Eligible to Vote - Will Vote 'IN' ('Remain')
Eligible to Vote - Will Vote 'OUT'
Eligible to Vote - Undecided
Ineligible to Vote - Would Vote 'IN' ('Remain') If I could
Ineligible to Vote - Would Vote 'OUT' if I could.
Ineligible to Vote - Would be undecided right now.
Apparently, a source "close" to Johnson has said
If that's his line it's staggeringly ballsy: lead the Leave campaign, make a whole load of promises based on incorrect data or beyond direct control, win the referendum, then hand the reigns over to someone else with a "by the way, you better keep all those promises I made or I'll be on your back". That's definitely a move for the long game; he's waiting for an opportunity to step in as "the people's choice" - a moderate Farage, if you will (not that either of them actually live up to being men of the people, of course). In the mean time, he barracks from the sidelines in an increase whirl of self-promotion.His role now will be to champion that cause and ensure that commitments made by our leaders to the people of Britain, and the message sent by the people to those leaders, is heard.
Makes sense - the country is pretty much dominated by celebrity culture now. We can't be far off the point where the majority of MPs are voted for on personality and performance rather than competence or - god forbid - actual policies. We are very definitely moving towards the point where Britain gets the government it deserves, even if that's not the government that it needs.
CAT-THE-FIFTH (01-07-2016),cptwhite_uk (01-07-2016),The Hand (30-06-2016)
BBC
"Justice Secretary Michael Gove and Home Secretary Theresa May lead a five-way race to be the next Conservative Party leader and UK prime minister.
Mr Gove was a surprise addition to the race, having been expected to back Boris Johnson, who shocked the political world by ruling himself out. Minister Andrea Leadsom, MP Liam Fox and Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb are also in the running.
The winner of the contest is set to be announced on 9 September.
The leadership battle has been sparked by David Cameron's decision to step down as prime minister after losing the EU referendum, which saw the country vote by 52% to 48% to leave the EU."
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
I'm curious, have you read the document that Breitbart based that click-bait article on?
I have and let me tell you their claims are outright lies or at best misleading, lets take their first claim as an example...
Not only have they quoted things out of context they've also failed to do any further research, starting with the “existential crisis” yes that word is used in the document but it doesn't say the EU is going through an “existential crisis”, it says "We live in times of existential crisis, within and beyond the European Union."The European Union (EU) is going through an “existential crisis” that can only be solved through more military integration, Turkish accession and the creation of a “true union”, EU chiefs have said
Moving onto the "only be solved through more military integration" claim there's no mention of more military integration, in fact the word "integration" is used once in the whole document (P36) and it's used to say that "The EPA's can spur African integration and mobility, and encourage Africa’s full and equitable participation in global value chains."
While it does mention military that's nothing new and it seems the EU military operations are not what most people would consider a military operation, they're things like EUNAVFOR MED operation Sophia that is "but one element of a broader EU comprehensive response to the migration issue, which seeks to address not only its physical component, but also its root causes as well including conflict, poverty, climate change and persecution.". So far from being a conventional military operation it's more to do with border control, something i think we can all agree is a good thing, no?
Or how about the military operation EUTM Somalia that undertakes "military training missions in Somalia in order to contribute to strengthening the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the institutions of Somalia." that seems like a good things also, no?
Maybe I've just been selective in picking those two though so feel free to take a look at what other "military operations" the EU is undertaking.
Even the Turkey accession claim is utter BS, yes it talks about Turkey in the document but that refers to enhancing the resilience of Turkey, developing human rights-compliant and anti-terrorism cooperation, migration, energy security, terrorism and organised crime, good neighbourly relations, deepening sectoral cooperation, cooperate further with Turkey in the fields of education, energy and transport. The only time Turkey and accession is used in the same sentence is when they say "the EU will deepen sectoral cooperation with Turkey, while striving to anchor Turkish democracy in line with its accession criteria, including the normalisation of relations with Cyprus." But we already know that Turkey is working towards accession, although what time-frame you want to place on that is debatable.
