Stupidity isn't confined to leavers despite the apparent general consensus in this echo chamber.
LBC yesterday pm: 'Leavers want to kick out my Danish partner and I'm transgender so what will happen to me?'
Oh and let's put this Bollox about a second referendum being more democracy not less and quoting that we get a chance to vote out a government don't we? Once we get out of the EU for a few years then start arguing for another referendum then, not before the vote to take us out has been acted on in good faith.
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality. As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo. I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after Brexit is betrayed.
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality.
I never said that. Meanwhile you come on here and tell us Macron has his own EU army and is using it to fire upon his own people, so if you're going to accuse others of paranoid fantasies, maybe take a look in the mirror first and realise you're still wearing a giant tinfoil hat.
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality. As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo. I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after Brexit is betrayed.
Sorry you feel the need to "flounce" off...(am I allowed to say that I don't know these days..?) but the simple truth is you, and other Leavers on this thread, have been asked for a single, simple practical example of how our lives will be better next year after leaving. It's not others fault that you're unable to provide one, yet you expect to get a free pass on something that two years after the vote should be the easiest question of all.
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality. As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo. I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after Brexit is betrayed.
We keep hearing about what the 17 million want and the group that are ignored are the 16 million. Ok, 17 million is more than 16 million but this was a vote about what the people want. Every poll that has been done since Brexit shows that a clear majority of people don't want a hard Brexit. This makes sense because even if a relatively small percentage of leave voters wanted some form of customs union, every remain voter would want this given the choice of two evils and add them together and it is clear what the people want or wanted at the time of the vote - a soft Brexit.
For hard Brexiters to use the soft Brexiters in their statements justifying us leaving under WTO rules is about as undemocratic as you can get.
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality. As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo. I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after Brexit is betrayed.
We keep hearing about what the 17 million want and the group that are ignored are the 16 million. Ok, 17 million is more than 16 million but this was a vote about what the people want. Every poll that has been done since Brexit shows that a clear majority of people don't want a hard Brexit. This makes sense because even if a relatively small percentage of leave voters wanted some form of customs union, every remain voter would want this given the choice of two evils and add them together and it is clear what the people want or wanted at the time of the vote - a soft Brexit.
For hard Brexiters to use the soft Brexiters in their statements justifying us leaving under WTO rules is about as undemocratic as you can get.
I don't remember hard Brexit or soft Brexit being on the ballot paper? Your real beef here should be with Cameron and not the people that were forced to vote Ill informed on something that wasn't really high on their list of priorities. I'm afraid prattling on about polls just sounds like the team that hit the post 20 times but lost 1-0.
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality. As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo. I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after Brexit is betrayed.
We keep hearing about what the 17 million want and the group that are ignored are the 16 million. Ok, 17 million is more than 16 million but this was a vote about what the people want. Every poll that has been done since Brexit shows that a clear majority of people don't want a hard Brexit. This makes sense because even if a relatively small percentage of leave voters wanted some form of customs union, every remain voter would want this given the choice of two evils and add them together and it is clear what the people want or wanted at the time of the vote - a soft Brexit.
For hard Brexiters to use the soft Brexiters in their statements justifying us leaving under WTO rules is about as undemocratic as you can get.
I don't remember hard Brexit or soft Brexit being on the ballot paper? Your real beef here should be with Cameron and not the people that were forced to vote Ill informed on something that wasn't really high on their list of priorities. I'm afraid prattling on about polls just sounds like the team that hit the post 20 times but lost 1-0.
So people were ill informed and it wasn't a high priority but regardless we have to stick with the result regardless.
You're right, there was no hard or soft Brexit on the ballot so May is correct. the 52% of the voters voted leave and we're leaving so all the leavers need to stop moaning as accept that this deal is the will of the people and accept it. You won, get over it.
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality. As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo. I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after Brexit is betrayed.
We keep hearing about what the 17 million want and the group that are ignored are the 16 million. Ok, 17 million is more than 16 million but this was a vote about what the people want. Every poll that has been done since Brexit shows that a clear majority of people don't want a hard Brexit. This makes sense because even if a relatively small percentage of leave voters wanted some form of customs union, every remain voter would want this given the choice of two evils and add them together and it is clear what the people want or wanted at the time of the vote - a soft Brexit.
For hard Brexiters to use the soft Brexiters in their statements justifying us leaving under WTO rules is about as undemocratic as you can get.
