The 'impending' formation of a figment of the Daily Mail's imagination?
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.
The 'impending' formation of a figment of the Daily Mail's imagination?
Dont know what you mean, Enlighten me please?
The EU army doesn't exist, and whilst I'm not going to say that something that could happen in like 2063 won't happen. It's certainly not 'impending'.
Also, again, like all the Leave sides scaremongering that isn't scaremongering -apparently- it would have required the UK's approval, and we'd have had a unilateral veto on the plans (which have no semblance of actually being 'plans' as yet).
Last edited:
The BBC and the Telegraph have reported bits here n there well before the referendum was announced, infact well before the 2015 GE.
And the usual propagandists on both sides like guardian, mail and spectator have also been reporting on it for ages if thats your thing.
The eU army is a fairly logical thing from their perspective with the present threats that exist.
I'm not saying no-ones ever spoken about it: Juncker said something like 'if we need to defend ourselves against Russia, we might need greater co-operation' or something vague like that.
I'm just saying that there's no political appetite for it in the member states, and the fact it even became an issue during the referendum showed the complete lack of understanding of how the EU works, or what it does, that most people have.
This gives the impression that it may be before 2063.
There is a lot of appetite for it among the bigger nations and UK was the biggest opponent of it (personally I cant understand why). Now that we have fecked off, I fully expect Germany, France and Italy to bully the smaller nations into agreement. It would also be a massive boost to jobs and economies in the short to medium term.
A claim that does not stand up.
https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/551346/EPRS_BRI(2015)551346_EN.pdf#page=7
tl;dr no one wants it except maybe Germany, and Nato have pointed out that its pointless as it steps on their toes.
Its telling that you have to use the in campaign propaganda website as as a source.
Its telling that you have to use the in campaign propaganda website as as a source.
I'm not aware full fact has any links whatsoever to the remain campaign. But if you're unsure of the website feel free to independently verify their sourced claims.
I've read those two through quickly and it's probably like everything else the EU does, underhand and creeps up on people. The EU started off if you remember as just a trading market and look what it grew into..
Strangely enough the minister of state for the Armed Forces didn't think it unlikely. Must be some reason for that. She'd probably have known more about it than both of us.
How about you find a proper source that refutes the German and Italian and (more importantly) EU commission's demands for an army.
I took this off a link in your full facts document.
Now we have to ask ourselves why they would hold it back until AFTER the referendum.
that just shows that you have no clue at all. Just shouting bullshit, but hey. Good for you.
The Benelux countries actually introduced the idea, because they struggle to afford a modern army, that can execute all different aspects of modern warfare. They just don´t have the money to do that. So they are/were interested in specialising their military in a narrow field and integrate this into some sort of European cooperative army. But even they are not really committed to this idea yet.
The big countries are heavily opposing the idea. There are a few pet project of bi/tri-lateral cooperation, but it is completely unthinkable, that France (or Germany) would actually agree to something like that. France wants to remain a military power and they want to continue to meddle with north-west africa. Germany on the other side would never support such stuff (e.g. Germany didn´t vote in favour of Lybia intervention in the UN, but abstained), because their foreign policy is a lot more cautious.
It is never going to happen and I am quite happy about that. I don´t want, that Germany is getting involved in any crazy, unjust and unnecessary wars, that some people in France and GB seem to love.
Can you elaborate on your problems with fullfact first please? They've been used by ITV, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Independent etc... so it's quite a claim that all of them were duped.
Moreover, the fact that they have sourced what has been said allows you to work out whether you agree with their conclusions or not. If that's not good enough then Google it yourself.
The most likely and boring answer to your question is because everything was put on hold pending the possible exit of one of the unions bigger players. Of course you can take the conspiracy route if you want, but there was a whole host of stuff put on hold, some mundane some controversial, that's the nature of these things.
What's wrong with a European army anyway?
Probably would lead to more worries about the possibility of a United States of Europe type thing in the future.
What's wrong with a United States of Europe?
Nothing tbh. I dont understand why was UK opposed to it in the first place.