From what i can tell the breitbart article is their normal click-bait rubbish.
Last edited by Corky34; 30-06-2016 at 03:46 PM.
I have read the document. I don't know if you've read it in its entirety but both explicitly and implicitly it does advocate for greater EU integration in all areas of policy. The word 'integration' may only be used once, but the concept is clear throughout - greater unity, coming together, and any concept of having more and more single or overarching policies in place of a plurality of policies, are all, by definition, greater integration. The pursuit of this in military areas has its own section, and although the document doesn't state - "Hey, lets rush Turkey into the EU", and it does use measured language, there is a lot of reference towards Turkey's entrance, and nowhere near as much reference to the other nations also applying for EU entrance at present: "Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia". Having said that, I personally don't see the 'Turkey question' as central to the discussion. I believe it's the overall method and goal of the EU, the way it works and wants to work, that concerns/concerned me, rather than the details of any one 'situation'.
Existential crisis:
You said,But that's exactly what the words you quoted mean, "We live in times of existential crisis, within and beyond the European Union." No?...Originally Posted by Corky34
Still, it's more than just that - From the foreword - "The purpose, even existence, of our Union is being questioned." (Existential crisis).
Military?:
"And wherever I travel, our partners expect the European Union to play a major role, including as a global security provider. We will deliver on our citizens’ needs and make our partnerships work only if we act together, united. This is exactly the aim of the Global Strategy for European Foreign and Security Policy."
" The European Union has always prided itself on its soft power – and it will keep doing so, because we are the best in this field. However, the idea that Europe is an exclusively “civilian power” does not do justice to an evolving reality. For instance, the European Union currently deploys seventeen military and civilian operations, with thousands of men and women serving under the European flag for peace and security – our own security, and our partners’. For Europe, soft and hard power go hand in hand. The Strategy nurtures the ambition of strategic autonomy for the European Union. Yet we know that such priorities are best served when we are not alone. And they are best served in an international system based on rules and on multilateralism. This is no time for global policemen and lone warriors."
"Yes, our interests are indeed common European interests: the only way to serve them is by common means. This is why we have a collective responsibility to make our Union a stronger Union. The people of Europe need unity of purpose among our Member States, and unity in action across our policies. A fragile world calls for a more confident and responsible European Union, it calls for an outward- and forward-looking European foreign and security policy."
"In a more complex world, we must stand united. Only the combined weight of a true union has the potential to deliver security, prosperity and democracy to its citizens and make a positive difference in the world."
And so on.
The whole tenor of the paper is to promote the notion that the world needs a much stronger, much closer, much more unified EU with greater unity - ever closer union - in all areas. It promotes a globally recognised identity for EU and less so that of individual nations - the EU as an entity and concept itself.
I don't know if you're willing to see that, but it's quite clearly there, and it's the major reason the EU referendum as been pursued for years and the main reason a good number of people voted out.
If anyone wants to read it - here it is. (PDF)
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
A news update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36673005
BoE could cut interest rates early next month/week from 0.5%. Maybe QE in August.
So what you're saying is that you've read between the lines and come up with your own interpretation.
It doesn't matter what i said, what matters is what that click-bait article claims is nothing like what the document says.
We can argue what an existential crisis is until the cow come home but for anyone to link that with the creation of an army is stretching the bounds of realonable thought.
And FYI if a key member of a union decided to leave i to would seek to calm the waters as such a key member leaving may cause other members to question the very foundations of the union, or are you suggesting that they should stay stum and just let the other members worry their poor little socks off.
So are you suggesting that the EU shouldn't secure it's borders? Shouldn't try to nurture peace and security with it's neighbors? Shouldn't try to prevent more refugees from making often deadly trips in an attempt to reach the safety of the EU? That they shouldn't have a Global Strategy for European Foreign and Security Policy?
