AshfordLad
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,293
Dont know what you mean, Enlighten me please?The 'impending' formation of a figment of the Daily Mail's imagination?
Dont know what you mean, Enlighten me please?The 'impending' formation of a figment of the Daily Mail's imagination?
Dont know what you mean, Enlighten me please?
The BBC and the Telegraph have reported bits here n there well before the referendum was announced, infact well before the 2015 GE.Also, again, like all the Leave sides scaremongering that isn't scaremongering -apparently- would require 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).
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.
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).
This gives the impression that it may be before 2063.Plans to enhance the military role of the European Union, potentially paving the way for a future EU army, are being held back until after the UK referendum, according to reports.
The plans, which have only been shown to EU diplomats, are understood to include proposals or new European military structures, including a headquarters.
According to The Times, which has seen extracts of the plans from diplomatic notes, the proposals will not be sent to national governments until after Britain’s EU referendum on 23 June to avoid giving succour to the Leave campaign.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-an-eu-army-are-being-held-back-a7052501.html
This gives the impression that it may be before 2063.
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.
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.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.
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 be a massive boost to jobs and economies in the short to medium term.
Well they'll only need 6 more according to this.However, it is understood the plans, drawn over 18 months by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, are supported by other leading EU countries, and refer to powers set out in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, which could allow nine or more member states to embark on their own plans for an EU military headquarters.
Well they'll only need 6 more according to this.
Its telling that you have to use the in campaign propaganda website as as a source.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.
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..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.
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.It follows an agreement by the Germans and Dutch to merge their army and navy to form the nucleus of a single EU military force.
Talks are also ongoing to include the Czechs and under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, signed in 2007 by Gordon Brown, the Anglo-French defence arrangement means that Britain and France would also be obliged to join the EU army.
Worryingly for many in the Brexit campaign, Prime Minister David Cameron has broken a promise to withdraw Britain from the European Defence Agency, set up with the specific intention of creating a single EU military force.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/673463/Britain-forced-EU-ARMY-leave-Armed-Forces-Minister
How about you find a proper source that refutes the German and Italian and (more importantly) EU commission's demands for an army.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 took this off a link in your full facts document.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.
Now we have to ask ourselves why they would hold it back until AFTER the referendum.The UK’s referendum is playing havoc with the timetable to further deepen security and defence co-operation within the European Union.
The EU’s long-awaited global strategy will replace a security plan that dates back to 2003. It has been much anticipated by continental European security and defence officials and policy wonks who have spent the best part of a year debating what it should contain.
The global strategy was due to be unveiled at a June summit of David Cameron and his fellow heads of states and governments. However, as it coincided with the referendum on June 23, its launch has now been pushed back one week.
Federica Mogherini, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, and successor in the role to the UK’s Baroness Ashton of Upholland, has been at the helm of the process to prepare the global strategy.
She has made it clear that she sees the strategy as a starting point for greater work to deepen security and defence collaboration between all the EU’s 28 member states.
Action plans to realise her ambitions have been promised in the months following the publication of the strategy, including details of what security and defence resources the member states will be expected to contribute collectively.
The text of the global strategy is being kept strictly under wraps until after the UK’s referendum vote.
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.
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.
What's wrong with a European army anyway?
What's wrong with a United States of Europe?Probably would lead to more worries about the possibility of a United States of Europe type thing in the future.
Nothing tbh. I dont understand why was UK opposed to it in the first place.What's wrong with a European army anyway?
What's wrong with a European army anyway?
What a big load of bull.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.
What's wrong with a United States of Europe?
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.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.
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 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.
I have always kind of believed that eventually a single world government would exist. Seems a very very long way off though.
It can be argued that all the advancement with sciende/tech/economics/politics that had happened is because of competing nation states.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.
We'll be long dead before it happens and probably have found some new species we can kill instead of killing each other.
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.
What a big load of bull.
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.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.
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.It can be argued that all the advancement with sciende/tech/economics/politics that had happened is because of competing nation states.
What an example. I got curious.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.
zoomed in on Northern Ireland, and moved around until I found somewhere I've never heard of.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.