Freeloading on NATO or other EU nations should not be a legitimate defense strategy. About time those pacifists cough up.
Because people got worried about the idea that UK troops would be taken to war with Uzbekistan over Romanian claims to their basket weaving industry or some nonsense.
Which morphed mundane, and relatively sensible discussions, about greater cooperation over defence with a group of countries that pretty much match up with our obligations as a NATO member became some ridiculous existential threat to our ability to start stupid wars unilaterally for no reason.
What a big load of bull.
I'd rather be independent as a nation (whether that be Scotland or the UK) than be a US-like state within a larger, wider nation. Obviously Brexit wasn't about actual independence (since we have that at the moment), but I don't think it'd be a particularly good idea for the majority of Europe to be beholden to a government which, for many of the countries, could be a continent away with a massively different culture/style of government.
Is the gap between Drumhaw and London really smaller than the gap between Pisa and Brussels? Culture's a fleeting thing not set in stone.
We are close to the European Parliament. Countries like, say, Finland or Latvia aren't, though. Neither are Greece. I don't really see why anyone would want their own nation to cede sovereignty to become part of a larger, wider political union. It'd have less centrality, and less accountability, I imagine. The EU already has issues regarding accountability with unelected officials, and I imagine said issues would be heightened massively in any hypothetical full-on political union.
There'd also be the possibility of smaller, less influential nations being dominated by larger ones with a lot more pull, ala the situation in Greece not too long ago. While I'm sure there'd be plenty of US-like devolution, it seems a bit bizarre for countries with minimal representation in the EU to have issues like foreign policy (which I imagine would be a central issue) to be completely decided on by an EU parliament.
I like the idea of having close ties with Europe, I voted to Remain, and think it makes sense for us to work together as much as possible...but I don't at all agree with the idea of the EU becoming a nation in itself.
We won't progress as a species if we continue to be fractured though. The European model is IMO what we should strive for. Brexit for me is simply a step backwards where each country fends for itself.
Just feels like we're taking a few steps back in history frankly.
Just feels like we're taking a few steps back in history frankly.
Star Trek, man!
I have always kind of believed that eventually a single world government would exist. Seems a very very long way off though. I estimate around the time we start to colonise other planets.
We'll be long dead before it happens and probably have found some new species we can kill instead of killing each other.
It can be argued that all the advancement with sciende/tech/economics/politics that had happened is because of competing nation states.
Oh I know it won't be in our lifetime. Probably in 500 years or so.
And due to global warming, we'll be able to base our world parliament in a now only mildly cold and neutral Antartica. It's happening, lads!
What a big load of bull.
i expected this kind of answer. You are obviously clueless. Just continue to read the dailymail, the sun and random conspiracy pages. France, Germany and Brussels are coming for you!
Yet you took that time to type all that garbage. You must be a really busy and well informed person NOT.i expected this kind of answer. You are obviously clueless. Just continue to read the dailymail, the sun and random conspiracy pages. France, Germany and Brussels are coming for you!
We'll have to disagree then. Accountability would depend on the style of government, if it's relative similar to the USA then it wouldn't be as bad as you think, especially as we'd have a blank canvas without their political baggage. None of the USA states would have a fraction of the foreign affairs power they do together. Similarly USE would do better than any of it's constituent parts in that arena.
War, specially, because a nation puts more resources into problem solving. We'd make as many strides in peacetime if governments didn't think they already knew everything.
What an example. I got curious.
668 results for Drumhaw in google, none of which told me where it was.
I opened up the map expecting the picture to become clearer, and I see towns like Ballindarragh, Clonliff, Kinawley. Is it Wales? Is it Denmark? What's that river running through the middle of the image?
I zoomed out of the map some more. It's definitely Scandinavia right? I've no idea what language any of these place names could come from.
I zoomed out some more. Northern Ireland, brilliant Silva, brilliant!
Sorry, as you were. How the feck had you heard of Drumhaw?
zoomed in on Northern Ireland, and moved around until I found somewhere I've never heard of.
I assumed it was somewhere up north in Scotland.