Brexit negotiations

karlypants wrote:British beef is set to start being exported to China again which can only be a good thing.

Yes Macron negotiated an end to the Chinese embargo on beef imports when he was there last month. Nothing to do with Brexit - sure you knew that though.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

BoltonTillIDie wrote:These also dont live in Britain: Stephen Hawking, Barack Obama

Hawking lives in Cambridge no? Not that it’s partiucalrly important.

Yes I am pretty sure he does but actual facts are not important to brexit fans.

Xmiles will only be happy when the country is on its knees and fighting over the last apple in the street.

He'll be the one saying "I told you so!" just before drinking his own piss.

Bollotom2014 wrote:

   I voted to leave as I didn't want an all encompassing EU Superstate.

Any reason to think that would happen? 

No need to quote your grades in reply.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Bollotom2014 wrote:

   I voted to leave as I didn't want an all encompassing EU Superstate.

Any reason to think that would happen? 

No need to quote your grades in reply.

EU army, to name but one ?

As that doesn’t exist I’m not going to accept it as proof I’m afraid.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Bollotom2014 wrote:

   I voted to leave as I didn't want an all encompassing EU Superstate.

Any reason to think that would happen? 

No need to quote your grades in reply.

Chief eurocrat Jean-Claude Juncker, in lockstep with French president Emmanuel Macron, has put forward ambitious plans for a superstate including a eurozone budget and EU army. (Express)
 
Jean-Claude Juncker has been accused of proposing “the blueprint for a United States of Europe” with vast centralised powers to be agreed at a special summit the day after Brexit. (Times)
 
And others. And I agree not to quote my grades. Oh aye. I've worked in France, Germany, Sweden and Iceland and I can tell you that lots of others in those countries are fearful of how this EU group are progressing. 
   Now you tell me why there will not be a EU superstate, and no need to quote your grades, I think I know them already

Despite rags like the Express’s claims, the EU is not and never will be a dictatorship. So what you’ve posted is one, fedarilist Europhiles wish, this is not the only view in the EU.

There is, of course, a wish in the EU to deepen the links of the single market (see the 5 presidents report) this would have actually been massively beneficial to the services industry and the city of London, but had we not wanted to be a part of it, our special opt out status would have protected us. You wouldn’t read about facts like that in the Express though, and the distortion of facts is half the issue.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Despite rags like the Express’s claims, the EU is not and never will be a dictatorship. So what you’ve posted is one, fedarilist Europhiles wish, this is not the only view in the EU.

There is, of course, a wish in the EU to deepen the links of the single market (see the 5 presidents report) this would have actually been massively beneficial to the services industry and the city of London, but had we not wanted to be a part of it, our special opt out status would have protected us. You wouldn’t read about facts like that in the Express though, and the distortion of facts is half the issue.

Distortions can be considered as those facts that do not comply with the holders views. Others, who are not working with entrenched ideas, and interpretations, might regard them as variations of views, presented so as the whole can be considered, instead of a comparison to specific 'acceptable' points. Repeatedly damning reports from specific sources, because the holder has a biased view of that source, indicates that the holder themselves have a narrow field of vision/consideration, and may not grasp the wider points being made.

gloswhite wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Despite rags like the Express’s claims, the EU is not and never will be a dictatorship. So what you’ve posted is one, fedarilist Europhiles wish, this is not the only view in the EU.

There is, of course, a wish in the EU to deepen the links of the single market (see the 5 presidents report) this would have actually been massively beneficial to the services industry and the city of London, but had we not wanted to be a part of it, our special opt out status would have protected us. You wouldn’t read about facts like that in the Express though, and the distortion of facts is half the issue.

Distortions can be considered as those facts that do not comply with the holders views. Others, who are not working with entrenched ideas, and interpretations, might regard them as variations of views, presented so as the whole can be considered, instead of a comparison to specific 'acceptable' points. Repeatedly damning reports from specific sources, because the holder has a biased view of that source, indicates that the holder themselves have a narrow field of vision/consideration, and may not grasp the wider points being made.