I don't remember hard Brexit or soft Brexit being on the ballot paper? Your real beef here should be with Cameron and not the people that were forced to vote Ill informed on something that wasn't really high on their list of priorities. I'm afraid prattling on about polls just sounds like the team that hit the post 20 times but lost 1-0.
We're in Fergie time now. The game doesn't stop until the ref calls it.
Is there any historical parallel for such a strange moment as Brexit? Can't think of a time when a country unnecessarily inflected such division on itself then was such a shambles about attempting to resolve it.
I love all your 'lets just pretend the Referendum never happened' stuff as if 17m people suddenly don 't exist-that is you Fiiish in your bedsit thinking that this echo chamber with its paranoid fantasies is reality. As for Prague, a serious person with a good track record, but who can now see only the price of everything and the value of nothing. A person who has lost touch with what democracy means. It is about the people.
But the worst thing is those Labour radicals who want to change the world but who are lining up with big business and big government against the most radical movement in our life times. You cannot face up to the rich and powerful with 17m votes behind you but you think a Corbyn government could challenge capitalism ? What a joke, you and Corbyn are as much threat to the establishment as a wet paper bag.
I am done with this thread. I have found it useful in understanding the Remain pathology. Mainly insecure middle class people with a vested interest in the status quo. I never believed the establishment would leave the EU, they are too wedded to it personally and politically. But the problems of our society will carry on long after Brexit is betrayed.
We keep hearing about what the 17 million want and the group that are ignored are the 16 million. Ok, 17 million is more than 16 million but this was a vote about what the people want. Every poll that has been done since Brexit shows that a clear majority of people don't want a hard Brexit. This makes sense because even if a relatively small percentage of leave voters wanted some form of customs union, every remain voter would want this given the choice of two evils and add them together and it is clear what the people want or wanted at the time of the vote - a soft Brexit.
For hard Brexiters to use the soft Brexiters in their statements justifying us leaving under WTO rules is about as undemocratic as you can get.
I don't remember hard Brexit or soft Brexit being on the ballot paper? Your real beef here should be with Cameron and not the people that were forced to vote Ill informed on something that wasn't really high on their list of priorities. I'm afraid prattling on about polls just sounds like the team that hit the post 20 times but lost 1-0.
So people were ill informed and it wasn't a high priority but regardless we have to stick with the result regardless.
You're right, there was no hard or soft Brexit on the ballot so May is correct. the 52% of the voters voted leave and we're leaving so all the leavers need to stop moaning as accept that this deal is the will of the people and accept it. You won, get over it.
Precisely this, any leaver that is not supporting May's deal is ignoring the vote just as much as they claim remainders to be. They told the government to leave the EU, this is the best they could come up with, so we must all get behind May's deal and make the best of our brave new world.
Priti Patel says that food shortages in Ireland that will happen after Brexit should have been used as leverage in the negotiations. Some people think Corbyn is the devil incarnate but seriously? A Tory promoting starvation to get her way? Maybe she thinks 'it worked in the Potato famine it can work again'. Right now however chite Labour might look, they are marshmallows compared to the evil Tories and their supporters.
Is there any historical parallel for such a strange moment as Brexit? Can't think of a time when a country unnecessarily inflected such division on itself then was such a shambles about attempting to resolve it.
I doubt the West's cyber capability is now as poor as suggested above given large expansion in this area over the last 4 years, its more obvious perhaps because they use it in less careful and controlled ways.
As I understood it Russias superiority over Europe is in the availability of its armed forces and armour on the ground and close to the border, back in the Soviet era Tactical battlefield nukes were supposed to equalise this problem. I cant see why this would have changed that much, although Eastern Europeans might not be happy about that kind of solution.
I don't see why an EU army is a bad idea either given the way it would likely be set up as a coalition of national armies/units rather than a tool of some central administration. Similarly with a lot of the EU pooling of resources it makes us less divided against a real potential threat - recently highlighted as being Russia.
What really scares me is the development of hypersonic missiles and how much China, Russia et al are investing in that area and of course that has implication for missile based nuclear deterrents
Anyone else been watching the "Withdrawal Bill Act" debate that's been going on this week. Fascinating stuff. Of the few hours I saw yesterday afternoon the vast majority of MP's who spoke were against the deal. 10/1 in my view. Only ones in favour it seems were MP's with Central London constituencies....oh, and my MP (Tom Tugenghat). He seems a nice guy & someone you would follow into battle (served in the Army).....but I didn't vote for him in 2017 even though I'm a Tory through & through.....and won't be voting for him next time either.
