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.
It's not something I've thought much about and wasn't arguing pro or against but I was just wondering why you thought an all EU member NATO(or equivalent) would be seen as federalist whereas the current NATO isn't.
I actually agree with @Buster15 that a European Army (or at least what we conventionally mean by ‘army’) is a terrible and potentially dangerous idea.
Don’t agree with him on much else though.
Don’t agree with him on much else though.
He's a blast from the past. Paul, Brexit will be great, we'll make our own laws, Paul...Yeah he got banned. I think he went full racist.
Memories.
It was never really that abusive but I think it all got too much in the end for him having every argument shot down.
Why is it dangerous and terrible?
It depends on how it is constituted. I would have huge fears it would violate the doctrine of civilian democratic control of the military chain of command.
Even though I am strongly anti-Brexit, I do believe there is a democratic deficit in the EU - caused by language differences, low voter engagement and turnout, and opaque decision making structures - which is far from suitable to have decision making power over an army (again, I mean an actual army, not some kind of joint operational collaboration over national armed forces).
I also believe it would create two competing power structures within NATO, which would lead to the US pulling out.
Recent history seems to suggest they are determined to turn a success into adversity.
Didn't his mask slip on the immigration issue from memory? I'm sure another mod can correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty sure it was that.Memories.
It was never really that abusive but I think it all got too much in the end for him having every argument shot down.
The first point is something that you can say about every army in the world.
The second point is fair when it comes to turnout but absolutely wrong for opacity, we actually know what everyone voted for and how every institution work, everything is recorded. The EU is far less opaque than the member states.
The third point it would change absolutely nothing on that point, the US do whatever they want, whenever they want when it comes to defense.
Personally, I have no particular fear but I simply think that we are not ready for that step and we may never be. I have no argument outside of it.
I think so, but can't be sure. But when he admitted his hero was Farage...
Why would the US pulling out be bad? Do we really want to continue forever cowering under America’s military shield (with all the influence and power that gives them over our own affairs)?
It is much clearer when a military is under the clear command of the elected democratic leaders of a nation state.
Military alliances like NATO are fine, but an actual army under the command of a international body... to me that crosses a line.
I was thinking more of the role of Advocate Generals. I’ve had to deal with their opinions in the past and the impact on regulation. I’m not a fan.
I don’t think the US would tolerate being in NATO alongside an actual European Army. I could be wrong, but I think it would be unacceptable to them due to the impact on command structures.
Last edited:
The numerous articles on Sputnik and RT opining how great it would be if the EU formed an army and relegated the viability of NATO leads me to believe that it is strongly benefits Russia’s interests in Europe.
That's defo a red flag. As an aside, no idea why the likes of Paddy Power are 2/9 that there will be a deal. Only wish I shared their optimism. I really can't see how this impasse can be breached.
Haven’t you watched Star Wars?
I struggle to see why we should care about what the US would tolerate and the US do what they want with or without NATO. Now of course as a french I don't really care about NATO and don't really know why we rejoined it 10 years ago.
Me neither, one of the major banks a couple of weeks ago had the chances of a no deal at 5%.
Something radical has got to happen pretty sharpish to prevent a no deal and I don't see where that's coming from.
The thinking must be surely the UK can't be that dumb, I wouldn't be so sure.
Well mate you didn't answer a question i put to you earlier today but i'll do you the courtesy of trying to answer yours to the best of my understanding.
I'll preface this by saying i could be wrong but as i understand it. If/when the backstop ever came into play it would only be in place until the UK came up with a viable solution to the border problem that would preserve the GFA.
So with that in mind surely the UK government has total control over coming up with and implementing any possible solution and by extension when the backstop ends?
The people of NI had a referendum and voted overwhelmingly (around 80%) in favour of the Good Friday Agreement to have the right to choose Irish citizenship if they desired, to have no physical border with Ireland, to have many of the rights afforded to EU citizens guaranteed through the GFA. Not to mention the option in the future to have a referendum to decide whether or not we want to join Ireland and leave the UK.
During the 2016 EU referendum NI again voted to stay within the EU.
Plus are you aware that NI currently already has border controls in place for certain things like Livestock, Farming equipment etc that is transported from Britain? We also have some major legal differences from Britain.
Considering all that and the fact NI is one of if not the only place on the planet where people have the right to citizenship of two different countries. Whats the problem with NI being different to the rest of the UK?
Do you not think that dragging NI out of the EU and/or CU/SM and jeopardizing the GFA and the peace is a bigger issue than Northern Irelands 'sovereignty'.
Haha, fair enough. Damn Gaullists.
That is understandable but in reality Brexit and the events surrounding it are not typical.
After WW2 the UK was on its knees but recovered surprisingly quickly.
During the 1970's we were on our knees but within a decade had recovered.
We had almost no car manufacturing but within a generation became a major player.
Like most countries we were badly affected by the global financial crisis but have recovered (of sorts). We fortunately have our own currency and the ability to flex its value will be quite powerful.
I don’t believe we will leave without a deal and I believe that politicians and the country will be so battered that they will re-double efforts to make Brexit work. That I believe because I am proud of my country.
I don’t expect many to agree but that is my honest view.
It would aid Russia, it would mean they weren’t facing the entire Western world in a single alliance. I think it would also aid Europe however and allow a new kind of peace. Europe doesn’t need to be a hostile power to Russia (as long as Russia respects territorial boundaries), and personally I have no problem with the traditionally paranoid Russian state feeling safer as long as a relationship develops that benefits both sides.
The Cold War was shit, and Europe was going to be the battleground if it ever kicked off. We’re a proxy to the US allowing them to potentially fight a cataclysmic war away from their own territory, and an occasional ally of convenience when they want to conduct war but don’t want to do it unilaterally. Nothing more.
