The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (25 Viewers)

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

martcov said:
We wouldn’t lose our day as one of the top 3 countries in the EU and with veto rights.

What would the use of an EU army be if there was a veto still? As they said previously they want to get rid of the veto.

Ah veto. I get you. Like when they were caught out putting Selmayr in place. They broke the rules ,regulations and laws to put him there. Nobody else wanted him there. Yet he is still there. Even you said it was wrong. At least you said they would never do it again. 4 months after you said they would never do it again they are trying to do it again. And strangely enough it is another German. And yet again it is someone with a dodgy past. So yes they do what they want when they want.

An EU army veto? Tell that to Tony. He says there will be no such thing as an EU army and it is what I think. You agree with him yet disagree with him. How unusual.

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

Grendel said:
The country doesn’t vote for changes in PM that’s not our constitution - the comment is irrelevant

It is when it is trying to make how the EU is run look better or to have a dig at the UK. Look back at this thread. That has been the contribution of Tony and a couple of others all the way through. Either that or they are clueless.

martcov · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
You are funny.

So if those who keep breaking the rules and regulations start up an EU army and then start a war there won't be a war in Europe?

If Bliar can start a war the crooked ones who run the EU could easily do the same.

And you keep saying that this EU army is a thing for the future so nothing to worry about. But it wasn't that long ago when you were telling me and others how wrong we were for saying about the aim of having an EU army.

There was an aim for a European army after the war because it was seen as a massive step to preventing European wars. It is difficult to achieve, but the dream lives on. At the moment it is not imminent. Sharing defence costs by increased cooperation and joint Franco German regiments are already happening and are accepted.

We will have to see the details of an EU army. There will be a mandate granted to whatever version eventually comes, with a list of what it can and cannot do. The list will require agreement of all participants and so it will be unlikely to go to war without authority from all of the participants.

No way will all countries drop their defence vetos to allow one country or person to send a united army to invade somewhere else. Much less likelihood of an Iraq type war when you need consent from many countries.

Are you comparing the appointment of a civil servant with sending a continent to war? Or comparing a non regulated procedure being overridden by sovereign states, with changing a mandate, governed by a signed agreement between 27 sovereign states, to send a continent to war?

martcov · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
It is when it is trying to make how the EU is run look better or to have a dig at the UK. Look back at this thread. That has been the contribution of Tony and a couple of others all the way through. Either that or they are clueless.

Boris Johnson is a known liar and opportunist. He has been sacked twice for lying. He has cost London millions. He has said we should and we shouldn’t leave the EU. He has voted for and against May‘s deal. He congratulated May on the backstop and is against the backstop. He has said we can have our cake and eat it which is impossible. His personal life is also full of deceit and he recently got kicked out of a flat by his girlfriend after the police were summoned.

Totally unfit for office and in comparison to V der L he is less suited for the job he is aiming for than she is for hers.

And you talk about the EU candidates?

The people who will confirm his appointment are predominately older white males, including a high proportion of members who have joined the Tory party since the referendum, many after Banks‘ call for UKIP and Brexit supporters to become members. So called Blukips.

Totally unrepresentative of the country as a whole and choosing the person for the most important job in the country.

Whether it is allowed in our unwritten constitution or not, is irrelevant to the bad taste it leaves for a majority of the public.

The only good news is that BoJo is inept and chaotic and there is no way on earth that he will succeed in his mission to crash the country on Halloween. Looking forward to the GE which will, hopefully, smash the Tory Party and open up the 2 party duopoly to a wider choice for the electorate.

martcov · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
What would the use of an EU army be if there was a veto still? As they said previously they want to get rid of the veto.

Ah veto. I get you. Like when they were caught out putting Selmayr in place. They broke the rules ,regulations and laws to put him there. Nobody else wanted him there. Yet he is still there. Even you said it was wrong. At least you said they would never do it again. 4 months after you said they would never do it again they are trying to do it again. And strangely enough it is another German. And yet again it is someone with a dodgy past. So yes they do what they want when they want.

An EU army veto? Tell that to Tony. He says there will be no such thing as an EU army and it is what I think. You agree with him yet disagree with him. How unusual.

When did they say they would be getting rid of a veto on defence? You can’t get rid of vetos without consent.

Selmayr‘s suitability was not questioned by the ombudsman. It was the method of appointment.

That was the appointment of a civil servant. The veto rights belong to sovereign governments and cannot be taken from them without their consent. Two totally different things.

V der L‘s past is not that dodgy. She was cleared of plagiarism and the investigation of why so many consultants were involved in defence ministry contracts is ongoing. She is not popular with the Bundeswehr though tbf.

Still, she has yet to be appointed and the parliament will decide whether her past disqualifies her. Unlike the UK where only the Tory party members decide if dodgy BoJo‘s past disqualifies him as leader of a sovereign nation. A much higher position.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
OK you know but I don't. And your lapdog agrees with you. I get you.

