EU army - Farage yet again seems to be right

[alfie2244]

ralphrj said:

alfie2244 said:

Do you really believe that we would not have been dragged in one way or another?

Yes, for 2 obvious reasons.

1. The EU doesn't have the power to create an army. It needs to be granted that power by the member states. The UK would have had to have granted the EU that power.

2. UK law prohibits the transfer of military power to the EU without a referendum result in favour of doing so.


We could have joined an EU army willingly as long as the UK PM, UK Parliament and UK public all agreed it was the thing to do. We couldn't be "dragged in" unwillingly.

Naive IMO. Well all I can add is good job you are being "dragged out" of the EU unwillingly so we will never know.

[MDMetal]

dandarez said:

don4l said:

pim said:

Wishful thinking don.

Why because we left or are leaving should the rest of Europe fall apart?

The E.U existed before the UK joined.

No, it didn't.

The EU was formed by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

We joined in 1973.

Watching the EU State of the Union this morning, I can see it falling apart!

Juncker calling for the EU Army.

Some idiot said he didn't say the word 'ARMY'.

No.
He called for the EU to have the formation of a
common military force. 'We must have a European headquarters'.

Bit like the Japanese aircraft carrier that is not really an aircraft carrier

...because it has no aircraft on it!

Juncker looked like he wanted the ground to open and swallow him after Farage and Le Pen spoke.
No time for her, but she made good points about them (EU gits at helm) being more concerned about the Euro than the people.

The EU is now on a course to fall. Elections up-coming will provide the dynamite.

This was what I suspected would happen, to survive the EU does need to head towards a single country with a single army etc. Problem is a lot of the newcomers wanted in for the economic benefits that were the foundation of the bloc, sadly nobody told them all what the secret long term plan is and now a lot of them are realising that they don't want full integration. They need to formalise a two tier approach and bump out all the naysayers leaving a core countries

[steveT350C]

As an aside, just seen this at the bottom of page 19 from link I gave above...

"I therefore call on each of the 27 leaders making their way to Bratislava to think of three reasons why we need the European Union."

Remember this....?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/queen-a...

[SPS]

Bit like the Japanese aircraft carrier that is not really an aircraft carrier

...because it has no aircraft on it!
A bit like the RN then!!

[Mothersruin]

MDMetal said:

dandarez said:

don4l said:

pim said:

Wishful thinking don.

Why because we left or are leaving should the rest of Europe fall apart?

The E.U existed before the UK joined.

No, it didn't.

The EU was formed by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

We joined in 1973.

Watching the EU State of the Union this morning, I can see it falling apart!

Juncker calling for the EU Army.

Some idiot said he didn't say the word 'ARMY'.

No.
He called for the EU to have the formation of a
common military force. 'We must have a European headquarters'.

Bit like the Japanese aircraft carrier that is not really an aircraft carrier

...because it has no aircraft on it!

Juncker looked like he wanted the ground to open and swallow him after Farage and Le Pen spoke.
No time for her, but she made good points about them (EU gits at helm) being more concerned about the Euro than the people.

The EU is now on a course to fall. Elections up-coming will provide the dynamite.

This was what I suspected would happen, to survive the EU does need to head towards a single country with a single army etc. Problem is a lot of the newcomers wanted in for the economic benefits that were the foundation of the bloc, sadly nobody told them all what the secret long term plan is and now a lot of them are realising that they don't want full integration. They need to formalise a two tier approach and bump out all the naysayers leaving a core countries

Germany?

[irocfan]

ralphrj said:

alfie2244 said:

Do you really believe that we would not have been dragged in one way or another?

Yes, for 2 obvious reasons.

1. The EU doesn't have the power to create an army. It needs to be granted that power by the member states. The UK would have had to have granted the EU that power.

2. UK law prohibits the transfer of military power to the EU without a referendum result in favour of doing so.


We could have joined an EU army willingly as long as the UK PM, UK Parliament and UK public all agreed it was the thing to do. We couldn't be "dragged in" unwillingly.

there's 'unwilling' and 'unwilling' - we may be unwilling to join but when the argument of "... think of the financial benefits of an EU army..." is made I suspect you'd see us signed up lickety spit

[ralphrj]

irocfan said:

there's 'unwilling' and 'unwilling' - we may be unwilling to join but when the argument of "... think of the financial benefits of an EU army..." is made I suspect you'd see us signed up lickety spit

You would still need to convince the electorate and get them to back it in a referendum.

[BertieWooster]

steveT350C said:

From the horse's mouth, page 19....

http://europa.eu/rapid/attachment/SPEECH-16-3043/e...

Reading that was actually quite frightening. Juncker seems to be a complete megalomaniac.

TeamD said:

"Solidarity Corps" eh? mumble...cough...Hitler Youth

My thoughts exactly.

[ATG]

alfie2244 said:

ralphrj said:

alfie2244 said:

Do you really believe that we would not have been dragged in one way or another?

