EPTNo one cared about an EU army until Russia launched an invasion of its neighbour.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 500
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21755 Posts
No one cared about an EU army until Russia launched an invasion of its neighbour. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Your posts keep making it look like you're claiming Germany and the group it leads plans to protect its tangible interests now instead of just gradually increasing the cooperation inside the group that may or may not lead to to something helpful in the more distant future. "Making it look like" is cute. It's a pretty common idea between really stupid dipshits that the EU is just another way for germany to create the fourth Reich. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
The EU is far too big to be dominated by one nation, Germany or any other. It would be like saying "California is dominated the US" is bullshit as well. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20299 Posts
Good turnout here | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21755 Posts
| ||
|
Banaora
Germany234 Posts
Michael Hesseltine speaking right now. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
wow. Impressive speech by the old guy. | ||
KwarK
United States42887 Posts
On March 23 2019 18:40 Acrofales wrote: (1) the EU doesn't see the UK as an enemy. More like a friend who did LSD and now thinks he's the king of Narnia, and maybe it's getting a bit tiresom babysitting him. (2) no idea what the UK thinks, but if they see the EU as an enemy, they are slightly crazier than I thought. Half the UK appreciates stuff like an end to The Troubles and the EU Human Rights while the other half thinks the EU stole all the bendy bananas. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42887 Posts
On March 24 2019 00:04 m4ini wrote: "Making it look like" is cute. It's a pretty common idea between really stupid dipshits that the EU is just another way for germany to create the fourth Reich. The irony being that this whole affair shows that the UK probably isn’t capable of running itself and probably would run better under German management. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On March 23 2019 21:49 Sent. wrote: jerks will do what jerks will do, that's unavoidable.Your posts keep making it look like you're claiming Germany and the group it leads plans to protect its tangible interests now instead of just gradually increasing the cooperation inside the group that may or may not lead to to something helpful in the more distant future. You also make it look like you're suggesting Germans being at it is something sinister. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, I'm saying that's how it looks in the eyes of "uninitiated". If you want to avoid the knee-jerk reaction posts you have to clarify Germans being at it means just them becoming an independent power instead of maintaining status quo. Or, if you believe it means something else, explain what you think it means. quoting world leaders: - "Mitterrand warned Thatcher that reunification would result in Germany gaining more European influence than Hitler ever had. His gloomy forecasts included a return of the "bad" Germans, according to previously secret notes made by Thatcher's foreign policy adviser, Charles Powell. - Mrs Thatcher to Mr Gorbachev: “I am convinced that reunification needs a long transition period. All Europe is watching this not without a degree of fear, remembering very well who started the two world wars.” or: “We do not want a united Germany,” she said. “This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security.” - Politicians who met Mr Gorbachev's advisers around Europe “say in unison that nobody wants a unified Germany”. Astonishingly, he noted, in France Mr Mitterrand was even thinking of a military alliance with Russia to stop it, “camouflaged as a joint use of armies to fight natural disasters”. - In April 1990, five months after the wall came down, Mr Attali said that the spectre of reunification was causing nightmares among France’s politicians. The documents quote him telling Mr Mitterrand that he would “fly off to live on Mars” if this happened. there's no way that shit didn't or doesn't resonate with other politicians; past, present or future ones. it is a fear that will be long lasting and i didn't invent it. the blank, dismissive attitudes in here make for fodder for the ignore list and nothing more. to (some of)your points: France used its army to fuck with Mali insurgents, Italy used its military to defend some digs/dams in middle east; if Germany had an army(that could or that would be allowed to operate as standalone) it would've went in Syria, 100%(these days i'm thinking, Venezuela could be on the list too). for now, they're just making an army. the future will tell us what for but at the most basic level, armies kill people; there's just no way around that. they're preparing to kill people. (note: yes, in a corporate driven world, an EU army used as a deterrent is a futile non-issue here. you don't build an army to flex at the russians(especially when you're still making deals with them), you build one to use it.) | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
Her Deal Revoke Article 50 Would make more sense and then maybe, the EU will let us have time for that and in theory, maybe there is enough time for that to happen before 30th June..maybe? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21755 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21755 Posts
The EU has given you 22nd May if you agree to May's Deal Or 12th April if you don't. Because the week of the 12th April the UK needs to let the EU know if they will have EU elections. And 23rd May is when said elections would be held. Maybe if the UK decides they will definitely leave they can get an extension past 22nd May and not hold elections. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21755 Posts
| ||
|
Xophy
Germany79 Posts
On March 24 2019 02:32 xM(Z wrote: jerks will do what jerks will do, that's unavoidable. quoting world leaders: - "Mitterrand warned Thatcher that reunification would result in Germany gaining more European influence than Hitler ever had. His gloomy forecasts included a return of the "bad" Germans, according to previously secret notes made by Thatcher's foreign policy adviser, Charles Powell. - Mrs Thatcher to Mr Gorbachev: “I am convinced that reunification needs a long transition period. All Europe is watching this not without a degree of fear, remembering very well who started the two world wars.” or: “We do not want a united Germany,” she said. “This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security.” - Politicians who met Mr Gorbachev's advisers around Europe “say in unison that nobody wants a unified Germany”. Astonishingly, he noted, in France Mr Mitterrand was even thinking of a military alliance with Russia to stop it, “camouflaged as a joint use of armies to fight natural disasters”. - In April 1990, five months after the wall came down, Mr Attali said that the spectre of reunification was causing nightmares among France’s politicians. The documents quote him telling Mr Mitterrand that he would “fly off to live on Mars” if this happened. there's no way that shit didn't or doesn't resonate with other politicians; past, present or future ones. it is a fear that will be long lasting and i didn't invent it. the blank, dismissive attitudes in here make for fodder for the ignore list and nothing more. to (some of)your points: France used its army to fuck with Mali insurgents, Italy used its military to defend some digs/dams in middle east; if Germany had an army(that could or that would be allowed to operate as standalone) it would've went in Syria, 100%(these days i'm thinking, Venezuela could be on the list too). for now, they're just making an army. the future will tell us what for but at the most basic level, armies kill people; there's just no way around that. they're preparing to kill people. (note: yes, in a corporate driven world, an EU army used as a deterrent is a futile non-issue here. you don't build an army to flex at the russians(especially when you're still making deals with them), you build one to use it.) Wait, do you seriously believe that Germany is building an army to attack someone? That is so hilarious I don't even know what to respond to that ... First of all, Germany is trying to spend as little money for its army as possible. So little that other agents (e.g. Trump/US and NATO) are basically trying to force us to spend more money on it. Second, do you have any idea at all how difficult it is to get the parliaments vote for a foreign use of the army? Because this is necessary in order to send the army to, say, Syria. Which is one of the reasons why Germany is almost never involved in such conflicts (even if a military intervention would possibly be reasonable in some of the cases). So please do not try to tell me that we are building some army in order to enforce our interests in other parts of the world like the US or Russia do! | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11547 Posts
| ||
|
Xophy
Germany79 Posts
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/03/19/no-deal-brexit-may-be-unlawful-a-view-from-rose-slowe/ Basically, the position of the author of the article is that withdrawal from the EU can only be lawful if parliament has "legislated to approve the terms of a withdrawal agreement or to authorise withdrawal without any agreement". According to the author, this is not given by parliament legislating the Notification of Withdrawal. In turn, that means, that if no agreement is reached by 12 April, Article 50 will simply lapse and the UK would remain in the EU. I do not know to which extent this perspective will be accepted, but I found it to be a rather interesting point of view. The YouTube video basically summarizes the paper nicely for those who do not bother to read it. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
On March 24 2019 02:54 Pandemona wrote: Like how Tom Watson actually made a good point here. Back May's deal if she agrees to another Referendum which would be; Her Deal Revoke Article 50 Would make more sense and then maybe, the EU will let us have time for that and in theory, maybe there is enough time for that to happen before 30th June..maybe? A referendum between May,s deal or revoke article 50 would be very unfair towards the leave camp. They have almost no change of winning that vote but I can see it happening just because of that. Fair would be a choice on how to do the brexit,as the choice for brexit has already been made -May,s deal -No deal -softer brexit like Norway option. Or parliament sidestepping May to take control,i don't really see what that solves as they don't want to accept her deal nor a no deal brexit and new negotiations seems kinda pointless. Maybe sidestepping May and then hold a 2nd referendum with a long delay. I don't know we will know soon now,maybe lol. | ||
| ||
