ronnieronalde]

1 hour ago, Igorlegend11 said:

It was no big deal. Post removed and away we all go    ( I just stay logged in and the ignore function is cool )

Hope you read this reply ??

So you made up the part about being attacked and being intimidated by messages from a poster on this forum?

And to think I was genuinely worried.

Poor form that.

I hope you read this reply.

[Highgate]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think people would vote for a no deal Brexit even if they didn't believe in it, just to see democracy served.

People didn't consider a no deal Brexit because it was impossible, no negotiations could take place before the debate.

The first Referendum is relevant because people voted to leave the EU. The Remain Campaign had there chance to spell out all of the pitfalls, they even had £9m of taxpayers money to do it with.

A second Referendum would set a dangerous precedent.

You are saying people would vote against what they believe in, in order to serve democracy?  If there are people who would do that, I can't express how much I disagree with them.

I don't think a dangerous precedent is set with the second referendum.  I think the problem started with the first referendum when people were led to believe that leaving the EU would be a piece of cake, so they happily voted for it.  And they look like they are getting a No Deal Brexit instead.  Quite a different scenario to the one they thought the were voting on in 2017. Therefore a second No Deal vs Remain would be an entirely different referendum. 

I'm not for Remain or Brexit.  I don't have a vote, it makes little difference to me really.  I just wouldn't like to see a country leave the EU in a manner that is actually against the wishes of it's population.  That's actually a plausible possibility for the UK now and I'd like to see safeguards put in place so such a scenario can't unfold.   In other words a second referendum when the precise nature of Brexit is clear.

 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You are saying people would vote against what they believe in, in order to serve democracy?  If there are people who would do that, I can't express how much I disagree with them.

I don't think a dangerous precedent is set with the second referendum.  I think the problem started with the first referendum when people were led to believe that leaving the EU would be a piece of cake, so they happily voted for it.  And they look like they are getting a No Deal Brexit instead.  Quite a different scenario to the one they thought the were voting on in 2017. Therefore a second No Deal vs Remain would be an entirely different referendum. 

I'm not for Remain or Brexit.  I don't have a vote, it makes little difference to me really.  I just wouldn't like to see a country leave the EU in a manner that is actually against the wishes of it's population.  That's actually a plausible possibility for the UK now and I'd like to see safeguards put in place so such a scenario can't unfold.   In other words a second referendum when the precise nature of Brexit is clear.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Hear numerous people saying they are Remainers but would vote Leave in a second Referendum.

So this second Referendum, is it going to spell out the definite future of the EU? Will it spell out all of their future plans? Will it rule out an EU army? Will it advise which countries will be joining the EU in the future? 

 

[ronnieronalde]

2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You are saying people would vote against what they believe in, in order to serve democracy?  If there are people who would do that, I can't express how much I disagree with them.

I don't think a dangerous precedent is set with the second referendum.  I think the problem started with the first referendum when people were led to believe that leaving the EU would be a piece of cake, so they happily voted for it.  And they look like they are getting a No Deal Brexit instead.  Quite a different scenario to the one they thought the were voting on in 2017. Therefore a second No Deal vs Remain would be an entirely different referendum. 

I'm not for Remain or Brexit.  I don't have a vote, it makes little difference to me really.  I just wouldn't like to see a country leave the EU in a manner that is actually against the wishes of it's population.  That's actually a plausible possibility for the UK now and I'd like to see safeguards put in place so such a scenario can't unfold.   In other words a second referendum when the precise nature of Brexit is clear.

 

Unfortunately there can be no "winners" in a second referendum, so even though my own view is that I'd like to have the chance to "test" whether the mood has indeed changed, I think the only way to stop the ridiculous levels of nationalism and hatred that is sprouting up, we simply HAVE to get out.

17m people (maybe less but couldn't possibly be more) would simply not shut up for years about the fact they were denied their democratic rights.  It would kill us as a country.

So even though leaving without a deal would be a huge leap into the unknown, for the sake of democracy we've got to see if they were right or not.

The biggest issue for me is IF in 1.2.3.5.10 or 20 years we realise we've dropped the huge bolllock I think we're dropping, there is literally nothing I can do about. there is no comeback and no consequences.

It would be like the banking crisis all over again. In the end everyone knew they'd ducked us all over but nothing could be done about it.

And again just in case there is any attempted twisting of what I'm saying.

I don't mean we should stay unconditionally but I certainly don't think we should leave in a "no deal" which will throw us into short term uncertainty. We literally have no idea what's going to happen and that's one hell of a gamble to take.

[Igorlegend11]

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Hear numerous people saying they are Remainers but would vote Leave in a second Referendum.

So this second Referendum, is it going to spell out the definite future of the EU? Will it spell out all of their future plans? Will it rule out an EU army? Will it advise which countries will be joining the EU in the future? 

 

Will it include the minor reforms Cameron was offered. It's an endless list of options.  Which should all be irrelevant as my majority vote on a large turnout we voted to leave, against the wishes of the state and the government.  That it's now called a peoples vote is beyond humourous.  

I would not vote in any ref2 unless it asked the exact same question as the first ref.

People saying it was too simplistic a question, forget that the Electoral Commission had to reject Cameron's first attempt at a referendum question, because it was too vague.