Watching the debate and highlights of the Select committee for exiting the EU I can honestly say that MP's are lying toads & can't answer a simple question. 3 times yesterday a Government minister was asked to agree that although we can agree & even sign trade deals after March 29th next year none can actually start until will leave the Customs Union post implementation period. All he did was stuck to his prepared text....it was a simple Yes/No question ffs!!! Fyi...the answer is no. So if a trade deal with the EU takes 5 years to sort out (about average according to those itk) then we woukd not be able to do anything until 2024. And they want us to agree this ???
Similarly Ollie Robins & our 3rd Secretary of State for leaving the EU weren't straight with the committee either....esp when Hilary Benn was questioning them. Neither could put a date on when the Implementation period would end.....despite saying it was only temporay & "ideally" would cease at the end of 2020. Put YOUR signature to it then.....not on your nelly. Then it ain't written in stone then.
I have been watching a lot of this stuff. The stuff of nightmares actually. The self regard they all have 'in this house' is astonishing. Do the buggers even do any actual work?
Is there any historical parallel for such a strange moment as Brexit? Can't think of a time when a country unnecessarily inflected such division on itself then was such a shambles about attempting to resolve it.
I would be interested to know why anyone would think that an EU-wide armed force would be a bad thing for countries within the EU.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
I suspect the EU will come to its senses when it has a cold, hard look at how much it would cost to assemble an armed force that could stand toe to toe with Russia for more than 36 hours. The capability gap of European armed forces without US and UK participation is absolutely enormous.
The EU are happy to spend millions on promoting European values (whatever they are). I don't see anything like the same same enthusiasm to spend cash, steel and blood to defend European values.
I'm not sure NATO could have done much better during the Cold War if it became hot without going nuclear.
In those days NATO could unequivocally rely on the US. Think Reagan and George Bush Snr. Trump is much less concerned with Europe so it makes sense for Europeans to have their own collective and independent defence capability.
I am not sure that there is a need for blood and steel. Although that is an option. Remember that France has a truly independent nuclear capability. Also there are other forms of warfare that can be deployed against a potential adversary.
It certainly couldn't as it is structured today. I've seen reports that estimate current NATO forces as currently deployed in Europe would last about 60 hours against Russia in a full on Baltic invasion.
France has a policy of strictly minimum deterrence, the smallest number of weapons to maintain a plausible threat. It has 300 deployable nuclear warheads, mostly strategic and sub launched with only limited tactical type weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons were a central part of NATO's cold war deterrent against overwhelming Russian numbers. I used to know a guy in the army whose job when the balloon went up was basically to sit in a hole in the woods and call down a battlefield nuclear strike on his own position when the time came. As they say, f@ck that for a game of soldiers!
As for other forms of warfare, the west is already way behind Russia, China and even North Korea in cyber warfare, they have thousands and thousands deployed on this. The latest NATO exercise in the Baltic saw all sorts of interference and aggravation from Russian electronic warfare, full spectrum from hacking, phone phishing, to GPS blocking and spooking. We are woefully undermanned in this field.
The west can do serious damage to Russia financially, but the EU has hitched themselves to Gazprom's wagon so don't expect too much on that front.
I quite agree. Europe should be more afraid of cyber attacks from Russia than tanks and war machines. I predict they are more likely to undermine democracy and economic institutions like the EU. Oooohhh!
The whole "But we're being forced into an EU army..!", thing is just dog whistle politics designed to tap into peoples "pride" around the historic performance of our armed forces whilst denigrating thosein the EU.
I don't think UK forces have acted in isolation in any prolonged armed conflict since the Falklands in the early 80's(?). As others have pointed out we are already full and active members of other collaborative armed forces or security agencies. No one is clammering for us to leave Nato are they?
Yet Leavers shout about this, theoretical, sharing of armed forces as if; 1. It's actually possible against a countries will, which it isn't whilst countries still retain their veto and 2. Other countries are, unfairly, after our protection and resources when the reality is, they may well be better resourced in some areas...and us in others. Compare for example the French and UK navy.
It's just "noise" appealing to our jingoistic side rather than where we should have been focussed e.g. what day-to-day "benefits" will Brexit actually bring?
Is there any historical parallel for such a strange moment as Brexit? Can't think of a time when a country unnecessarily inflected such division on itself then was such a shambles about attempting to resolve it.
The Confederate States of America
So you are saying Brexit voters back slavery?
As usual you didn't read the question and didn't understand the answer
Is there any historical parallel for such a strange moment as Brexit? Can't think of a time when a country unnecessarily inflected such division on itself then was such a shambles about attempting to resolve it.
The Confederate States of America
So you are saying Brexit voters back slavery?
