Grendel
Well-Known Member
If you think she’s corrupt look at Legarde
Read between the lines. Even look at the last paragraph.
EU leaders back Merkel ally Ursula von der Leyen to be European Commission president
And she keeps speaking out about an EU army. As you know this worries me.
Or are you just saying that her appointment would be correct considering the EU rules on an appointment to this position if she gets it? It would be incorrect just like the Selmayr one was incorrect. And they said it would never happen again. Which part of this do you disagree with?
I didn't say she is corrupt. We don't know if she is incompetent or corrupt. But is certainly one of them at least.If you think she’s corrupt look at Legarde
Read between the lines. Even look at the last paragraph.
EU leaders back Merkel ally Ursula von der Leyen to be European Commission president
And she keeps speaking out about an EU army. As you know this worries me.
Or are you just saying that her appointment would be correct considering the EU rules on an appointment to this position if she gets it? It would be incorrect just like the Selmayr one was incorrect. And they said it would never happen again. Which part of this do you disagree with?
Share resources does not mean have an EU army.She hasn’t been appointed as they alone cannot appoint her. She has been nominated. Parliament has to appoint her. The EU army she wants is what most countries have already signed up for, or at least for a shared defence force. Even Ireland, which is a neutral country. Ireland says it is in for sharing resources, but would need to reconsider if it went further. That is the current position and all countries have an opt out. I am not in the slightest bit worried. It makes sense to share resources and have e.g. joint regiments. If countries want to go further, then it’s up to them.
Read between the lines. Even look at the last paragraph.
EU leaders back Merkel ally Ursula von der Leyen to be European Commission president
And she keeps speaking out about an EU army. As you know this worries me.
Or are you just saying that her appointment would be correct considering the EU rules on an appointment to this position if she gets it? It would be incorrect just like the Selmayr one was incorrect. And they said it would never happen again. Which part of this do you disagree with?
Share resources does not mean have an EU army.
How about showing evidence of most countries wanting an EU army.
Share resources does not mean have an EU army.
How about showing evidence of most countries wanting an EU army.
Yes, I’ve read it. The phrase is „long term goal“. Short term it is defence cooperation. Fine by me. Long term as well. We don’t know what the next generation will want. Maybe the World powers will look different long term. Deal with that when we get there.
The dispute is now between the EU Parliament and Leaders of the Sovereign States. In actual fact, exactly the people you keep saying should have more power. Now they are trying to use their powers to get the person they want and you are saying that is wrong.
Got very silly ages ago.
My wife and kids are now living in France. I am planning to retire at 55 and join them. Yet I am supposed to be anti EU and anti everything it stands for as I can see what is wrong with the way the EU is run.
Strangely enough there is yet another dodgy appointment being pushed through. So for you Mart..... yoi said there would be no more dodgy appointments after the Selmayr debacle. That was the EU response to why Selmayr should keep the position he shouldn't have got. Didn't last long did it. This is why the power needs to be passed back to those who are in charge of the countries in the EU.
We still have a lack on here of those who can see the good and bad on both sides and are happy to say what they see. This thread would be much better without agendas. And an agenda on here won't change a thing.
Share resources does not mean have an EU army.
How about showing evidence of most countries wanting an EU army.
Merkel and macron want them appointed so everyone will fall in line especially the smaller states as they will be frightened of the consequences if they rebel
And trying to twist everything as usual I see.Yes, I’ve read it. The phrase is „long term goal“. Short term it is defence cooperation. Fine by me. Long term as well. We don’t know what the next generation will want. Maybe the World powers will look different long term. Deal with that when we get there.
The dispute is now between the EU Parliament and Leaders of the Sovereign States. In actual fact, exactly the people you keep saying should have more power. Now they are trying to use their powers to get the person they want and you are saying that is wrong.
Didn't go as smooth as planned. But moving my family and all pets was always going to be a bit difficult. But they have been there a week now and are loving it. And I am enjoying the peace and quiet :smuggrin: Will be with them in 3 weeks for nearly 3 weeks. The wife is now busy trying to keep one of the dogs out of our lake. And also suffering in the heat. Coolest day so far has been 35 degrees. But she was lucky. It was 44 degrees the day before they arrived.Welcome back @Astute - hope the move went well.
Does that make it right? That is my worry.If there ever was an EU army we’d still be involved. Unless we go completely rogue and leave NATO.
Merkel abstained because she doesn't want her ti get the position. And she also knows there is another Selmayr event that would happen if she is appointed. And it goes against those who didn't want Selmayr again. And Merkel also doesn't want to upset Macron as she wants to tie up the power in the EU between France and Germany.In the article it says that the smaller states were behind Von der Leyen. It even quotes V4 saying that they are growing in influence. Merkel abstained because she doesn’t have approval from her coalition partners.
Does that make it right? That is my worry.
Tony Bliar took us to war wrongly. Then look at it from an EU perspective. We are about to maybe have another wrong person appointed to a top job with the EU. She wants an EU army. So if we have an EU army who would choose if and when we go to war? Which countries would we want to defend? Which countries would piss them off that run the EU? Because if there was an EU army we wouldn't have any choice on going to war if someone decided it was the way to go. Yet you make out that it is OK.
Got very silly ages ago.
My wife and kids are now living in France. I am planning to retire at 55 and join them. Yet I am supposed to be anti EU and anti everything it stands for as I can see what is wrong with the way the EU is run.
Strangely enough there is yet another dodgy appointment being pushed through. So for you Mart..... yoi said there would be no more dodgy appointments after the Selmayr debacle. That was the EU response to why Selmayr should keep the position he shouldn't have got. Didn't last long did it. This is why the power needs to be passed back to those who are in charge of the countries in the EU.
