I assumed that was a joke tweet. 
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
There is this impression that Europe doesn't invest enough in military. That's wrong. In 2017 Europe spend $342 billion in military which is more then China (228b) and far more then Russia did (around 66b). Its still less then the US however its enough to defend Europe against aggression
So what is the real problem here. I happen to be friends with a number of war veterans from Russia, the UK and the US and they all say pretty much the same thing. Russia has no chance of outgunning NATO but it really doesn't need to. Its army is built on quick strikes which means that if Russia had to invade Europe, it would carve a big slice of Eastern Europe before we can even act. Once that is conquered, it can threaten any sort of aggression against it with nukes. Good luck persuading Donald Trump to risk seeing New York getting nuked in a bid to free Estonia.
Hence why we need to defend our own turf ourselves. An EU army would mean less redundancies, more co-ordination between EU forces and on top of that assurances that no one will be able to bribe outsiders to just close an eye or two.
LED all the way for me. Does that make me a revolutionary?lightbulbs
I totally agree. He can't bomb Warsaw without it affecting his own country.
So what would need to happen to get to a revoke or a referendum from here?
Is it even possible?
Is it even possible?
Parliament would have to vote for it somehow. I don't see it happening. It's full steam ahead to no-deal next week, I think.
OK. So let's examine how a European Army could function.
Firstly it will require a single command structure. Issues - language, who is in control, which forces would be allocated to NATO and which to Europe.
Second. How would the troups be transported. That requires Transport Aircraft and Helicopters. Issues. Who provides the transport capability.
Third. How would the Transport Aircraft and Helicopters be protected and which assets would be allocated to NATO and which to Europe.
Fourth. Should there also be a European Airforce with fighters and Inflight refuelling for the Transport and fighters.
Fifth. Germany has stated that it is looking to acquire an Aircraft Carrier. So should there be a European Navy.
Peace in Europe has been maintained by NATO.
If Europe decides to go for a European Army, you can very quickly see how NATO would be adversely affected.
The USA would very quickly decide that if Europe has its own Army and reduced support for NATO, it would be perfectly capable of protecting itself and also reduce support for NATO.
BINGO. Just what Russia and Putin have been dreaming of.
Still think it is a good idea?
The top one is just so messed up it doesn't warrant comment.
But can you imagine trying to bring corporal punishment back!
You can't call any kid lazy or thick these days, they all have some "condition". You can hardly tell them off, let alone smash them around with sticks!
Welcome to the resistance.
Lightbulbs sounds too forward thinking, would have thought it would have been candles.
No deal is what I feel will happen, but the glimmer of hope of either of the two happening is what I've clung on to in this infinitely looping car crash.
Yipee! It will be just like the 50s.
Nostalgia is the worst emotion.
Gas mantles all the way, Paul. Move with the times!
Instead of debating on a forum on the internet we'll soon be sending pigeons to each other.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It is. They will be so dissapointed, whatever happens. That world is not coming back. Once in a while when I am not so angry with them, I do have a moment of sympathy for the people who have voted for Brexit in hopes of the return of this bygone simpler, more clearcut world, very unlike the more complex, interconnected real world of today. But then I remember how they are willing to feck over our kids' future for the sake of nostalgia and I am fuming again.
Peace had been maintained in Europe because all our economies are so integrated to one another that its almost impossible to untangle them. Brexit is a prime example of how difficult that gets. Please note that this whole Brexit thing is being done in an a relatively orderly manner (article 50) and with no one planning a war against the rest. Imagine what would happen if lets say the UK crushed out and the rest of Europe turned hostile to it. That would require alot of stockpiling wouldn't it?
Also the language thing is BS. World War II brought the Russians, the French, the British empire (god knows how many languages were involved in that) against Hitler and we still won. NATO itself bring together various nations with different languages so that isn't an issue either.
NATO is built on an outdated concept which state that there's ample troops in Europe to be deployed at a moment notice and that the US will be willing to go to hell and back to defend its allies. Neither scenarios are true anymore. The bulk of the US army is deployed elsewhere and there's little appetite by the current administration to defend this 'unfair' Europe that doesn't allow the US to put junk on their children't plates. Thus why it needs to be further boosted with new concepts including an EU army which truly put Europe's interests at heart. Regarding Putin's dreams, well Trump, might be in a great position to understand them perfectly. Which is why an EU army which makes the EU less dependent on the US is more important then ever.
Last edited:
Yeah weird right. The message is consistent, it's supported by evidence, and yet that in your mind is just more proof that it's untrue. What other people tell you is pretty worthless, in reality. You know what they're thinking, even if they don't know it. Or they know it and they're just liars. That's the only possibility here.
