Their headline for recent Brexit and parliamentary fiasco:The Star has its priorities straight:
"Inside: some politics!"
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
"Inside: some politics!"
Because the Republic has an open border with 26 countries. Putting checks on everything leaving our border kind of defeats a lot of the advantages of it and as your finding out it takes a lot of infrastructure and money and delays to implement checks. So our basic position is going to be 'no thanks' for obvious reasons. Its unnecessary anway. Either your going to have free movement with the EU (so no need for checks) or not in which case you'll be checking everything that comes into your jurisdiction - so why have checks on stuff leaving ireland and a second set of checks when it reaches you? Its redundant.
Also the conservatives are in government with the DUP and they aren't keen on a border with the rest of the UK. It pretty much goes against more or less their only policy / reason for existing, so they're probably not going to be too cooperative on that front.
It’s seen as the next step in the creation of a European political superstate and the continued erosion of independent member state’s sovereignty and identity.
And that it would be logistical nightmare and general farce.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/united-we-fall-a-european-army-is-a-really-bad-idea/
Last edited:
You say that like it is a bad idea.
Getting all decision making away from the spoilt toddlers in Westminster can only be an improvement.
We have a process for this - they're called general elections where we get to choose who makes the decisions.
This current batch of political incompetents will meet their fate, and replacements installed, at the UK polling station.
The EU has loads of economic agreements with other nations that aren’t part of the political union. They don’t have to renege on anything.
An army where each 27 nation member states would have a veto on possible military action would work as a cohesive unit how?
Or lets say that the wars that would be fought are decided by a voting majority of the member states. You then have the probability that nation states would have to send their troops to die in wars against their subjects political will. How would that be good for the political cohesion of the EU?
I don't see how ceding more power to a larger, more confusing and more opaque political entity has democratic merit?
It doesn't but Merkel gave Trump a stern look so the EU is great now.
And these people think they could win another referendum.
An EU army with a majority vote will increase its chances of being used solely for defensive purpose. I don't think ruining countries on the capitalist behalf will get the necessary votes it needs
Irrespective of everything, the european continent needs to be able to defend itself without the help and influence of external countries who would put their own interests first
I think you make light of the complexities involved. Remember when Spain was bombed in 2004 by Al Qeada, they subsequently voted in a government that withdrew their troops from Afghanistan. That's just a small example of the political turmoil that could threaten the unity of the EU if troops of a nation state were tied up in action against the political will of its subjects. Troops dying in wars is a very emotive issue.
That said, I agree that the EU needs an army for the reasons you stated, added to Western unity being in its worst state in decades.
We are talking about a growing European political superstate though and there are, in my opinion, legitimate questions if that is a sustainable concept.
This. Surely someone at or near the top could look at it and go “look, this is not a good idea is it?”
There is something called politics cause we are a democracy.
No party is going to take the political risk of a second referendum.
Last edited:
Yes, I get that we voted for it, but the margins were very tight and no one really knew what they were voting for. Plus I don’t think people voted out “at all costs”. No one really voted for this
I heard a protestor on the radio yesterday say there'd be a civil war if she doesn't get her Brexit and rioting on the streets. Wonder how many of these folk there are out there.
I believe with every fibre of my being, that may is fecked.
I doubt there is that significant a level of active extremism. No doubt there'll be some right wing agitators looking to capitalise on people's disaffection and some minor disorder whipped up by the likes of Yaxley-Lennon but they are bit part players in this.
I hope so. If they were to "cancel Brexit" as discussed without a vote, there's potential for some serious backlash though.
I agree but the you have to take democracy with its problems. People don't like being told they don't know shit.
Imo, a 52-48 split should have been a Norway + mandate.
I heard May say a few times in recent days that freedom of movement is now over with this deal.
I dont see how. Anyone who has driven from Dublin to Belfast will surely see and know this. I mean Brexit was primarily about this - "controlling our borders" they said. So what is to stop someone from one of these countries they want to keep out from jumping on a plane within an EU country, flying to Dublin, driving to Belfast and jumping on a boat to Liverpool? From what I know there will be very little (if any) checks on them while doing so.
That does not remove free movement of people as I see it, people can still easily get into the UK if they really want and there is absolutely no control over the border. I would be curious to know just how many of the average people on the street in the mainland UK realise this.
Are they as advantageous as the SM, and do they require the 4 Freedoms?
May is on LBC live and its going very very bad.
As expected.
You have a NATO like agreement where the EU army is automatically used to defend any nations state that comes under attack. Beyond that, you only allow aggressive action if it’s agreed by all member states.
Not nearly as bad as Barry Gardiner last night on QT
David David has the nerve to say the EU were the ones who dragged out negotiations.
I think I hate him more than Boris and JRM.
I think I hate him more than Boris and JRM.
Yeah I don't care.
The US policy in the ME was a mess, from the Arab spring to Iraq right to syria and yemen. That serves them right as it upsets its 'enemies' while indirectly strenghtening its allies. It doesn't serves europe though but the US can't care less as they aren't the ones taking the migrants
An end of nato will mean the US would lose its grip on the continent including the bases. It also mean that for the first time in many years the EU can condemn and even sanction the US if it goes against the region's interest. Not to forget that we can finally be able to try to improve relations with our noisy neighbours something we can't do if we are still under the US thumb. Russia might ease veing so hostile to us if we are not its main enemy lap dogs
Regarding nato i doubt its even fit for purpose Sure it can outgun Russia in the long run but it will take ages to fully deploy. Thus Russia can easily invade the east part of Europe and then hold it by threatening nuclear fallout, something no country would dare to challenge. From what i heard by various military men both from Russia and the UK, the russian army had invested heavily so it can engage in this sort of wars
Can the EU defend itself? The answer is yes. Europe spends on military far more then Russia does. However there is plenty of redundancy and not enough effort is spent to defend the borders that matter. Meanwhile we end up with enemies simply by association with the US. Why on earth al qaeda would bother attacking spain?
An EU army would reduce waste and can be armed and utilised were it matters for what it matters. Let the US fight its own wars. I assure you once the body bags increase exponentially they will think again.The vietnam war is a perfect example to that.
We don't even need a sexose referendum, there was nothing binding about the first. It would just be more democratic and politically friendly to do so.
You and your typos.
pretty sure the Irish one should be eating popcorn while sitting on a fire.
Things often appear to be different from what they really are. The prospect of a European army has nothing to do with a superstate, it has to do with breaking away from their reliance on NATO which is at the mercy of the USA and its president, whoever that may be, hint hint.
Erm that's how NATO already works
Brexiteers now saying they can renegotiate a deal.
These people can't keep getting away with it surely?
These people can't keep getting away with it surely?
This is true and will enable EU nationals easy entry to the UK. At the moment that is perfectly legal. But if we are out of the EU, SM and CU they will become illegal.
Respectfully, I dont think you understand freedom of movement.
what are the odds on her surviving the vote though... I have to say i think she has a pretty decent chance
the difficulty is getting the deal through parliment - though again if she makes that a free vote people are saying she could survive a defeat there...
as crazy as it seems the maybot might just manage to survive (her deal clearly wont)
Things often appear to be different from what they really are. The prospect of a European army has nothing to do with a superstate, it has to do with breaking away from their reliance on NATO which is at the mercy of the USA and its president, whoever that may be, hint hint.
Erm that's how NATO already works
Why would you want another organisation like NATO, what do they do against threats like Russia?