Yes, for 2 obvious reasons.

1. The EU doesn't have the power to create an army. It needs to be granted that power by the member states. The UK would have had to have granted the EU that power.

2. UK law prohibits the transfer of military power to the EU without a referendum result in favour of doing so.


We could have joined an EU army willingly as long as the UK PM, UK Parliament and UK public all agreed it was the thing to do. We couldn't be "dragged in" unwillingly.

Naive IMO. Well all I can add is good job you are being "dragged out" of the EU unwillingly so we will never know.

Naive? The onus on you is to describe how we could have been dragged in. Ralphr has explained clearly why we couldn't.

If you can't explain why he is wrong then you are demonstrating that your opinion is not considered; you haven't sat down and thought it through, you've just jumped to a conclusion. Calling him naive is an incredibly weak response.

[alfie2244]

ATG said:

alfie2244 said:

ralphrj said:

alfie2244 said:

Do you really believe that we would not have been dragged in one way or another?

Yes, for 2 obvious reasons.

1. The EU doesn't have the power to create an army. It needs to be granted that power by the member states. The UK would have had to have granted the EU that power.

2. UK law prohibits the transfer of military power to the EU without a referendum result in favour of doing so.


We could have joined an EU army willingly as long as the UK PM, UK Parliament and UK public all agreed it was the thing to do. We couldn't be "dragged in" unwillingly.

Naive IMO. Well all I can add is good job you are being "dragged out" of the EU unwillingly so we will never know.

Naive? The onus on you is to describe how we could have been dragged in. Ralphr has explained clearly why we couldn't.

If you can't explain why he is wrong then you are demonstrating that your opinion is not considered; you haven't sat down and thought it through, you've just jumped to a conclusion. Calling him naive is an incredibly weak response.

Weak or not you are both naive IMO. Are you saying we would have been the only member not in the EU army whilst the other 27 were in it?..........but irrelevant now as we are leaving anyway.

I assume you know where this plaque is fitted.

[dbdb]

don4l said:

cookie118 said:

It's funny-on a second reading 'EU Army' is actually a phrase used by the telegraph.
No-one (not even the ex chief of general staff) mentions the phrase.

It is irrelevant now, as Britain is leaving the EU.

BTW, the phrase "EU Army" gets 55,200,000 hits in Google. Most of them are not from the Telegraph.

I have just Googled this since I thought 55,200,000 hits was a HUGE number of hits for "EU army" - far more than I expected there to be. There are actually only 283,000 hits for EU army inside quote marks - which is much closer to the number I expected. To put that into contest, my own username put into Google inside quote marks delivers more than that - "dbdb" - 390,000 hits, almost all of them irrelevant to me of course.

Putting EU army into Google without quote marks now gets 55,400,000 hits - but then I would expect a big number for that search. You haven't narrowed the search. It is how search terms Google work.

[ATG]

alfie2244 said:

Weak or not you are both naive IMO. Are you saying we would have been the only member not in the EU army whilst the other 27 were in it?..........but irrelevant now as we are leaving anyway.

I assume you know where this plaque is fitted.

So you're still just rambling incoherently.

If you can't address ralphr's point, why are you responding to it?

[alfie2244]

ATG said:

alfie2244 said:

Weak or not you are both naive IMO. Are you saying we would have been the only member not in the EU army whilst the other 27 were in it?..........but irrelevant now as we are leaving anyway.

I assume you know where this plaque is fitted.

So you're still just rambling incoherently.

If you can't address ralphr's point, why are you responding to it?

Sorry I didn't realise you were in charge of this forum.......will you stay on as leader once we have Brexited?

[CrutyRammers]

I like how the remainer's argument has changed from "don't be stupid, the EU doesn't want an army" to "well it wants one, but we wouldn't be part of it". As is standard with all things EU. First outright denial, then a subtle rephrasing of the argument, usually followed by "well yes we'll need to be part of it, so that we can have a say in how it runs".
That's why we're leaving fellas.

[anonymous-user]

alfie2244 said:

ATG said:

alfie2244 said:

ralphrj said:

alfie2244 said:

Do you really believe that we would not have been dragged in one way or another?

Yes, for 2 obvious reasons.

1. The EU doesn't have the power to create an army. It needs to be granted that power by the member states. The UK would have had to have granted the EU that power.

2. UK law prohibits the transfer of military power to the EU without a referendum result in favour of doing so.


We could have joined an EU army willingly as long as the UK PM, UK Parliament and UK public all agreed it was the thing to do. We couldn't be "dragged in" unwillingly.

Naive IMO. Well all I can add is good job you are being "dragged out" of the EU unwillingly so we will never know.

Naive? The onus on you is to describe how we could have been dragged in. Ralphr has explained clearly why we couldn't.