For the record, I didn't vote Leave. I didn't vote. I'm one of those young folks that so many people on here sneer at. Lazy bugger, couldn't even get himself to the voting booth. Actually I stood right outside a voting station as my girlfriend went in and voted. I encouraged her to as well. It's incomprehensible to many people that I didn't vote in that scenario, in the same way it's incomprehensible to you that some people voted for Leave for reasons other than immigration. Yet both things are a matter of fact.
I'm not even sure I'd vote in a second referendum, but I lean towards the Remain side. I'm one of those weirdos that isn't firmly in one camp. I find myself in the middle on many things. fecked up, right? Like the majority of the population, I don't really understand what the EU is, what it does, how it influences my life, or why I should care. Unlike the majority of the population, I don't think it's useful to vote for something in ignorance, based on instinct. If I don't have a worthy opinion on a subject, I choose not to offer an unworthy one.
All I can tell you is there are lots of things you don't understand. Just like me, and everyone else in the country. It's not just those stupid Leave voters, or those lazy-non voters. I understand why from that position of ignorance, you rationalise people making these decisions you don't understand as people being deceitful, stupid, lazy and any other number of things. It doesn't change the fact that unfortunately you are wrong, and becoming entrenched in that position makes it more difficult to achieve your declared political goal.
You took a onsidered decision to abstain. Many just couldn't be arsed. It is why I'm for compulsory voting as it is actually just compulsory turning up.
I don't buy this whole not in either camp argument. It was clear as day that leaving the EU would cause huge economic and social unrest. Even if you didn't fully understand the EU, a valid point, surely the chaos of leaving would be enough to maintain status quo?
Leavers shafted themselves. They were given three votes to do it and hit the ball into row Z each time.
Bringing back sales in pounds and ounces and pre-decimal currency would be fun.
David Davis goes into a butchers shop (with sawdust on the floor)
"May I have six ounces of mince" he says.
Butcher says " That'll be two bob"
Davis says "Two what? And my name's not Bob!
David Davis goes into a butchers shop (with sawdust on the floor)
"May I have six ounces of mince" he says.
Butcher says " That'll be two bob"
Davis says "Two what? And my name's not Bob!
The death penalty result isn't that baffling. You'd probably get high percentages for it in other countries too, which is why it's often cited as a reason for not having referendums. The same would also apply to an issue like immigration.
It's the corporal punishment one that I find strange.
Last edited:
No it's not supported by evidence it's supported by opinion polls where people self-report. What does have a lot of data to call upon is the under reporting of right wing views in polling which represents its self as the shy tory effect in one form.
If you understand that leave voters hate being discounted just as xenophobic or racists then you should also be able to make the leap that they'd under report these views when asked. It's one of the reasons suddenly since brexit people report immigration as less of a concern.
I'm ignorant on many things of which I'll admit in here when so but not on half the stuff you've listed. My parents voted leave, my old hometown voted leave, my new hometown voted leave in fact and i know a good few within my path of financial services that did the same. One of those categories voted for non-xenophobic reasons.
Brexit did not create the image of a country with a sizeable demographic of bigots, it was visible long before whilst our politicians tried to win their votes and these people didn't vote remain.
Look back to 2010 and 2012 the EU or the reasons you state weren't high on concerns but immigration was consistently. Only as you get to brexit does that trend reverse, funny that.
Last edited:
Yes that's a problem that many people have. Refusing to believe what someone says because it doesn't compute with how they understand the world. All I can tell you is that refusing to believe people, or deeming their view illegitimate, doesn't work in your favour.
I have never seen a post so full of sneering self-congratulation.
"Unlike you plebs, I think about things, and then have the guts to not decide, what a daring weirdo I am!"
I happen to believe that Smores is very well versed in the political sphere, unlike me, and is quite far away from being a pleb. He's very thoughtful on many of those issues. That doesn't change the fact that his worldview led him to delegitimise my own view, and I think generally people would take offence to that. To deny someone the legitimacy of their own opinion is pretty severe, and yet increasingly common in this political atmosphere. That's worth pointing out.
The thing is, there's been lots of sneering at people like me, the non-voter. You just don't pay much attention to it because most of the people saying it are wrapping it up in an argument that generally you agree with, they're on your side. If you had a different perspective I'm sure you would find lots of this sneering, and you'd be similarly dismayed.
For what it's worth, my girlfriend is one of those people that voted on instinct. I do not sneer at her. I do not think my worldview is better. It has nothing to do with "guts". I was pointing out the difference - you attributed the meaning to it, based on your own worldview.
As a genuine question do you not think that in general in these kinds of instances, it's worth taking a small amount of time to use the vast resources available to you to educate yourself on something that has such a profound effect on your future, your children's future and their children's future so that you can make the best decision?