We still have a lack on here of those who can see the good and bad on both sides and are happy to say what they see. This thread would be much better without agendas. And an agenda on here won't change a thing.
This was nothing but a rant to say why we should be in an EU army.Make what right? Elected members of a joint democracy forming a joint army? What would be exactly wrong with that? Might have actually stopped us going into Iraq. Have you ever thought of that? What war do you think we’d be dragged into against our will exactly? How are we going to be dragged into a war we disagree with? Are you seriously saying that that battalions of British soldiers, the British navy and the British airforce are going to enter into a war without the say of the British government? We’re already in joint armies with the UN and NATO. In the former Yugoslavia British forces were under direct control of American commanders, James Blunt has a very famous story about this and refusing a direct order from an American commander. Same in Iraq and same in Afghanistan. If America decides to invade Mexico do you think we’re honour bound to join in because we have joint forces through NATO and the UN? You’re talking assumptions, you’re assuming that you’ll know the makeup of things that don’t actually exist will be and you’re assuming that they’ll operate outside of the controls and barriers already in place under NATO membership which should there ever be an EU army it almost certainly will be part of.
Explain how Boris is being pushed through without it following the correct procedures.If we’re against dodgy appointments being pushed through, are you also in favour of leaving the UK once Boris is crowned?
This was nothing but a rant to say why we should be in an EU army.
So you think it is good that we could be sent to war by people who get elected by those not following the rules and regulations set?
Explain how Boris is being pushed through without it following the correct procedures.
He is a dodgy person to have as PM. But the correct procedures have been followed.
Maybe it is the procedure that is wrong. Or it could be as I have continually said and our MP's are not fit for purpose.
But as usual with this thread because I don't suck up to the EU it is said that I am anti EU. Yet strangely enough my family now live in another EU country.
Look at the rubbish spouted on here. It is supposed to be good that rules and regulations are being broke again to appoint someone to a top position in the EU. It would be good to have an EU army that would take us to war if they wanted.
I only have one question for myself. Why did I bother looking at this thread again. Nothing but agendas and twisting of words still.
Less than one percent of the country are about to vote him in as PM.
And we’re probably the same people so upset when Brown became PM
Being in the UN and NATO would be different to being in an EU army. And you know this. But the truth is in short supply in this thread.You could just as easily be talking about any British government in my lifetime. Not being in an EU army didn’t stop our government producing a dressed up dossier based on a students theoretical thesis to send soldiers into Iraq under the command of a foreign nation from a different continent did it?
I’m not saying that we should join a EU army at all, I’m saying that we’re already in a UN and NATO army where foreign nations make decisions for our armed forces.
So the system is wrong maybe. But at least the rules are kept to.Less than one percent of the country are about to vote him in as PM.
And trying to twist everything as usual I see.
EU army a long term goal? Yes because they couldn't do it overnight. Most countries would rebel. Germany and France hold all the cards. But even they couldn't do it quickly. Now the French PM wants a German put in place that even most of the Germans don't want because they k ow all about her. But the Germans in charge don't want to rock the boat with France so they abstained from the vote.
Would you like to call any of this wrong? You have lived in Germany most of your life so you can't play at being clueless here.
And yes those running the EU should tell Macron that he can't have who he wants as she doesn't have the qualifications and isn't a 'clean' candidate. I am not changing my mind to suit as you do. I am being consistent. Someone without the set out qualifications within the rules shouldn't get a top position.
Does that make it right? That is my worry.
Tony Bliar took us to war wrongly. Then look at it from an EU perspective. We are about to maybe have another wrong person appointed to a top job with the EU. She wants an EU army. So if we have an EU army who would choose if and when we go to war? Which countries would we want to defend? Which countries would piss them off that run the EU? Because if there was an EU army we wouldn't have any choice on going to war if someone decided it was the way to go. Yet you make out that it is OK.
This was nothing but a rant to say why we should be in an EU army.
So you think it is good that we could be sent to war by people who get elected by those not following the rules and regulations set?
So the system is wrong maybe. But at least the rules are kept to.
Maybe one day you will admit the major faults with the way the EU is run instead of making excuses for it or will stop making out that the UK is at least as crooked as the EU. But I am not going to hold my breath.
Or are you going to ask Mart about why he knew that all appointments would follow all rules and regulations in the EU but they fail on the very next one yet the same people never question them once. Again I will not hold my breath. Yet they are supposed to be trusted if they take full control of our armed forces. And no agenda is being followed. Yeah OK.
Being in the UN and NATO would be different to being in an EU army. And you know this. But the truth is in short supply in this thread.
If we were a part of an EU army we would lose all say on our armed forces. Or would you like to put your spin on this?
Being in the UN and NATO would be different to being in an EU army. And you know this. But the truth is in short supply in this thread.
If we were a part of an EU army we would lose all say on our armed forces. Or would you like to put your spin on this?
Less than one percent of the country are about to vote him in as PM.
You are funny.What are you on about? If everyone in EU Europe is in the same army, there won’t be any war in the EU Europe. Seeing as the EU is a trading bloc and not a country, there is no one person who has the power to decide on a an aggressive war. Most EU countries are in NATO anyway. 27 countries would have to agree on an army and if it could go to war if the EU was not being attacked.
OK you know but I don't. And your lapdog agrees with you. I get you.No I “don’t know this” and for one very simple reason. It doesn’t exist. It’s you doing the justsoposing. You’re the one spinning. You already know what an EU army would look like when there’s not even been a motion to have one. Maybe you can tell us what Mars will look like when we’ve colonised it, seeing as you can see into the future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?