I am well aware of that.
Are you suggesting that he has not been discussing the concept of a European Army. Not even with Angela Merkel...
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.
I am well aware of that.
Are you suggesting that he has not been discussing the concept of a European Army. Not even with Angela Merkel...
Let's face it: it's the idea that France and Germany rule the EU. They won't equate just any individual leader with the collective will of the EU: Andrej Babiš could say whatever he wanted, it wouldn't be taken as "something the entire EU wants".
It still speaks of a wilful ignorance about how the EU works but there's a certain logic to it.
he's suggesting that Merkel and Macron are the leaders of their countries, not the EU. Regardless of whether they talk about a European army, they EU themselves haven't.
I'm suggesting that he isn't the EU and that the EU didn't push for an Army which is what you said. Now maybe that he discussed about it with Merkel but that's what politicians do, they discuss.
The president of France discussing something does not in anyway equate to you saying -
I think his point is everyone was promised a free sovereign ring if they voted Brexit and he damn well wants his. Sovereigns for all!
That was about Trump's stupidity and ignorance regarding how NATO works (as well as him trying to bully others to buy weapons from American defence contractors).
I thought the EU was an evil group of faceless unelected bureaucrats making decisions that the 28 countries are obliged to follow. Well that was what Farage told me so it must be true and no-one in the British media contradicted him.
Suppose it's too late to start an educational course on how the EU operates.
Suppose it's too late to start an educational course on how the EU operates.
Education has already failed some of these people. You'd be as well off trying to teach pigeons how to play piano.
He probably will be when Merkel steps down in Germany.
The Common Market, the European Economic Community and now the European Union, have all always been led by a Franco-Germanic Axis. Cameron and/or Britain itself have only ever really been tolerated, especially since the EU emerged, for what resources/market it brings, not for political leadership.
Countries in the EU can push for any agenda they want. Whether it will go through or everyone would participate in it is an another matter entirely. I also doubt there is as much resistance against an EU army either. Many in Europe would want to have a plan B just in case the US decide to pull the NATO plug out. Not everyone likes to kiss the US's butt.
France and its president will never be the EU. And the second part is absolute nonsense, the UK have been one of the main driving force in the EU particularly when it comes to trade, customs and regulations, they have the same weight than France due to comparable populations and economies.
Also the UK are the kings of lobbying.
what's wrong with that? Don't you think that the richest continent in the world should be able to protect itself without a third country dictating things? Its not as if the US's track record in the past half century or so is enough to justify its role in Europe.
Would the US, Russia, China or anyone else allow a third country to co-ordinate its military?
I think you will find that it is far more than just France and Germany.
The article I read mentioned 9 EU nations were in favour. Not all 28 I accept but when the two most powerful nations are in favour it is not impossible that it could become a reality.
I am sure that it is not only German that fails to meet the NATO spending requirements and it is NATO that is responsible for peace; both in Europe and elsewhere.
Looks like it could be the plan...
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-secret-plan-to-slash-tariffs-on-all-post-brexit-imports_uk_5c587b08e4b00187b553da30
Corbyn fecking rules.
By being a complete prat?
I suspect Trump would be delighted if the EU paid the total cost for its own defence, but not sure many of the 27 states populations (UK excluded) would thinks so when they saw the bill.
There has always been a trade off with the USA, twice in the last century the US had to intervene to help save Europe (from its self). To try to ensure it doesn't have to do so again, especially with a President whose mantra is "America first", the US uses Europe as a bulwark against Russia and accepts there is a cost for doing this. However if the EU steps up and offers to pay for its own entire defence... well that would be right up Trump's ally!
This is confusing, you started by claiming that the EU was pushing for an army against EU nations will. Now you suggest that EU nations are favorable to it, you mentioned the figure of 9 and you don't really know what the others think of it. So let me ask you this, would it be a problem if the 25 countries that signed PESCO decided to create an army?
Interesting how the remainer/ anti Brexit posters quickly descend into insults on this thread. Speaks volumes
I'm glad someone is happy with him...
Corbyn fecking rules.
I think they are frustrated by you making them go over the same arguements, they should just cut and paste what they said to the last poster pushing your point of view. I'm not even trying to take the piss here (well not much), its a bit like groundhog day. What do you think of what they've been saying to you? (the content not the insults)
Last edited:
I'm barely surprised, you really need to get rid of these people.
The EU countries pay the costs of their own defence. It is sheer American propaganda that they don't. They just don't spend as much as the United States. But France, Germany and the UK are all in the top 10 worldwide in terms of military expenditure.
Also, all NATO members contribute a certain amount directly to the NATO budget. Germany's share, for example, is roughly 15% of the overall direct funding (the US' is 22%). Everyone fulfils these obligations.
Not all NATO countries spend at least 2% of their GDP on the military. That is true. However, they are not required to do so: it's a guideline that countries should aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline by 2024.