If you can't explain why he is wrong then you are demonstrating that your opinion is not considered; you haven't sat down and thought it through, you've just jumped to a conclusion. Calling him naive is an incredibly weak response.

Weak or not you are both naive IMO.

Classic conspiracy theorist response. Put up a fabricated idea, see it shot down, then accuse others of being naive for not adhering to the conspiracy theory.

[alfie2244]

Greg66 said:

alfie2244 said:

ATG said:

alfie2244 said:

ralphrj said:

alfie2244 said:

Do you really believe that we would not have been dragged in one way or another?

Yes, for 2 obvious reasons.

1. The EU doesn't have the power to create an army. It needs to be granted that power by the member states. The UK would have had to have granted the EU that power.

2. UK law prohibits the transfer of military power to the EU without a referendum result in favour of doing so.


We could have joined an EU army willingly as long as the UK PM, UK Parliament and UK public all agreed it was the thing to do. We couldn't be "dragged in" unwillingly.

Naive IMO. Well all I can add is good job you are being "dragged out" of the EU unwillingly so we will never know.

Naive? The onus on you is to describe how we could have been dragged in. Ralphr has explained clearly why we couldn't.

If you can't explain why he is wrong then you are demonstrating that your opinion is not considered; you haven't sat down and thought it through, you've just jumped to a conclusion. Calling him naive is an incredibly weak response.

Weak or not you are both naive IMO.

Classic conspiracy theorist response. Put up a fabricated idea, see it shot down, then accuse others of being naive for not adhering to the conspiracy theory.

Hands up...you got me guv.......fair cop...my opinion of what might have happened (and how naive they are) was pure conjecture based on my gut feeling and nothing more (actually included a bit of previous, direct, experience with lying politicians also )....unfortunately you will never be able to prove how wrong I am now that we are leaving.

[JNW1]

CrutyRammers said:

I like how the remainer's argument has changed from "don't be stupid, the EU doesn't want an army" to "well it wants one, but we wouldn't be part of it". As is standard with all things EU. First outright denial, then a subtle rephrasing of the argument, usually followed by "well yes we'll need to be part of it, so that we can have a say in how it runs".
That's why we're leaving fellas.

Agree with much of the above and to me this EU Army idea is just another illustration of how the UK doesn't really share the vision of many of the other EU members. Time and again we're a lone voice in the wilderness either blocking what the others want or using our opt-out to avoid going down a route we don't want to go; the harsh reality is a majority in this country never wanted what the EU has become and that's why we're leaving IMO.

[wc98]

CrutyRammers said:

I like how the remainer's argument has changed from "don't be stupid, the EU doesn't want an army" to "well it wants one, but we wouldn't be part of it". As is standard with all things EU. First outright denial, then a subtle rephrasing of the argument, usually followed by "well yes we'll need to be part of it, so that we can have a say in how it runs".
That's why we're leaving fellas.

spot on, yet some still have a problem bring described as naive.

[irocfan]

JNW1 said:

Agree with much of the above and to me this EU Army idea is just another illustration of how the UK doesn't really share the vision of many of the other EU members. Time and again we're a lone voice in the wilderness either blocking what the others want or using our opt-out to avoid going down a route we don't want to go; the harsh reality is a majority in this country never wanted what the EU has become and that's why we're leaving IMO.

spot on there!

ralphrj said:

irocfan said:

there's 'unwilling' and 'unwilling' - we may be unwilling to join but when the argument of "... think of the financial benefits of an EU army..." is made I suspect you'd see us signed up lickety spit

You would still need to convince the electorate and get them to back it in a referendum.

that's easy enough "... if we don't join the EU army we'll have to lose 'x' regiment, and 'y' parts of the RAF and RN just to be able to have some sort of defence force. In addition joining the EU army will enable us to spend more on the NHS..." BOOM! Job jobbed

[anonymous-user]

dbdb said:

don4l said:

cookie118 said:

It's funny-on a second reading 'EU Army' is actually a phrase used by the telegraph.
No-one (not even the ex chief of general staff) mentions the phrase.

It is irrelevant now, as Britain is leaving the EU.

BTW, the phrase "EU Army" gets 55,200,000 hits in Google. Most of them are not from the Telegraph.

I have just Googled this since I thought 55,200,000 hits was a HUGE number of hits for "EU army" - far more than I expected there to be. There are actually only 283,000 hits for EU army inside quote marks - which is much closer to the number I expected. To put that into contest, my own username put into Google inside quote marks delivers more than that - "dbdb" - 390,000 hits, almost all of them irrelevant to me of course.

Putting EU army into Google without quote marks now gets 55,400,000 hits - but then I would expect a big number for that search. You haven't narrowed the search. It is how search terms Google work.

I just googled Brexit is good. 21 million results. Thank goodness we voted to leave!

Then I googled Brexit is bad. 40.6 million results! We're doomed, because by the power of don4l's logic [sic] google says we are!