So nothing has changed on here. The aim is to defend everything wrong the EU does and make the UK look as shit as you can.

I’m comparing to existing models of where the British forces are loaned out to another entity which at the very least is a valid starting point. You’re trying to make out that we’ll hand them over never to be under our control again and next thing we know British soldiers invade Poland with Germany, which is obvious bollocks and baseless.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2019

Grendel said:
The country doesn’t vote for changes in PM that’s not our constitution - the comment is irrelevant

In which case you have to accept parliamentary sovereignty and discount the advisory referendum. That’s our constitution, let’s cancel brexit. We know what we voted for is irrelevant. My comment also happens to be factually correct. Interesting that you class facts as irrelevant. Then again you are a leaver so that’s hardly surprising.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
You are funny.

So if those who keep breaking the rules and regulations start up an EU army and then start a war there won't be a war in Europe?

If Bliar can start a war the crooked ones who run the EU could easily do the same.

And you keep saying that this EU army is a thing for the future so nothing to worry about. But it wasn't that long ago when you were telling me and others how wrong we were for saying about the aim of having an EU army.

Jesus Christ. You don’t half love dealing in if your gran had bollocks would she be your grandad type whatifery.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2019

What Is A 'European Army' And Could It Become A Reality?

martcov · Jul 9, 2019

skybluetony176 said:
What Is A 'European Army' And Could It Become A Reality?

Basically what we clueless people have been saying.

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

martcov said:
There was an aim for a European army after the war because it was seen as a massive step to preventing European wars. It is difficult to achieve, but the dream lives on. At the moment it is not imminent. Sharing defence costs by increased cooperation and joint Franco German regiments are already happening and are accepted.

We will have to see the details of an EU army. There will be a mandate granted to whatever version eventually comes, with a list of what it can and cannot do. The list will require agreement of all participants and so it will be unlikely to go to war without authority from all of the participants.

No way will all countries drop their defence vetos to allow one country or person to send a united army to invade somewhere else. Much less likelihood of an Iraq type war when you need consent from many countries.

Are you comparing the appointment of a civil servant with sending a continent to war? Or comparing a non regulated procedure being overridden by sovereign states, with changing a mandate, governed by a signed agreement between 27 sovereign states, to send a continent to war?

All made up and designed to make an EU army sound better.

So in an emergency they would have to get all countries together and all would have to agree to action being taken?

And it wouldn't constantly evolve like the EU has and hand more power to those who run the EU?

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

skybluetony176 said:
Jesus Christ. You don’t half love dealing in if your gran had bollocks would she be your grandad type whatifery.

Is that right?

That would be like voting for UKIP and Farage whilst making racist comments. Then working out how much of a twat you had been so you change it to defending the undefendable and trying to make out that the EU and those who run it are perfect.

Do you know anyone like that?

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

skybluetony176 said:
I’m comparing to existing models of where the British forces are loaned out to another entity which at the very least is a valid starting point. You’re trying to make out that we’ll hand them over never to be under our control again and next thing we know British soldiers invade Poland with Germany, which is obvious bollocks and baseless.

The only bollocks is what you use as an example.

So are you saying that we would keep full control of our armed forces if we joined an EU army? Would we be able to abstain any action we didn't agree with? Would we still have our own armed forces? Who would it all be controlled by?

And of course you have all the answers.

shmmeee · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
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.

I was just having a cheap dig at Boris because he rigged the process and is supported by his friends in the media and abroad rather than running a fair campaign.

I find it a bit rich to go on about corruption to be honest, always seems to be the last resort of people who just don’t like something. Same as “waste”. Every organisation on the planet has corruption, every one has waste. Finding examples of it proves nothing on its own.

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

skybluetony176 said:
In which case you have to accept parliamentary sovereignty and discount the advisory referendum. That’s our constitution, let’s cancel brexit. We know what we voted for is irrelevant. My comment also happens to be factually correct. Interesting that you class facts as irrelevant. Then again you are a leaver so that’s hardly surprising.

I am a remainer.

I know that the UK has kept to the letter of the law in who becomes the next PM. I am not like you although I also don't like the choice. Remember ages ago when I said I could see him becoming PM because of the way people like yourself abuse others over the way brexit has gone? You and others called me clueless yet again. And sadly yet again I could be right.

Or shall we look at the way the EU ignores the letter of the law. Or ignores rules and regulations? Then people like yourself defends them on these matters?

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

shmmeee said:
I was just having a cheap dig at Boris because he rigged the process and is supported by his friends in the media and abroad rather than running a fair campaign.

I find it a bit rich to go on about corruption to be honest, always seems to be the last resort of people who just don’t like something. Same as “waste”. Every organisation on the planet has corruption, every one has waste. Finding examples of it proves nothing on its own.

