Muswell Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Quite so. Take back control and stuff the Irish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Archiesgrandad - 2019-02-07 12:31 PM Is there room for a more considered post about the comments Tusk made, without all the bullsh*t and yahoo of the other posting? I am sure that I'm not the only one who is appalled by Tusks outburst. As has been stated elsewhere, the Uk has been one of only two countries that pay in the money that runs the EU, and enables the Tusks and Barniers of the EU to enjoy their fabulous salaries and other perks, and pays the subsidies that have enabled the Macrons and other leaders in the EU to continue to enjoy their time in the limelight.............................AGD It would lend more weight to your arguments, AGD, if you got the basics right! If you follow this link http://tinyurl.com/yb89og3q scroll down to the table that sets out the contributions 2007 - 1013, go to the column titled "Average net contributions" and then click on the "down" button to "sort ascending", you will see who are the actual net contributors. You will also then see that France contributes more than the UK, and that Germany, France, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Finland and Luxemburg, all contribute more than they receive. Try starting again from there. It might also help if you took account of the fact that the primary reason for the existence of the EU was to prevent a repetition the successive wars that had previously destroyed so much of Europe. So I'm sorry, but muttering about what happened 80 years ago, under a radically different world order, is hardly relevant to where we now are. It is where we have come from, and it is why the EU exists - because some far sighted people had the wisdom to learn from that history, not to repeat it. At to Tusk's comment, it was highly undiplomatic - though I thought it very funny - because it was the simple, unadorned, truth (though I can't comment on the "hell" bit!). We have a government that, after two years of failure, has only succeeding in establishing itself as incapable of organising a convivial gathering in a Brewery. The only people in a lather about his comment are those who know he's right, but have invested their trust in the party that presently forms the UK government. Reality check time, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 So the EU has been keeping us safe since WW2? If NATO had known that they could have saved a fortune in Arms expenditure, especially the Americans who must have spent billions of Dollars on Nuclear weapons. Even better, they could have disbanded NATO and sent their troops home. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 I have followed Brexit for over 3 years on this sight and others. The verbal diarrhoea coming from remainers is astounding. Could any of them give3/4 reasons to stay in the EU. Please do not bring up the facile argument about staying longer than 90 days in Europe.Most people don't care about that. Thanks Realist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarveyHeaven Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Realist - 2019-02-09 6:24 AM I have followed Brexit for over 3 years on this sight and others. The verbal diarrhoea coming from remainers is astounding. Could any of them give3/4 reasons to stay in the EU. Please do not bring up the facile argument about staying longer than 90 days in Europe.Most people don't care about that. Thanks Realist 1. An excellent economy and standard of living enjoyed for the last 30 years. 2. Peace in Ireland 3. Shared excellence in scientific research and development 4. Freedom of movement 5. Pet Passports 6. Shared security arrangments to forestall/prevent terrorism 7. Free health care all over the EU That is just for starters. Oh and by the way some people do care about the 90 day rule especially those who have properties in the EU.... only a totally self centred Brexiter wouldn't give a dam....the 'I'm alright Jack' sort of person. YOU CANNOT NAME ONE TRUE HONEST ADVANTAGE FOR LEAVING THE EU BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE. THE BEST YOU CAN DO IS TO PARROT THE USUAL LIES OF THE RIGHT WING PRESS AND THE DREGS OF HUMANITY SUCH AS REES-LOG OR BORIS BULL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 747 - 2019-02-08 7:45 PM So the EU has been keeping us safe since WW2? In the first half of the twentieth century ( and before ) there were regular wars between the countries of Europe. One of the ideas behind the EU was to all get together in a union to end such wars. So - yes - they have kept us safe - from each other ! As there have been no wars between the members of the EU since then - I would say that it has been very successful in that respect. Unfortunately it has been badly run - and the concerns of huge parts of the populations have been ignored - so we have ended up with populism and Brexit. My view was that staying in was the lesser of two evils as I still don't see any day to day benefits of leaving. ( …. and it seems no Brexiteers on this forum can either ). :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Not only the above but our own heads of security and the Police have told us that Brexit will make us less safe as a nation because of the loss of shared security tools and databases. Now add to that the latest approach to avoiding chaos at Dover by the Tories where they are