Some good points on the posts that are largely free of bile. Gave me a few areas to look more closely into, or to reconsider my overall viewpoints. For example, my recollection of the Cameron negotiations were skewed and on reading some articles pre the referendum, i've realised that I was harsher on the EU than I should have been
Amazing what civil debate can do. Shame that some have to resort to name calling and seemingly, are unwilling to challenge their own views
It indicates how frustrating it is when Leavers fail to offer any sort of basis for seemingly unfounded opinions, such as calling the EU aloof and arrogant and unwilling to negotiate fairly.
Interesting how Brexiteers always appear in this thread, post a condescending remark or two, and then cry that people aren't playing nice.
Like I said, they've done this dance several times (I've seen it) so they are probably a bit short on patience. It's good that you're open to what they are saying though which is more than I can say for some of the previous posters I was referring to.
There's a lot of misinformation out here so we need to help eachother to get through it. Not as easy as it sounds though...
Or perhaps those with an unheathly and entrenched 'the EU can do no wrong' view
Literally nobody thinks that.
You might want to go back and look at the tone of the posts that preferred me posting that.
I'm not perfect and not always going to 'turn the other' cheek if provoked
I didn't call you names, I simply asked you questions multiple times that you refused to answer. There was no malice in my posts., and your response was:
That was a pretty ignorant and derogatory response to a perfectly valid question on my behalf, so don't try claim that you're the one being victimized here.
The sane spent years pandering to the lunatic asylum, being careful not to be seen as mean or insulting.
It hasn't worked because you've used their patience and attempts at understanding to legitimise running around with your fingers in your ears, licking windows and shouting at trees.
The time for civitliy has passed. If you had anything intelligent or constructive to say you'd have said it by now and by pretending you have anything left worth engaging with, everyone else is just sleepwalking their way into disaster.
https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/02/which-country-spent-the-most-on-its-military-in-2017-
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/here-s-why-the-united-states-needs-nato
Europe invested €282 billion in military in 2017. That's less then the US but more then China ( $228 billion (€188 billion)) and Russia ($66.3 billion). That might be considered peanuts for a country who seems to be in constant war but its a hell of a sum for a continent whose army would be utilised for defensive purposes only.
So what happens if the EU decides to organise themselves and kick NATO out? Well the US would lose valuable military bases which would make missions spiral out of control. But that's not all. The US would also lose powerful allies as well as Europe would finally be in a position to take foreign policy seriously. For example what happens if Europe decides to mend bridges with Russia? They are our neighbours after all which puts them in a good position to understand the geographic challenges we face. They are also our main suppliers of gas + lets face it their country served as the main graveyard for both Napoleon's and Hitler's armies. Also what would happen if next time the US decide to bomb the shite of a country which surprisingly always seem to be a neighbour of ours rather then theirs and Russia, China and the EU says no? Would there be sanctions? Not to forget that there's that little thorny issue regarding world trade and the dollar. God forbid if lets say the big 3 out of 4 decide to ditch the dollar for foreign trade. That would destroy the US economy.
So you see, the US needs NATO far more then Europe does. No wonder why orange hasn't pulled the plug on NATO as he promised he'll do.
However that's not really the issue here. In reality NATO isn't fit for purpose. Sure its got the firepower to bomb the shit out of Russia however most of its force is deployed elsewhere. In an event of an attack it would take NATO ages to organise itself. Russia on the other hand, being one entity, had been far more efficient in spending wisely its resources. I am no genius about this but from what I heard from military veterans, its military had been built around quick deployment followed by lightening strikes. The fear is that Russia would gulp huge pieces of Eastern Europe then threaten with nukes if it ever gets attacked. In that scenario May/Trump would have to choose whether they would sacrifice lets say Talinn or risk enjoying a nuclear winter in London or New York.We all know what they would choose.
The EU army would give Europe the independence it needs to shape its own foreign policy. From a military point of view + it would also reduce redundancies between respective militaries and it will help the continent build an army suited for the threats Europe is facing.
Please click on those links as you'll get pretty much most of the information from other sources
Last edited:
I wasn't trying to be derogatory, but I was getting short at the tone of some of the responses and made a curt response. Looking back, it seems I mixed up your post with other. My apologies
Thanks for proving my point
No problem.
On the last page you wrote that Britain abdicating their responsibilities under the Good Friday Agreement by enforcing a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and jeopardising peace on our Island, is a price worth paying to reclaim some sense of sovereignty that they'd never actually lost in the first place.
You're either a stupid person or a bad person and I couldn't care less if you find my words unkind.
What he says is perfectly valid. You have not raised any point that hadn't been addressed by the 100th page of this thread. While I respect anyone by default, there are ways to lose my respect, and I and many others simply can't be arsed anymore, our patience has limits. Brexiteers are recklessly damaging their country and continent, they are doing so using lies, they are doing so out of malice or ignorance, either way, I'm done respecting that.
Great. I'll leave you to your life and warped views then