But don't you find it a bit rich of those who defend outright disregard for laws, rules and regulations from the EU yet make out the same has been done by the UK when everything has been done to the laws, rules and regulations?

A lot is going on that we have a massive dislike of. My problem is that I detest the way the EU is run as much as I detest the way the UK is run. My biggest problem on here is that certain people only pick me up on my thoughts of the way the EU is run but never mention a word about the way the UK is run because they agree with me.

And now my family has been split up because of what is going on. Yet these certain people don't want to debate the truth. Their agenda is the most important thing in this debacle.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
The only bollocks is what you use as an example.

So are you saying that we would keep full control of our armed forces if we joined an EU army? Would we be able to abstain any action we didn't agree with? Would we still have our own armed forces? Who would it all be controlled by?

And of course you have all the answers.

I’m saying we don’t know. If you read the article I linked though it tells you that it’s a response to America’s domination of the NATO and Trump pulling out of various NATO deals that Europe as a whole sees as counterproductive to the regions interest. There’s no talk of leaving NATO just having a EU arm of it that would work in conjunction with NATO. MATO is clearly the model for the EU army when you actually pay attention to what has been said and not hysterical sound bites based on the words EU army and no detail. The reaction to the words EU army in some quarters is the same reactions saw to Romania joining the EU, factless scaremongering where the numbers of Romanians coming here was a figure higher than the population of Romania.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
Is that right?

That would be like voting for UKIP and Farage whilst making racist comments. Then working out how much of a twat you had been so you change it to defending the undefendable and trying to make out that the EU and those who run it are perfect.

Do you know anyone like that?

Oh dear. Lost the argument again.

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

martcov said:
Basically what we clueless people have been saying.

What have you been saying?

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2019

I’ll tell you what astute you used the Iraq war as an example. If you’re going to do that let’s look at the facts. 2 EU countries were involved in the invasion of Iraq, us and Poland. Even then Poland only sent a couple of hundred. You moan about this illegal war that Blair took us into. If we were part of an EU army under the hysterical guise you’ve decided it will be would we have entered the Iraq war?

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

skybluetony176 said:
Oh dear. Lost the argument again.

Lost an argument?

Haven't been arguing like you have. Just like I have never voted for Farage or made racist comments like you have. And I haven't changed sides like you have. I haven't tried defending the undefendable like you have.

My views have never changed. We are better off in the EU. But power needs to be taken away from those who put others in place in the top jobs when it should be open to others. No dodgy backgrounds should be allowed to hold top posts. Power should be handed back to the countries in the EU and not those who slowly take even more all the time.

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

skybluetony176 said:
I’ll tell you what astute you used the Iraq war as an example. If you’re going to do that let’s look at the facts. 2 EU countries were involved in the invasion of Iraq, us and Poland. Even then Poland only sent a couple of hundred. You moan about this illegal war that Blair took us into. If we were part of an EU army under the hysterical guise you’ve decided it will be would we have entered the Iraq war?

So are you now saying that we wouldn't have our own armed forces and be able to do what we think is best?

You can only have it one way. Although a disregard for this has never stopped you before.

martcov · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
What have you been saying?

That there’s already PESCO signed up to by nearly all EU states.

That we don’t know about the details of a future EU army and that it isn’t imminent, but we have to work more closely on defence because of Putin and Trump‘s policies.

Read the article, it is what we are saying.

martcov · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
So are you now saying that we wouldn't have our own armed forces and be able to do what we think is best?

You can only have it one way. Although a disregard for this has never stopped you before.

Doing what is best? You were going on about the Iraq war and Tony Blair a minute ago. That didn’t work out well did it? If we had had to consult other nations in a joint army, maybe we would have been more careful.

martcov · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
Lost an argument?

Haven't been arguing like you have. Just like I have never voted for Farage or made racist comments like you have. And I haven't changed sides like you have. I haven't tried defending the undefendable like you have.

My views have never changed. We are better off in the EU. But power needs to be taken away from those who put others in place in the top jobs when it should be open to others. No dodgy backgrounds should be allowed to hold top posts. Power should be handed back to the countries in the EU and not those who slowly take even more all the time.

As I keep pointing out, power has just been taken back by the heads of state. And what have they done with it? Nominated someone you don’t think is fit for the job. Careful what you wish for.

martcov · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
I am a remainer.

I know that the UK has kept to the letter of the law in who becomes the next PM. I am not like you although I also don't like the choice. Remember ages ago when I said I could see him becoming PM because of the way people like yourself abuse others over the way brexit has gone? You and others called me clueless yet again. And sadly yet again I could be right.

Or shall we look at the way the EU ignores the letter of the law. Or ignores rules and regulations? Then people like yourself defends them on these matters?