now saying we will just let everything through without checking it. Doesnt sound like taking back control of our borders to me. Im sure Brexiteers had visions of highly trained security with attack dogs and barbed wire fences around our ports but instead it will just be an open gate by the sound of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 malc d - 2019-02-09 9:02 AM 747 - 2019-02-08 7:45 PM So the EU has been keeping us safe since WW2? In the first half of the twentieth century ( and before ) there were regular wars between the countries of Europe. One of the ideas behind the EU was to all get together in a union to end such wars. So - yes - they have kept us safe - from each other ! As there have been no wars between the members of the EU since then - I would say that it has been very successful in that respect. Unfortunately it has been badly run - and the concerns of huge parts of the populations have been ignored - so we have ended up with populism and Brexit. My view was that staying in was the lesser of two evils as I still don't see any day to day benefits of leaving. ( …. and it seems no Brexiteers on this forum can either ). :-| Sorry but I have to disagree. Europe was peaceful apart from the desire of ONE European Nation wanting to dominate the rest of Europe (and beyond). Germany went to war twice and failed to be dominant in Europe ...... ooh, wait a minute. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-07 6:11 PM pelmetman - 2019-02-07 4:49 PM Nope........It just shows how tense and nervous you Remoaners are about what's going to happen in 50 days time :D .......... Perhaps a double Tenna man might be advisable on the 29th ;-) ....... https://www.promofarma.com/tena-pants-maxi-t-grande- You are going to love this one - Donald Tusk Told Theresa May That Jeremy Corbyn's Plan Could Be "A Promising Way" Out Of The Brexit Impasse. https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/tusk-brexit-corbyn So a soft brexit, us still paying in and following, but not contributing to the formulation of, EU rules. You're assuming its a done deal ;-) ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 malc d - 2019-02-09 9:02 AM 747 - 2019-02-08 7:45 PM So the EU has been keeping us safe since WW2? In the first half of the twentieth century ( and before ) there were regular wars between the countries of Europe. One of the ideas behind the EU was to all get together in a union to end such wars. So - yes - they have kept us safe - from each other ! As there have been no wars between the members of the EU since then - I would say that it has been very successful in that respect. Unfortunately it has been badly run - and the concerns of huge parts of the populations have been ignored - so we have ended up with populism and Brexit. My view was that staying in was the lesser of two evils as I still don't see any day to day benefits of leaving. ( …. and it seems no Brexiteers on this forum can either ). :-| You forgot the bit where the EU appears to be trying to provoke a war with Putin *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 747 - 2019-02-09 12:47 PM malc d - 2019-02-09 9:02 AM 747 - 2019-02-08 7:45 PM So the EU has been keeping us safe since WW2? In the first half of the twentieth century ( and before ) there were regular wars between the countries of Europe. One of the ideas behind the EU was to all get together in a union to end such wars. So - yes - they have kept us safe - from each other ! As there have been no wars between the members of the EU since then - I would say that it has been very successful in that respect. Unfortunately it has been badly run - and the concerns of huge parts of the populations have been ignored - so we have ended up with populism and Brexit. My view was that staying in was the lesser of two evils as I still don't see any day to day benefits of leaving. ( …. and it seems no Brexiteers on this forum can either ). :-| Sorry but I have to disagree. Europe was peaceful apart from the desire of ONE European Nation wanting to dominate the rest of Europe (and beyond). Germany went to war twice and failed to be dominant in Europe ...... ooh, wait a minute. 8-) I only made two points : 1) Since the EU was formed there have been no wars between member states. 2) The EU has been badly run by politicians. You say you disagree. Are you disagreeing with both points - or just one. ( p.s. If you really think that Europe was " peaceful " I would suggest you could Google " List of Conflicts in Europe " and read the 20th century section ). :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 malc d - 2019-02-09 2:00 PM 1) Since the EU was formed there have been no wars between member states. Dunno how long that claim will last once they let the Balkans in 8-) ........ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/europe-crisis-balkans-eu-membership-russia-china-turkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 747 - 2019-02-08 7:45 PM So the EU has been keeping us safe since WW2? If NATO had known that they could have saved a fortune in Arms expenditure, especially the Americans who must have spent billions of Dollars on Nuclear weapons. Even better, they could have disbanded NATO and sent their troops home. 8-) Recognising what other posters have said above, no, and I did not claim it had. However, I think you have misunderstood the difference between NATO and the EU. For NATO see here: http://tinyurl.com/nlmqzvv It has a long and evolving history, and was initially born out of WW2, just as was the EEC/EU. There the similarities end. NATO is a defensive organisation in which all members pledge mutual support to others should any be attacked by external forces. Before NATO is engaged, there has to have been an external aggressor. It is a defensive war fighting alliance, through which the member states pledge their own forces into a common force. If you follow its changes as it has evolved, and the evolution of its control and command structures, what you will see is something that is as complex as the EU. The EEC emerged out of WW2 as an organisation with the primary objective of fostering the economic (not military) integration of the its member states, in order to encourage, through close contact and continual dialogue, peaceful co-existence between them. Its purpose was to end the destructive wars that had historically ravaged almost all of Europe over the centuries. The one is intended to prevent wars in Europe, the other intended to provide a protective defence for Europe while it rebuilt its industries and economies after two catastrophic wars, and latterly for other countries elsewhere - should they be attacked. Its purpose is as a deterrent, initially against Russia, but now against a wider range of potential aggressors, and to defend if the deterrent fails. So, prevention on the one hand, and deterrence and defence on the other. To me, both seem highly desirable. It is notable that with the existence of the EEC/EU no member states have taken up arms against each other, even though several had been at war before becoming members. That being the case, it must surely be accepted that, despite several acrimonious fallings out among its members, peace has prevailed and its aim been realised. You seem to be advocating cure in preference to prevention as a strategy. I think you are mistaken, and that prevention is much the wiser initial strategy, but that it needs recourse to cure if it fails. That, with NATO and the EU, is what we presently have, and IMO, is what we would be wisest to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 malc d - 2019-02-09 2:00 PM 747 - 2019-02-09 12:47 PM malc d - 2019-02-09 9:02 AM 747 - 2019-02-08 7:45 PM So the EU has been keeping us safe since WW2? In the first half of the twentieth century ( and before ) there were regular wars between the countries of Europe. One of the ideas behind the EU was to all get together in a union to end such wars. So - yes - they have kept us safe - from each other ! As there have been no wars between the members of the EU since then - I would say that it has been very successful in that respect. Unfortunately it has been badly run - and the concerns of huge parts of the populations have been ignored - so we have ended up with populism and Brexit. My view was that staying in was the lesser of two evils as I still don't see any day to day benefits of leaving. ( …. and it seems no Brexiteers on this forum can either ). :-| Sorry but I have to disagree. Europe was peaceful apart from the desire of ONE European Nation wanting to dominate the rest of Europe (and beyond). Germany went to war twice and failed to be dominant in Europe ...... ooh, wait a minute. 8-) I only made two points : 1) Since the EU was formed there have been no wars between member states. 2) The EU has been badly run by politicians. You say you disagree. Are you disagreeing with both points - or just one. ( p.s. If you really think that Europe was " peaceful " I would suggest you could Google " List of Conflicts in Europe " and read the 20th century section ). :-| Point 1 is correct. However, you stated that the idea of the EU was to foster peace in Europe. I have no doubt that there would not have been any more conflicts in Europe anyway as the others were both started by Germany (as I said earlier). The European growth in free trade between Nations has obviously been the best thing since the Marshall Plan helped to get Europe back on its feet after WW2. Point 2 is also correct. My belief is that the present crop of Bureaucrats have an agenda that is more like Empire building. They were carried away with the pace of their changes until Mr Putin shouted at them over the garden fence. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-02-09 2:33 PM 747 - 2019-02-08 7:45 PM So the EU has been keeping us safe since WW2? If NATO had known that they could have saved a fortune in Arms expenditure, especially the Americans who must have spent billions of Dollars on Nuclear weapons. Even better, they could have disbanded NATO and sent their troops home. 8-) Recognising what other posters have said above, no, and I did not claim it had. However, I think you have misunderstood the difference between NATO and the EU. For NATO see here: http://tinyurl.com/nlmqzvv It has a long and evolving history, and was initially born out of WW2, just as was the EEC/EU. There the similarities end. NATO is a defensive organisation in which all members pledge mutual support to others should any be attacked by external forces. Before NATO is engaged, there has to have been an external aggressor. It is a defensive war fighting alliance, through which the member states pledge their own forces into a common force. If you follow its changes as it has evolved, and the evolution of its control and command structures, what you will see is something that is as complex as