I can't agree with your definition of distortion as "facts that do not comply with the holders views" but get your point about views. I think leaving the EU is a mistake and will be bad for most people in Britain. That is a view not a fact. However the Express, Sun and Mail have a history of printing lies and distortions about the EU (e.g. straight bananas, renaming Bombay mix, Euro notes make you impotent, etc) and it is entirely reasonable to be very sceptical about anything they say about the EU because of their bias.

It’s a fact we had an opt out clause, simple as that.

Fair enough, my description of distortion was merely for some posters who cannot, and will not, accept even the slightest variation of what they think. Have to say, our press, and the BBC reporters, are pretty pathetic at times, but surely we're big enough and ugly enough to recognise when the silly season statements are made.

Bollotom2014 wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Bollotom2014 wrote:

   I voted to leave as I didn't want an all encompassing EU Superstate.

Any reason to think that would happen? 

No need to quote your grades in reply.

Chief eurocrat Jean-Claude Juncker, in lockstep with French president Emmanuel Macron, has put forward ambitious plans for a superstate including a eurozone budget and EU army. (Express)
 
Jean-Claude Juncker has been accused of proposing “the blueprint for a United States of Europe” with vast centralised powers to be agreed at a special summit the day after Brexit. (Times)
 
And others. And I agree not to quote my grades. Oh aye. I've worked in France, Germany, Sweden and Iceland and I can tell you that lots of others in those countries are fearful of how this EU group are progressing. 
   Now you tell me why there will not be a EU superstate, and no need to quote your grades, I think I know them already

Bollotom can you explain to me why a European military would be a bad thing given that we already contribute to the UN force? 

I would have thought that spreading the cost would reduce the burden on British taxpayers and only today the National Audit Office has announced that the MOD's procurement budget for the next 10 years is "unrealistic and unaffordable" so wouldn't subsuming the MOD into a pan-Europe force be a reasonable solution?

Honest question - just want to know the logic.

In the past, in my experience, any organisation that included the British military, tends to lean on, indeed, depend on, the British soldier, (all services), and their professionalism, when something happens. Apart from the UK always willing to commit them, they are, (were?), regarded as the best trained, and fighting forces, which would manifest itself in operations. 
Why have a European managed military, when NATO is already in place, alongside the UN? What would the difference be, other than letting a bunch of people who take years to make a decision, run an Army? We all know that the Russians, (again) are the main, and biggest threat. Try to imagine what would happen if things became strained, and the newly formed EU military machine lurched into action. (Whilst doing this, consider how they bodged the refugee crisis). 
I guarantee that if they treated Russia like they are treating the UK, in these Brexit talks, the proverbial would hit the fan very quickly, or their defence will grind to a halt whilst they discuss things.

I can only echo Glos' post and as a serving officer I have to be extremely careful as to what I post on a public forum. However, Lusty asked me to explain why a EU military would be a bad thing. In simplest terms and within my knowledge which is also in the public domain.

Despite Germany and The Netherlands having links, these are the only two EU nations with some integration (Since 1990s). There are other nations within the EU that don’t want an EU military arm, or won’t work one with the other. Germany has long been building an EU army in an almost secret way, like they did pre-WW2.
   We, UK, work hand in hand with various other EU nations forces and always have done while keeping our own Chain of Command and at times there have been language problems. This can lead to massive errors when faced with front line action.
    The complications of Chain of Command where one nation may control the forces of other nations.
    The possibility of wrongful orders being given as some EU nations only pay lip service to The Geneva Convention.
    The possibility of one nation’s troops being used for front line ops while others take a seat.
    The possibility of some nations committing atrocities when the Chain of Command is UK, as a for instance.
    The costs borne by the likes of UK, Germany, France and Italy will still be very high while most non-net contributors to the EU will get a free ride. And who will decide what equipment to buy as some countries have differing requirements to others? 
Lots of deeper discussion would be needed to clarify some points but I am unable to expand on these.

Bollotom2014 wrote:I can only echo Glos' post and as a serving officer I have to be extremely careful as to what I post on a public forum. However, Lusty asked me to explain why a EU military would be a bad thing. In simplest terms and within my knowledge which is also in the public domain.