As usual you didn't read the question and didn't understand the answer
No, I was making the point that I could choose to react to the analogy of the Confederate Sates of America by stating that you are claiming Brexit voters support slavery. Just as when I used the analogy of the Nazi Party winning elections in Germany in the early thirties some people on here made the rediculous claim I was implying Brexit voters supported the holocaust.
Is there any historical parallel for such a strange moment as Brexit? Can't think of a time when a country unnecessarily inflected such division on itself then was such a shambles about attempting to resolve it.
The Confederate States of America
So you are saying Brexit voters back slavery?
As usual you didn't read the question and didn't understand the answer
No, I was making the point that I could choose to react to the analogy of the Confederate Sates of America by stating that you are claiming Brexit voters support slavery. Just as when I used the analogy of the Nazi Party winning elections in Germany in the early thirties some people on here made the rediculous claim I was implying Brexit voters supported the holocaust.
So because you got pulled up for making a false analogy you desperately tried to do the same with mine. And failed.
Is there any historical parallel for such a strange moment as Brexit? Can't think of a time when a country unnecessarily inflected such division on itself then was such a shambles about attempting to resolve it.
The Confederate States of America
So you are saying Brexit voters back slavery?
As usual you didn't read the question and didn't understand the answer
No, I was making the point that I could choose to react to the analogy of the Confederate Sates of America by stating that you are claiming Brexit voters support slavery. Just as when I used the analogy of the Nazi Party winning elections in Germany in the early thirties some people on here made the rediculous claim I was implying Brexit voters supported the holocaust.
So because you got pulled up for making a false analogy you desperately tried to do the same with mine. And failed.
I made a perfectly valid analogy. One that has been widely made by other people in the media. It was the Brexit snowflakes on here who misrepresented it. Just as anyone could choose to misrepresent your analogy.
Priti Patel says that food shortages in Ireland that will happen after Brexit should have been used as leverage in the negotiations. Some people think Corbyn is the devil incarnate but seriously? A Tory promoting starvation to get her way? Maybe she thinks 'it worked in the Potato famine it can work again'. Right now however chite Labour might look, they are marshmallows compared to the evil Tories and their supporters.
I would be interested to know why anyone would think that an EU-wide armed force would be a bad thing for countries within the EU.
British military forces form part of NATO and of the UN. I have never been concerned that either NATO or the UN makes Britain less safe or more likely to be under attack. In fact, our membership and participation in both of these international forces has helped to deliver, secure and maintain more peaceful outcomes than any other military alliance since the second world war.
Other than being part of a democratically-elected institution, how would an EU armed force be different from either NATO or the UN?
One more question - if you genuinely believe that an EU-wide armed force, made up of members of EU member states' armed forces would be a bad thing, would you agree that it's far better to stay in the EU in order to prevent its formation, rather than run away from it, in the hope they stay on our side?
I suspect the EU will come to its senses when it has a cold, hard look at how much it would cost to assemble an armed force that could stand toe to toe with Russia for more than 36 hours. The capability gap of European armed forces without US and UK participation is absolutely enormous.
The EU are happy to spend millions on promoting European values (whatever they are). I don't see anything like the same same enthusiasm to spend cash, steel and blood to defend European values.
I'm not sure NATO could have done much better during the Cold War if it became hot without going nuclear.
In those days NATO could unequivocally rely on the US. Think Reagan and George Bush Snr. Trump is much less concerned with Europe so it makes sense for Europeans to have their own collective and independent defence capability.
I am not sure that there is a need for blood and steel. Although that is an option. Remember that France has a truly independent nuclear capability. Also there are other forms of warfare that can be deployed against a potential adversary.
It certainly couldn't as it is structured today. I've seen reports that estimate current NATO forces as currently deployed in Europe would last about 60 hours against Russia in a full on Baltic invasion.
France has a policy of strictly minimum deterrence, the smallest number of weapons to maintain a plausible threat. It has 300 deployable nuclear warheads, mostly strategic and sub launched with only limited tactical type weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons were a central part of NATO's cold war deterrent against overwhelming Russian numbers. I used to know a guy in the army whose job when the balloon went up was basically to sit in a hole in the woods and call down a battlefield nuclear strike on his own position when the time came. As they say, f@ck that for a game of soldiers!
As for other forms of warfare, the west is already way behind Russia, China and even North Korea in cyber warfare, they have thousands and thousands deployed on this. The latest NATO exercise in the Baltic saw all sorts of interference and aggravation from Russian electronic warfare, full spectrum from hacking, phone phishing, to GPS blocking and spooking. We are woefully undermanned in this field.