the EU. The EEC emerged out of WW2 as an organisation with the primary objective of fostering the economic (not military) integration of the its member states, in order to encourage, through close contact and continual dialogue, peaceful co-existence between them. Its purpose was to end the destructive wars that had historically ravaged almost all of Europe over the centuries. The one is intended to prevent wars in Europe, the other intended to provide a protective defence for Europe while it rebuilt its industries and economies after two catastrophic wars, and latterly for other countries elsewhere - should they be attacked. Its purpose is as a deterrent, initially against Russia, but now against a wider range of potential aggressors, and to defend if the deterrent fails. So, prevention on the one hand, and deterrence and defence on the other. To me, both seem highly desirable. It is notable that with the existence of the EEC/EU no member states have taken up arms against each other, even though several had been at war before becoming members. That being the case, it must surely be accepted that, despite several acrimonious fallings out among its members, peace has prevailed and its aim been realised. You seem to be advocating cure in preference to prevention as a strategy. I think you are mistaken, and that prevention is much the wiser initial strategy, but that it needs recourse to cure if it fails. That, with NATO and the EU, is what we presently have, and IMO, is what we would be wisest to keep. Brian, if you think NATO will exist in its present form after the setup of a European Defence Force then I think you are mistaken. Trump has already castigated the European NATO Nations for not spending the agreed percentage of GDP on defence. If the USA sits on its hands, Canada will too. If Trump is voted out, the American Democrats will not intervene unless threatened directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Just on the origin of WW1, this is from Wiki, but I think well illustrates the fallacy of the often repeated statement that Germany started the war. "On 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb Yugoslav nationalist, assassinated the Austro-Hungarian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, leading to the July Crisis. In response, on 23 July Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia's reply failed to satisfy the Austrians, and the two moved to a war footing. A network of interlocking alliances enlarged the crisis from a bilateral issue in the Balkans to one involving most of Europe. By July 1914, the great powers of Europe were divided into two coalitions: the Triple Entente—consisting of France, Russia and Britain—and the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy (the Triple Alliance was primarily defensive in nature, allowing Italy to stay out of the war in 1914). Russia felt it necessary to back Serbia and, after Austria-Hungary shelled the Serbian capital of Belgrade on the 28th, partial mobilisation was approved. General Russian mobilisation was announced on the evening of 30 July; on the 31st, Austria-Hungary and Germany did the same, while Germany demanded Russia demobilise within 12 hours. When Russia failed to comply, Germany declared war on 1 August in support of Austria-Hungary, with Austria-Hungary following suit on 6th; France ordered full mobilisation in support of Russia on 2 August German strategy for a war on two fronts against France and Russia was to rapidly concentrate the bulk of its army in the West to defeat France within four weeks, then shift forces to the East before Russia could fully mobilise; this was later known as the Schlieffen Plan. On 2 August, Germany demanded free passage through Belgium, an essential element in achieving a quick victory over France. When this was refused, German forces invaded Belgium on 3 August and declared war on France the same day; the Belgian government invoked the 1839 Treaty of London and in compliance with its obligations under this, Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August. On 12 August, Britain and France also declared war on Austria-Hungary; on the 23rd, Japan sided with the Entente, seizing German possessions in China and the Pacific. In November 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of the Alliance, opening fronts in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Sinai Peninsula". It goes on. So, simple question: who actually started WW1? Who actually declared war on who, and whose fault was that? Nice to have things clear and simple, isn't it? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-02-07 3:25 PM malc d - 2019-02-07 12:41 PM Not sure what all that has to do with Tusks outburst. He was simply expressing his frustration with the clowns who brought about Brexit without having any kind of plan ready for what comes after. I would think that quite a lot of people feel the same. :-| The plan was to leave ;-) ........... All the other stuff is just bullsh*t from Remoaners and a disgruntled EU determined to make a example of anyone who dares to leave their empire *-) .......... We've certainly discovered how friendly our neigbours really are 8-) ......... Dave, leave is not a plan. It is merely a point of departure - it is about the past: it is where we go from. A plan needs a destination - it is about the future: it is where we go to. Where is that plan? To get the future right, one has to get the departure right. If you want to catch a train to Edinburgh from London, there is little poing in turning up at Victoria Station, because trains from there head south, not north. So, again, where is this post Brexit plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 747 - 2019-02-09 4:41 PM...……………..Brian, if you think NATO will exist in its present form after the setup of a European Defence Force then I think you are mistaken. Trump has already castigated the European NATO Nations for not spending the agreed percentage of GDP on defence. If the USA sits on its hands, Canada will too. If Trump is voted out, the American Democrats will not intervene unless threatened directly. Here is a Full fact piece on the fabled European Army: http://tinyurl.com/yd8d3xmx and here is another on the current EU Common Security and Defence policy. http://tinyurl.com/hgp9hsl Unless both are hopelessly wrong, I see no real likelihood of a European Army being created. I suspect you are right about Trump - though much depends on how long he survives as President. It is quite evident that both the EU, and NATO, continue to evolve in response to changing world affairs so the only certainties I see are that all will be different in 10 years time, but I have no idea how. But, back to Tusk and Co, I would far sooner have an EU in place to ensure that member states don't start flexing their military muscles against each other, plus a strong mutual defence alliance to deter, and if necessary defend against, external aggressors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-02-09 5:30 PM 747 - 2019-02-09 4:41 PM...……………..Brian, if you think NATO will exist in its present form after the setup of a European Defence Force then I think you are mistaken. Trump has already castigated the European NATO Nations for not spending the agreed percentage of GDP on defence. If the USA sits on its hands, Canada will too. If Trump is voted out, the American Democrats will not intervene unless threatened directly. Here is a Full fact piece on the fabled European Army: http://tinyurl.com/yd8d3xmx and here is another on the current EU Common Security and Defence policy. http://tinyurl.com/hgp9hsl Unless both are hopelessly wrong, I see no real likelihood of a European Army being created. I suspect you are right about Trump - though much depends on how long he survives as President. It is quite evident that both the EU, and NATO, continue to evolve in response to changing world affairs so the only certainties I see are that all will be different in 10 years time, but I have no idea how. But, back to Tusk and Co, I would far sooner have an EU in place to ensure that member states don't start flexing their military muscles against each other, plus a strong mutual defence alliance to deter, and if necessary defend against, external aggressors. Your first link cannot be classed as 'full fact' as it contains a statement by Nick Clegg. Your second link shows just how convoluted the EU system is and gives no operational details for a rapid deployment. I would also urge you to read again the last line which shows that there is a move afoot to develop it into an EU Defence arm. As for your statement that Germany did not start WW1, you are technically correct on that issue. However, Germany had been building up its armed forces (particularly its Navy) and was being closely watched by its neighbours with some trepidation. It was also Empire building around the World. Kaiser Bill was just waiting for the right excuse. He felt snubbed by his Royal Family members in the UK and Russia and wanted to get even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-02-09 2:31 PM malc d - 2019-02-09 2:00 PM 1) Since the EU was formed there have been no wars between member states. Dunno how long that claim will last once they let the Balkans in 8-) ........ Eh? :-S Bulgaria joined over 12 years ago, Slovenia 15 year ago, Romania 12 years ago, Greece 38 years ago, Croatia 6 years ago, Lithuania 16 years ago, Latvia 15 years ago, and Estonia 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 747 - 2019-02-09 6:09 PM...…………………. 1 Your first link cannot be classed as 'full fact' as it contains a statement by Nick Clegg. 2 Your second link shows just how convoluted the EU system is and gives no operational details for a rapid deployment. I would also urge you to read again the last line which shows that there is a move afoot to develop it into an EU Defence arm. 3 As for your statement that Germany did not start WW1, you are technically correct on that issue. However, Germany had been building up its armed forces (particularly its Navy) and was being closely watched by its neighbours with some trepidation. It was also Empire building around the World. Kaiser Bill was just waiting for the right excuse. He felt snubbed by his Royal Family members in the UK and Russia and wanted to get even. 1 I beg to differ, the rest of the piece (which is quite long, and is not by Clegg - whose selected quote is just two short lines) does not support the European Army theory. Quite the reverse, in fact. 2 Yes it is extremely complex, which is why I can't see it ever becoming a viable defence force. Conflicts move very quickly these days, and a structure like that looks likely to be far to slow to respond to any external threat. I couldn't find what you referred to in the last line, but it is a very long article. Had you got right to the end? 3 Yes, all of that. But the British navy was, at the time, regarded as the largest and most powerful in the world, so we had been building that up over previous years. I don't think that indicates we were doing so with the intention of starting a war. The mess of interlinked treaties, the accidental nature of the events that led up to the war, and the sequence of triggers that brought each of the combatants into conflict, would require something close to clairvoyance on the part of Germany for its growing navy to be a n indication that it had the intention of provoking war. I think it more probable that Germany saw its navy out-gunned, and thought it should reinforce it in case it was attacked. It is quite clear that at the time Europe was a powder keg. All it needed was for someone to drop a match in the wrong place. Sadly they did - in Sarajevo of all places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 Harvey Heaven, just a follow up on your points 1/ Thank Maggie Thatcher for preparing for those 30 years it's only going to get worse for GB from now on within the EU 2/ Really 3/Medical companies would to give up millions of profit and not liaise with GB I think not 4/ Just go through passport control and you are in like millions of other tourists 5/HAHAHAHAHA 6/GB is after all in the 5 Eyes group which is an excellent surveillance group which I am sure would continue sharing intelligence and you expect the EU not to share. What kind of friends are they? 7/ Nothing is free The EU is run by a commission with appointees from each country and must turn their back on those and swear allegiance to the EU project.This group of people then set about introducing legislation to the EU Parliament. When this is introduced they are only able to make small changes but cannot reject it. Not forgetting that this legislation comes from an unelected cabal. Do you really want to be ruled by these kind of people. I must admit your Pet Passpot was hilarious,you were joking, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 Realist - 2019-02-10 1:23 AM Harvey Heaven, just a follow up on your points 1/ Thank Maggie Thatcher for preparing for those 30 years it's only going to get worse for GB from now on within the EU 2/ Really 3/Medical companies would to give up millions of profit and not liaise with GB I think not 4/ Just go through passport control and you are in like millions of other tourists 5/HAHAHAHAHA 6/GB is after all in the 5 Eyes group which is an excellent surveillance group which I am sure would continue sharing intelligence and you expect the EU not to share. What kind of friends are they? 7/ Nothing is free 8/The EU is run by a commission with appointees from each country and must turn their back on those and swear allegiance to the EU project.This group of people then set about introducing legislation to the EU Parliament. When this is introduced they are only able to make small changes but cannot reject it. Not forgetting that this legislation comes from an unelected cabal. Do you really want to be ruled by these kind of people. I must admit your Pet Passpot was hilarious,you were joking, right? To be a realist, you must rely for your thoughts and opinions upon reality. So, taking each of your points 1 - 8 above, can you please quote reliable sources for them, so that we can all check whether they qualify as reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-02-09 6:38 PM pelmetman - 2019-02-09 2:31 PM malc d - 2019-02-09 2:00 PM 1) Since the EU was formed there have been no wars between member states. Dunno how long that claim will last once they let the Balkans in 8-) ........ Eh? :-S Bulgaria joined over 12 years ago, Slovenia 15 year ago, Romania 12 years ago, Greece 38 years ago, Croatia 6 years ago, Lithuania 16 years ago, Latvia 15 years ago, and Estonia 15 years. They haven't let in the trouble makers yet have they? :D ........... Balkans - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans The Balkans are usually said to comprise Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-02-09 5:29 PM pelmetman - 2019-02-07 3:25 PM malc d - 2019-02-07 12:41 PM Not sure what all that has to do with Tusks outburst. He was simply expressing his frustration with the clowns who brought about Brexit without having any kind of plan ready for what comes after. I would think that quite a lot of people feel the same. :-| The plan was to leave ;-) ........... All the other stuff is just bullsh*t from Remoaners and a disgruntled EU determined to make a example of anyone who dares to leave their empire *-) .......... We've certainly discovered how friendly our neigbours really are 8-) ......... Dave, leave is not a plan. It is merely a point of departure - it is about the past: it is where we go from. A plan needs a destination - it is about the future: it is where we go to. Where is that plan? To get the future right, one has to get the departure right. If you want to catch a train to Edinburgh from London, there is little poing in turning up at Victoria Station, because trains from there head south, not north. So, again, where is this post Brexit plan? Our plan is to become a sovereign nation once again B-) ............ The EU's plan is to usurp all of its nations into one super state run by Germany *-) ........ Does that EU/German plan ring any bells? ;-) ........ Same old plan......... just different method :-| ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.