Despite Germany and The Netherlands having links, these are the only two EU nations with some integration (Since 1990s). There are other nations within the EU that don’t want an EU military arm, or won’t work one with the other. Germany has long been building an EU army in an almost secret way, like they did pre-WW2.
   We, UK, work hand in hand with various other EU nations forces and always have done while keeping our own Chain of Command and at times there have been language problems. This can lead to massive errors when faced with front line action.
    The complications of Chain of Command where one nation may control the forces of other nations.
    The possibility of wrongful orders being given as some EU nations only pay lip service to The Geneva Convention.
    The possibility of one nation’s troops being used for front line ops while others take a seat.
    The possibility of some nations committing atrocities when the Chain of Command is UK, as a for instance.
    The costs borne by the likes of UK, Germany, France and Italy will still be very high while most non-net contributors to the EU will get a free ride. And who will decide what equipment to buy as some countries have differing requirements to others? 
Lots of deeper discussion would be needed to clarify some points but I am unable to expand on these.

Thanks for this (both)

Obviously there would be a teething problems in the organisation of such a  force and there would be a great deal to sort out, but if we really have the best trained forces that's a saleable product/service with which we could negotiate an improved deal. 
Any such force would have to agree the level of contribution of each participating country and if we are currently the strongest, couldn't we agree to protect countries that aren't contributing as much - effectively protection money paid pro rata to contribution? And couldn't we raise money by providing training to other parts of the new force rather than staying a massive cost to the UK economy? We have the facilities, knowledge and people so why not work our assets better?
As regards procurement it has long been recognised that the MoD is one of the worst procuring organisations going and they get away with stuff that the NHS or Councils would get publicly slaughtered for often paying two or three times over the odds. Needs for different forces may vary but that would resolve itself very quickly as the structure of the new organisation was sorted out. Once it's established who is doing what and what they need we could then use the massive purchasing power of the EU to slash the cost.
Which would mean more money for education and the NHS etc...

Bollotom2014 wrote:I can only echo Glos' post and as a serving officer I have to be extremely careful as to what I post on a public forum. However, Lusty asked me to explain why a EU military would be a bad thing. In simplest terms and within my knowledge which is also in the public domain.

Despite Germany and The Netherlands having links, these are the only two EU nations with some integration (Since 1990s). There are other nations within the EU that don’t want an EU military arm, or won’t work one with the other. Germany has long been building an EU army in an almost secret way, like they did pre-WW2.
   We, UK, work hand in hand with various other EU nations forces and always have done while keeping our own Chain of Command and at times there have been language problems. This can lead to massive errors when faced with front line action.
    The complications of Chain of Command where one nation may control the forces of other nations.
    The possibility of wrongful orders being given as some EU nations only pay lip service to The Geneva Convention.
    The possibility of one nation’s troops being used for front line ops while others take a seat.
    The possibility of some nations committing atrocities when the Chain of Command is UK, as a for instance.
    The costs borne by the likes of UK, Germany, France and Italy will still be very high while most non-net contributors to the EU will get a free ride. And who will decide what equipment to buy as some countries have differing requirements to others? 
Lots of deeper discussion would be needed to clarify some points but I am unable to expand on these.

Looks like a list of why it won’t happen to me.

Props James O'Brien for making this parallel:

Brexit fits neatly into Marx’s opiate of the people theory: no matter what problems & privations we have to endure in this world, the rewards in the next world make it all worthwhile. You can’t prove it, you just have to believe. It’s why everything’s getting cultier by the day.

Big moment this, little doubt this is a political manoeuvre from Corbyn rather than a sudden adoration of the EU. Don't really see an alternative that satisfies the Irish border question though and glad to see a clear distinction in policy now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43189878

T.R.O.Y wrote:Big moment this, little doubt this is a political manoeuvre from Corbyn rather than a sudden adoration of the EU. Don't really see an alternative that satisfies the Irish border question though and glad to see a clear distinction in policy now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43189878  

If he wants Brexit in all but name only then why isn't he fighting to prevent Brexit happening in the first place?