The west can do serious damage to Russia financially, but the EU has hitched themselves to Gazprom's wagon so don't expect too much on that front.
I quite agree. Europe should be more afraid of cyber attacks from Russia than tanks and war machines. I predict they are more likely to undermine democracy and economic institutions like the EU. Oooohhh!
One of the first things Russia did when they invaded Crimea was to jam the mobile phone network and cut of internet connections. They practically have built in access to all Ukrainian comms as they installed the whole thing in the first place and are still persistently attacking Ukrainian government and military networks, which are riddled with Russian malware now.
For the EU read the British and then you have the believers (leavers) and unbelievers (remainders). When the prophecy of the dead arising and bringing with them cattle and food didn't materialise, it was the fault of the unbelievers for not getting behind it.
Comments
For hard Brexiters to use the soft Brexiters in their statements justifying us leaving under WTO rules is about as undemocratic as you can get.
Your real beef here should be with Cameron and not the people that were forced to vote Ill informed on something that wasn't really high on their list of priorities.
I'm afraid prattling on about polls just sounds like the team that hit the post 20 times but lost 1-0.
You're right, there was no hard or soft Brexit on the ballot so May is correct. the 52% of the voters voted leave and we're leaving so all the leavers need to stop moaning as accept that this deal is the will of the people and accept it. You won, get over it.
Some people think Corbyn is the devil incarnate but seriously? A Tory promoting starvation to get her way?
Maybe she thinks 'it worked in the Potato famine it can work again'.
Right now however chite Labour might look, they are marshmallows compared to the evil Tories and their supporters.
As I understood it Russias superiority over Europe is in the availability of its armed forces and armour on the ground and close to the border, back in the Soviet era Tactical battlefield nukes were supposed to equalise this problem. I cant see why this would have changed that much, although Eastern Europeans might not be happy about that kind of solution.
I don't see why an EU army is a bad idea either given the way it would likely be set up as a coalition of national armies/units rather than a tool of some central administration. Similarly with a lot of the EU pooling of resources it makes us less divided against a real potential threat - recently highlighted as being Russia.
What really scares me is the development of hypersonic missiles and how much China, Russia et al are investing in that area and of course that has implication for missile based nuclear deterrents
Watching the debate and highlights of the Select committee for exiting the EU I can honestly say that MP's are lying toads & can't answer a simple question. 3 times yesterday a Government minister was asked to agree that although we can agree & even sign trade deals after March 29th next year none can actually start until will leave the Customs Union post implementation period. All he did was stuck to his prepared text....it was a simple Yes/No question ffs!!! Fyi...the answer is no. So if a trade deal with the EU takes 5 years to sort out (about average according to those itk) then we woukd not be able to do anything until 2024.
And they want us to agree this ???
Similarly Ollie Robins & our 3rd Secretary of State for leaving the EU weren't straight with the committee either....esp when Hilary Benn was questioning them. Neither could put a date on when the Implementation period would end.....despite saying it was only temporay & "ideally" would cease at the end of 2020. Put YOUR signature to it then.....not on your nelly. Then it ain't written in stone then.
We're being run by a bunch of numpties.
The stuff of nightmares actually.
The self regard they all have 'in this house' is astonishing.
Do the buggers even do any actual work?
I don't think UK forces have acted in isolation in any prolonged armed conflict since the Falklands in the early 80's(?). As others have pointed out we are already full and active members of other collaborative armed forces or security agencies. No one is clammering for us to leave Nato are they?
Yet Leavers shout about this, theoretical, sharing of armed forces as if; 1. It's actually possible against a countries will, which it isn't whilst countries still retain their veto and 2. Other countries are, unfairly, after our protection and resources when the reality is, they may well be better resourced in some areas...and us in others. Compare for example the French and UK navy.
It's just "noise" appealing to our jingoistic side rather than where we should have been focussed e.g. what day-to-day "benefits" will Brexit actually bring?
speaking or commenting a lot of sense.
Most of the Remainers on here seem Paranoid!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Cape_Colony_from_1806_to_1870#Xhosa_cattle-killing_movement_and_famine_(1854-1858)
For the EU read the British and then you have the believers (leavers) and unbelievers (remainders). When the prophecy of the dead arising and bringing with them cattle and food didn't materialise, it was the fault of the unbelievers for not getting behind it.
https://www.thejournal.ie/brexit-threat-food-shortages-ireland-4381228-Dec2018/?utm_source=twitter_short