Very informative on point 2. The GFA/ NI Sovereignty issue is very difficult dilemma to solve - I really don't have an answer yet on what i would chose if it was one vs the other. I don't want it to get to that situation, so my preference is to have a temp agreement (broadly the status quo) to give everyone time to solve it. I refuse to believe that something so important is beyond a reasonable compromise, as long as there is the right political will
On the 1st point, some of the earlier proposals I read is that exiting the backstop is ultimately an EU decision. The onus on the UK coming up with something that the EU feels is acceptable, is no substitute for a sovereign decision and effectively leaves the UK trapped. That is not acceptable, hence my preference for a fixed term period to sort this mess out
What was your earlier question that you asked pleased? I may have overlooked it as I was getting 5 alerts at a time earlier when opening up Red Caf. I'll try my best to answer it
If it means that the EU will build a Devastator then I'm all for it.
My only problem is that, as a Scot, if NI somehow remains in the customs union or has some special relationship with the EU, I want it too.
Regarding the bolded part, the trouble is, they don’t. They literally invaded and occupied neighbouring countries in the past few years. Who would have thought Europe’s borders would be changing again by force, but here we are.
NATO collapsing or the US pulling out would terrify me even more.
It doesn’t have to be an overnight transition. But it’s the direction we should be going and it’s long overdue. America is not a reliable guardian for our interests, and no country should be expected to fulfil that role. Europe should look after Europe.
Isn't the EU army thing just bluster that neither France nor Germany actually want?
15 years ago the UK were basically the only big army from western Europe member of NATO, Germany were bridled, Italy are alright and the rest aren't much. So I don't really see where this new idea that NATO would collapse if basically France and a bunch of military minnows weren't around, the biggest member is a newbie and you were perfectly fine without it.
France have the 6th highest military spending in the world, and higher than the UK.
Why I didn't waste my breath countering his silliness.
I know but my point is that France only rejoined NATO in 2009, it spent 40 years out of it.
I refer the right honorable gentleman to my previous answer.
Albeit with a secret agreement to rejoin NATO operational command structures in a time of crisis...
You beat me to it so well said.
People who underestimate the requirements for a strong and robust defence capability are the real danger to continued peace.
Just look east to what is happening.
After WW2, like most of Western Europe the UK recovered with help.
They seemed to realise the world was changing, founder member of EFTA in 1960. Throughout the 60s they knew they needed to and desperately tried to join the EC, which they did eventually when they were in so much trouble in the 60s/70s but recovered reasonably quickly.
Car industry came back because they were a key player in a key market.
The Uk recovered quicker than the EU from the financial crisis and were starting to come out of austerity and flourishing and then boom...
The GFA is under threat, the car industry will gradually disappear without access to the EU, no way can the UK have better deals than they can as part of the EU.
I do not see any positives and no-one has yet shown what the positives could be, beyond wishful thinking.
I find it terribly sad and equally annoying when they try to blame everyone except themselves.
For NATO only in case of nuclear war. Otherwise France wasn't in the committees.
Have you ever wondered why the US/Soviet Union would rather lose the Vietnam/Afghanistan war then use nukes? The answer is simple. 100 Hiroshima like bombs (small bombs compared to today's Nuke standards) are enough to throw the world in a nuclear winter that would last for decades, wiping 2 billion people off the map through famines etc. If the nuclear superpowers detonated just 5% of all nukes then the world would be made inhabitable. Therefore if Russia used nukes to invade Europe then rest assured that everyone from the US to India right to China, Israel, Pakistan and even North Korea would gang up against them. Not to forget that considering the close proximity between Europe and Russia, then the offending party would be heavily affected as well, which means that the idiot who orders such madness won't last very much. Nukes are a fabulous defensive deterrent for a desperate country whose being invaded and therefore has nothing to lose. However its an extremely lousy offensive deterrent. So that's option is out of the question.
With that out of the way, we need to focus on conventional warfare. In terms of military spending Europe outspends Russia significantly. Unfortunately while Russia has one military strategy and one aim, Europe has 27 different military strategies and aims which leads to alot of waste and redundancies. A blitz like attack would send Europe in chaos as all those military resources as 27 countries would need to vote in parliament, have their armies organized and deployed. Things would change however if there's 1 HQ and one aim ie that of defending Europe from foreign invasion.
PS China won't back Russia in an invasion of Europe.
A- A new Soviet Union would make the country a super power again. Its not within China's interest to return to its junior partner role especially since Russia has a bone on contention with China as well
B- China had invested heavily in Europe. A potential WW3 would ruin everything
If NATO ends then there's every chance that China would work hard to take the US's place
A- It would steal the US from its ally
B- It would keep Russia in its box
I nearly forgot, I have some actual Brexit gossip this week in the same vein as the Nissan news.
One of my clients I teach is the head of digital marketing for a big multinational marketing agency, and one of their huge European multinational clients has just pulled a big campaign based on Brexit uncertainty. If they're doing it, I can only imagine that loads more companies are thinking in the same way. More actual, tangible bad news for the UK directly from Brexit and it's not even happened yet.
One of my clients I teach is the head of digital marketing for a big multinational marketing agency, and one of their huge European multinational clients has just pulled a big campaign based on Brexit uncertainty. If they're doing it, I can only imagine that loads more companies are thinking in the same way. More actual, tangible bad news for the UK directly from Brexit and it's not even happened yet.
Couple of points.
We did not join the EC. We joined the Common Market.
Who are 'they' who blame everyone.
It is perfectly clear to me that judging by the comments here, we are blaming our politicians for the undoubted mess.