No-one objecting to the concept of an EU army has either laid out why they think it's a bad thing, nor acknowledged the fact that every single member has a veto on the issue - funnily enough, if we leave, we couldn't stop one happening, but if we stay in, we could.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7052501.htmlHowever, it is understood the plans, drawn over 18 months by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, are supported by other leading EU countries, and refer to powers set out in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, which could allow nine or more member states to embark on their own plans for an EU military headquarters.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "We will never be part of an EU army. We retain a veto on all defence matters in the EU and we will oppose any measures which would undermine member states' military forces."
Directly reading Article 42 suggests that there is a qualitative difference between nato members and non-nato members, that non-nato members are free to band together under the banner of the eu to form their own joint army.
Pride has me saying 'we're both right', but i think you're clearly more right than me.
Regarding the 'why would it be a bad thing', I can actually see that, if you're worried about the eu becoming an undemocratic megastate, empowering it with an army could be dangerous, and that nato is not a valid comparison because nato is purely a military alliance. I do not share this view, but understand it.
On behalf of the entire remain campaign, I concede this point to you.
I found the article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...gotiation.htmlUnder the treaty, Britain could not be forced to join a joint army, but it cannot veto its creation. Until now, European leaders have been reluctant to push ahead with the plans, in part to avoid a split on defence with Britain, whose expenditure on defence is only matched by France.
Worth a read even though the article is from September last year.
Yes, an EU army does have the potential to shake up the old Western order, with the US leading the European nations within NATO. I prefer the NATO setup since it's intended to be purely defensive. If there is an EU in future with it's own army/navy/airforce and with it's own unilateral interventionist foreign policy, it could easily undermine NATO and perhaps regional stability.Regarding the 'why would it be a bad thing', I can actually see that, if you're worried about the eu becoming an undemocratic megastate, empowering it with an army could be dangerous, and that nato is not a valid comparison because nato is purely a military alliance. I do not share this view, but understand it.
On behalf of the entire remain campaign, I concede this point to you.
It would useful if Prof Dougan could directly comment on Juncker's own Defence Advisor Michel Barnier's white paper - In Defence of Europe - http://ec.europa.eu/epsc/pdf/publica...te_issue_4.pdf
(Telegraph - article again: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...gotiation.html)
Would Prof Dougan say that the Telegraph has misinterpreted or misrepresented Michel Barnier's white paper or not?Mrs Merkel is backing a push by Mr Juncker to create an EU army.
Earlier this year his defence adviser, Michel Barnier, issued a paper through the EU’s in-house think tank calling for permanent military integration among member states that are willing using legal mechanisms known as PESCO created by the Lisbon Treaty of 2009.
Under the treaty, Britain could not be forced to join a joint army, but it cannot veto its creation. Until now, European leaders have been reluctant to push ahead with the plans, in part to avoid a split on defence with Britain, whose expenditure on defence is only matched by France.
Just another thought though, if the Remain vote had won, there would have been another video instead of this one, explaining why the Remain side won through the same kind of deceit/omissions on what would be likely happening after a remain vote.
Last edited by The Hand; 01-07-2016 at 02:28 PM. Reason: typo
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
You mean like his previous video,where he poo-pooed some of the claims by the Remain campaign too??
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/art...ry--bJFSzhkyrW
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0d257114a18b2Sarah Vine is married to Michael Gove. She just asked experts to help the country
http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/worl...t_25841499.htmUK Needs 20 Times More Trade Negotiators To Pull Off ‘Brexit’, Says Miriam González Durántez
International trade lawyer tells HuffPost UK country only has 25 specialists, and needs at least 500
Looks,like people with lots of experience in trade law will be having a nice cushy job for the next few years!Originally Posted by Chinese government mouthpiece
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 01-07-2016 at 01:46 PM.
It could still happen. It's pretty uncertain whether Article 50 will be triggered or not. If there's another general election and with who becomes Tory leader, it's anyone's guess!
It does remind me of the two Denmark Masstricht Referendums in 1992 and French EU Constitution referendum in 2005. The latter referendum rejected the EU constitution, but vast swathes of the EU constitution ended up in the Lisbon treaty which was signed by the French leadership a few years later. It would certainly be in keeping with the EU way.
Last edited by The Hand; 01-07-2016 at 01:59 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)