Which UK law covers the appointment of the PM? None. The Tory party nominate a new leader and they decide how. He has to be capable of forming a government to be accepted by the Queen. That’s all. How he is chosen and by whom is not regulated by law.

martcov · Jul 9, 2019

I like Coveney‘s Brexit stance. ( Irish foreign Minister and Deputy PM ). Told him so on Friday, and that I admired him for calling out our Brexit politicians. On his return from Germany, who have assured him they will stand by Ireland, he has told the Brexit politicians that they are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. Very true.

Same goes on here. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

martcov said:
That there’s already PESCO signed up to by nearly all EU states.

That we don’t know about the details of a future EU army and that it isn’t imminent, but we have to work more closely on defence because of Putin and Trump‘s policies.

Read the article, it is what we are saying.

Read it yourself again. It says lots of questions need answering.

Not imminent. Sure. But are you trying to say that there is no need for concerns? My biggest problem is the way those running the EU have disregard for laws, rules and regulations. You know this. Not imminent? But what about my children and grandchildren?

Those running the EU don't even change what they are doing even when caught out. Can we trust them?

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

martcov said:
As I keep pointing out, power has just been taken back by the heads of state. And what have they done with it? Nominated someone you don’t think is fit for the job. Careful what you wish for.

Not true and you know it.

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

martcov said:
Which UK law covers the appointment of the PM? None. The Tory party nominate a new leader and they decide how. He has to be capable of forming a government to be accepted by the Queen. That’s all. How he is chosen and by whom is not regulated by law.

So why didn't you speak up when allegations were made that it hasn't been done correctly?

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

martcov said:
Doing what is best? You were going on about the Iraq war and Tony Blair a minute ago. That didn’t work out well did it? If we had had to consult other nations in a joint army, maybe we would have been more careful.

You also need to make your mind up.

If there was an EU army would we have our own armed forces? If yes then Iraq could still happen.

If no......

So what would happen if we got attacked by another country? What would happen if something similar to the Falklands happened? Would the EU army sort it out?

If no then we would be in a weaker position. If yes.....

So there are 28 countries in the EU army. All 28 countries need their territories defending. Would we go into action to defend all 28?

To me these are a few questions that would need answering. As of yet there are no correct or incorrect answers. But an army that looks after 28 countries is a lot more complex than one that looks after one. There are a lot of mad people on this earth. Look at North Korea for example. Instead of making war less of a chance it could multiply the chances.

And no. We don't have the answers. Yes. I care about my future generations. Yes I am right to be worried.

Astute · Jul 9, 2019

martcov said:
As I keep pointing out, power has just been taken back by the heads of state. And what have they done with it? Nominated someone you don’t think is fit for the job. Careful what you wish for.

Those who are in charge of the EU want her. If they didn't she wouldn't have a chance

In a statement, Jean-Claude Juncker said: “The solution we’ve found is a good one. Ursula von der Leyen has extensive experience in defence and social policy. I believe it would be in the European parliament’s interest to approve this – though I am sad the spitzenkandidaten process suffered a setback.”

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
So are you now saying that we wouldn't have our own armed forces and be able to do what we think is best?

You can only have it one way. Although a disregard for this has never stopped you before.

I note you haven’t answered the question and in an effort to avoid answering the question you’re making out I said something I clearly didn’t.

It’s your hypothetical assumption I’m referring to not my opinion. Your hypothetical assumption is that if we had an EU army it would be nothing like NATO and we’d lose control of our armed forces. That’s your assumption not mine. The question I have clearly asked you is that if we’d been in an EU army under the controls YOU assume, given that we were one of only two EU countries involved in the invasion of Iraq would we have ever been involved? It’s a yes or no answer based on YOUR hypothetical assumption of what an EU army would be on joining a war you yourself complained was illegal. Would we have been involved? Yes or no?

Grendel · Jul 9, 2019

skybluetony176 said:
In which case you have to accept parliamentary sovereignty and discount the advisory referendum. That’s our constitution, let’s cancel brexit. We know what we voted for is irrelevant. My comment also happens to be factually correct. Interesting that you class facts as irrelevant. Then again you are a leaver so that’s hardly surprising.

The advisory referendum that was approved by sovereign parliament and and into bring because the party who introduced it was elected by a majority under our electoral rules.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2019

Astute said:
Read it yourself again. It says lots of questions need answering.

Not imminent. Sure. But are you trying to say that there is no need for concerns? My biggest problem is the way those running the EU have disregard for laws, rules and regulations. You know this. Not imminent? But what about my children and grandchildren?

Those running the EU don't even change what they are doing even when caught out. Can we trust them?

You already have the answers so you keep telling us “the U.K. will not have control over it’s armed forces and no say in what wars we enter “. You’re now agreeing that questions need answering. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (25 Viewers)

As of right now, how are thinking of voting? In or out

Remain

Leave

Undecided

Not registered or not intention to vote

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency