• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

They have a combined force at Munster. Which is under the NATO banner. Not the EU. And the individual elements of that force are still, as appropriate, in the separate German and Dutch Armies. Among the same force in Munster are elements from Norway, Spain, Italy, UK and THE UNITED STATES.

So clearly a precursor to the EU army.

I wasn't talking about a training area, I was talking about this sort of thing

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ea-battalion-dutch-navy-integration/79845430/

Of course it could still be something you don't want to believe, and you'll probably repeat your assertion that we would have vetoed it.
But it isn't a fantasy, it's already happening.
 
I'm confused now. So there was propaganda about an EU army. I have (along with others) explained why I don't think it is anything to worry about. And then this post. Do you mean that the EU will integrate an army with or without the UK, whether we were still in the union or not? Just trying to understand your exact point.

My understanding is that they could have had a binding EU Foreign Policy that we are obliged to commit forces to (Under our command)

In other words the UK Parliament may have problems resisting the urges of various warmongers that exist within the undemocratic, corporation serving EU.

People like Blair ... the ME Peace envoy
 
It mattered enough for the story to surface. Although our vote does obviously mean it is effectively a dead story. However, there are a lot of stories flying around (from both sides I will admit). It is almost like the argument is still trying to be won decisively with the vote figures in the book.
 
It mattered enough for the story to surface. Although our vote does obviously mean it is effectively a dead story. However, there are a lot of stories flying around (from both sides I will admit). It is almost like the argument is still trying to be won decisively with the vote figures in the book.


See, we agree on something.
 
I'm confused now. So there was propaganda about an EU army. I have (along with others) explained why I don't think it is anything to worry about. And then this post. Do you mean that the EU will integrate an army with or without the UK, whether we were still in the union or not? Just trying to understand your exact point.

Sorry mate, probably my fault for the confusion.

If we leave the EU then we will not be part of a EU army, but IMO the EU will still form an EU army.
If we don't leave the EU they will expect us to be involved in a EU army.
 
Out if interest THM, what do you want the BREXIT negotiators to achieve?

Is any freedom of movement a no-no?
Is any payment into the EU club a no-no?
Would working completely without trade agreements be acceptable, or must there still be some entry into the free trade area?
What are your feelings on the EU courts and statute?

The die is cast, so we might as well find out what sort of deal would satisfy a (I hope you don't mind me referring to you as such) fairly ardent leave voter.
(This is not some cunning intellectual trap - just interest in what you feel the negotiators have to deliver)
 
Sorry mate, probably my fault for the confusion.

If we leave the EU then we will not be part of a EU army, but IMO the EU will still form an EU army.
If we don't leave the EU they will expect us to be involved in a EU army.

Gotcha. Not sure I totally agree, but time will tell as you say on point one. Point two is now and forever hypothethis.
 
Out if interest THM, what do you want the BREXIT negotiators to achieve?

Is any freedom of movement a no-no?
Is any payment into the EU club a no-no?
Would working completely without trade agreements be acceptable, or must there still be some entry into the free trade area?
What are your feelings on the EU courts and statute?

The die is cast, so we might as well find out what sort of deal would satisfy a (I hope you don't mind me referring to you as such) fairly ardent leave voter.
(This is not some cunning intellectual trap - just interest in what you feel the negotiators have to deliver)

If you are trying to get reasoned debate between THM and the Hyena's I wish you the very best ...

I predict the first Olive statement will appear within ten answers.
 
Out if interest THM, what do you want the BREXIT negotiators to achieve?

Is any freedom of movement a no-no?
Is any payment into the EU club a no-no?
Would working completely without trade agreements be acceptable, or must there still be some entry into the free trade area?
What are your feelings on the EU courts and statute?

The die is cast, so we might as well find out what sort of deal would satisfy a (I hope you don't mind me referring to you as such) fairly ardent leave voter.
(This is not some cunning intellectual trap - just interest in what you feel the negotiators have to deliver)

Complete sovereignty. Immigration brought to a level where our infrastructure can cope and hopefully the disapearence of the EU. I see everyday of my life how the EU doesnt work.
 
You can answer the four points as well if you want. In fact so can anyone really. Plus add in any others you can think of.

Whether one likes it or not this negotiation now has to happen so I would like to know what everyone thought were the important points
 
Complete sovereignty. Immigration brought to a level where our infrastructure can cope and hopefully the disapearence of the EU. I see everyday of my life how the EU doesnt work.

Thanks - got to pop out but will come back to that later and try and get it into some form of tidied up form that fits with all that needs to be negotiated. Should be interesting. Chuck in anything else you think of as well.
 
The concept of an EU Army isn't entirely flawed if it keeps the peace.

Unfortunately, IMO an EU army would undermine deterrence and cripple Nato, weakening European defences when we face increasing threats from Russia, the Middle East and Daesh.

I hope it doesn't happen but I can see some countries using it as a means of cutting their defence expenditure under the guise of merging their defences.
 
Unfortunately, IMO an EU army would undermine deterrence and cripple Nato, weakening European defences when we face increasing threats from Russia, the Middle East and Daesh.

I hope it doesn't happen but I can see some countries using it as a means of cutting their defence expenditure under the guise of merging their defences.

Without a doubt the focus will always be on making money. That's the war machine. It's very profitable.

I am very much for cutting expenditure on weapons.

There is no threat from anybody if you don't attack. That's media manipulation.
 
Its like you were given a tick box and told 'Put a cross here and tomorrow you can have a threesome with Scarlett Johanssen and Kelly Brook'.

You duly do so, get told it was a mirage and yet you crow about how you 'won'. You miss the fact that everyone else is looking at you thinking 'That guy's a $#@!ing gullible $#@!'.


Everything that Leave voters voted for is a mirage.

In fairness you do not know that yet. You can assume it. But you do not know. You can point to that post in 2 or 3 years when its all done and dusted but such a sweeping statement is to hard to say. There is an awful lot of negotiating to do as well as the election of a new Tory leader and possibly a labour leader before we know how much was a mirage and propaganda. On that subject Osborne today has abandoned his surplus targets for 2020 blaming , completely the brexit vote. Now Vis that is the dictionary definition of utter bollocks as his forecasts were so far away from actuals that people have been telling him for a long while that hitting the target was untenable. He has scrapped it now so it gets lost within and possibly blamed on brexit rather than his complete incompetence. There was a fair bit of lying and mirages in the remain campaign to. Just for balance.
 
Osborne targeting a surplus was a load of nonsense anyway, EU or no EU. Absolute bullshit economics.

As he was inextricably linked with D-Cam and they'll surely both be gone in a matter of weeks then that strategy should be binned for good, it's totally discredited anyway. So we may get a positive of Brexit there, credible economics (in a roundabout way). I don't need to agree with everything the Chancellor does but I do expect him to know more about economics than I do.
 
You can answer the four points as well if you want. In fact so can anyone really. Plus add in any others you can think of.

Whether one likes it or not this negotiation now has to happen so I would like to know what everyone thought were the important points

You already have my views. But I would add that ANY brexit plan MUST be accompanied by a plan to improve the infrastructure of the UK to make it fit for the numbers we have with regard to schools , roads , NHS , public transport and Housing.

On the latter I would also state that ALL social housing new build must come with a renewable energy option such as solar panels on the roof to keep bills down and keep greenhouse gasses down. This will also help with utility payments if the person renting is on benefits. I estimate ( very roughly) that they would pay for themselves within 5 years at current rates so its not a huge extra investment but would then ( having about a 25 years lifespan give 20 years where it saves the government money and the tenant money. Thats a win win but its a detail project rather than a headline

The other thing I would like to investigate is log cabin builds on brownfield and certain green belt areas. The reason is that they are cheap to build ( 20-30 k per cabin fully built and insulated) and can be almost fire proofed now. Another very good alternative to house building particularly for renters or first time buyers. Yiou can get a mortgage up to 70% on some log cabins. I would do that leasehold so the land remains the countries and therefore another income generator. Lets face it if you get a house for 40k and then have to pay ground rent of 300 a month its still dirt cheap. Another detail project but one that would be very very quick to implement.

Increase the allowable wattage on electric bikes to 500 w. That would enable an electric bike to do up to 25 mph. That is 5 mph faster than the average speed of a commuter driving in a number of our major cities in rush hour.The average mileage range of such a bike at 30 miles per charge is higher than the 250w current limit and allow anyone over 16 to have one without the need for a licence. Public liability insurance mandatory and available from the government in case of accident. This would encourage more adults to cycle to work. The average commute is constantly increasing but it is estimated most rural places are within 10 miles of a train station. It would encourage greater fitness , reduce gasses and reduce the need for second cars thereby helping reduce monthly costs for people. Again its a detail not a headline. Lots of people wont cycle too far as its too much effort. Electric bikes are now much lighter and the extra power is a very easy option. The cost is £800 to £1000 but easily covered by the government cycle to work scheme that already exists.

If you implemented all three of those while negotiating Brexit families could well be better off significantly and pressure on housing and transport eased in built up areas.

I may be a brexiter but I do not consider myself stupid or socially irresponsible. I am committed to recycling, animal welfare, reducing carbons and greenhouse gases and approve of any ways to get better value public transport, better roads and more usable housing owned by the state to stop unscrupulous landlords ripping the arse out of it in major cities.
 
See - that is all good stuff.

It would be a really interesting experiment to actually get loads of views from both sides of the argument and form some kind of negotiating TWF stance. You know, things we all agree are key, things the Leavers consider are more important, things that the Remainers value. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of negotiations that take place but I think there could be some great debate to be had. Better than just shouting at each other anyway.
 
Back
Top