I guess I'm struggling to understand how ignorance is an excuse for anything. One could make the argument that if somebody actively chose not to familiarise themself with something that had the possibility of dramatically affecting their future quality of life, and just stood by and let it happen that there'd be an element of idiocy/foolishness in that.
I was just about to ask the same. Without trying to sneer, did you not deem a referendum on our membership of the EU was worth researching so you could come to an informed enough opinion on it to vote? @Brwned
Agreed. Mirrors the argument that illiterate or uneducated should not have a vote in a democracy.
Totally. I've just read Robert Peston's most recent book which was very informative on the subject, and I feel that I might be in a position to make an informed decision on the subject if another referendum were come around. I'm just not sure. I never studied law, politics, economics or anything of the sort at even a basic level in school, and when I read stuff about it I find it extremely difficult to understand. My view is simply that it is potentially very damaging to offer an opinion on an important subject that you don't understand on even a basic level. You can find lots of evidence for it. Democracy has its flaws, and we all deal with them differently.
I have no issues with non-voters. I was referring to the various "verbal" ticks in your post: "many people on here sneer at. Lazy bugger", "I'm one of those weirdos", "I find myself in the middle on many things. fecked up, right?"
I don't think non-voting is a matter of pride or a matter of shame, that post of yours makes it seem you think it is a matter of pride. "Being in the middle" and seeking compromise are also concepts that aren't half as rare as you think.
But that's now, what about before the referendum?
I have no issues with non-voters. I was referring to the various "verbal" ticks in your post: "many people on here sneer at. Lazy bugger", "I'm one of those weirdos", "I find myself in the middle on many things. fecked up, right?"
I don't think non-voting is a matter of pride or a matter of shame, that post of yours makes it seem you think it is a matter of pride. "Being in the middle" and seeking compromise are also concepts that aren't half as rare or unpopular as you think.
I'm sorry, but you misunderstood. It is a very divided time politically in the UK and in many other places - I know it's been well documented, but I don't know how much you've felt of that personally? That environment does lead people to describe me, a young non-voter, as a lazy voter. Without ever asking. Or better yet, when people do ask they assume my truth is a lie, an excuse. You can find evidence of it in this thread, if you think I'm making it up. Many people have literally said, people should be ashamed for not voting. It not being your view doesn't change the fact that it is a view, which it is legitimate to push back on.
I agree with you that being in the middle is not unusual. I'm not sure about right now, but I think most people, most of the time are somewhere in the middle. However at this point in time it is something that people get offended by, you're implored to pick a side because it is in the best interests of the country to do so, and if you choose not to, people hold it against you. This isn't the time to twiddle your thumbs, you have a responsibility to make a choice. I have been told that plenty.
If I hold an opinion against Jeremy Corbyn, I'm a "May-bot". If I hold an opinion against the Mueller investigation, I'm "probably a Trump fan in disguise". If I hold an opinion against the notion that the only reason people voted Leave is because they're racists, I'm assumed to be a Leave supporter, or at least a Leave apologist. You are not allowed to be in the middle, in many cases. People just assume you're on "the other side". I have direct evidence of it, right here, so you can't deny that reality.
For me, voting is not a point of pride. For some people it is. Just because you're not one of those people, or you're not exposed to it much, doesn't change the fact that I have been. And I do find similar sentiments from people on here, in this thread, regularly.
No, I didn't. At that point in time I was dealing with my step dad being diagnosed with a second bout of cancer, my girlfriend having an abortion that went badly, and was planning a move to South Africa. I was probably more conscious of South African politics than UK ones. It just didn't rank highly in my priorities at the time. I am selfish, and ignorant, and many other things. At the end of the day, I'm politically disenfranchised at least in part because of the political system, and the actors within it. I don't think that's a crazy thing to say, given the incompetence of politicians recently. That makes it sadly very easy to deprioritise it. I read up about it, I tried to understand it, I couldn't really, and I was ok letting the rest of the population make a decision without me.
I get why people don't respect that, but it's just my reality, and the reality of many people in this country. I don't think demonising those people is helpful, in the long run.
Last edited:
Apologies, I can understand that completely and I hope things have worked out since. The reason I ask is because your opinion is slightly similar to one of my best friends; he didn't vote because he said he didn't see the point as he didn't think such an important and complex subject should be put to a vote by the general public, whose overall understanding is by and large very limited.
I personally don't even sneer at most leave voters. I think the EU needs a lot of reform, but I also think that's not going to happen from the outside.
Edit: I also agree that the country is incredibly divided, over this and many other issues, and unfortunately I think this division has cut deep into the country since the 2016 referendum and will not heal itself for a long long time.
1200+ pages
Can someone please summarize what's at stake?
Can someone please summarize what's at stake?
Everything1200+ pages
Can someone please summarize what's at stake?
Life1200+ pages
Can someone please summarize what's at stake?