EU referendum are you in or out

[Rubisco]

I see part of what you're saying, but surely tax avoidance is precisely because of borders. Be outside of them for some "tax purposes" like Amazon and there you have it.

I also don't think it's that pervasive of a feeling among the left that people in third world countries and such "can just die in a fucking ditch" and that we shouldn't have 'foreign' aid.

It's globalisation, a breaking down of borders, calling for a more concrete definition of what profit is made on each side strengthens the border.

£14 billion foreign aid out of over a £1 trillion in tax revenue. People are always on about how many the Tories have killed versus some hypothetical, how many are we hypothetically killing each year by lining our own nests?

I'm just sick of the talk of "fairness", the demonisation of the Tories for falling short of some contrived ideal we just invented. Can't we just admit we want strong public services because it damn well suits us? That we want to use the privilege afforded to us by the accident of being born into a well-established rich democracy to create a better life for those in our immediate vicinity so they don't turn feral or whatever and start making life a little less cosy?

This is why we get shit Tory governments. We fail to apply Hanlon's razor. Most Tories truly believe in what they espouse, they believe they are moral people, they believe that their policies ultimately serve the British people, yes even the poor ones. If Labour concentrates on attacking their moral character then all they have to do is convince the general public that they're anything short of raving psychopaths and they win, no matter how incompetent they are, because their incompetence is not the thing that has been pursued.

[(o)(o)]

Polls are narrowing..

.. and well well WELL !!



How do you like them apples, Mr Crime Minister.

[rowan]

Labour put 2 pieces of canvassing through my letterbox, Brexit party the same.
Nothing from Lib Dems [yet?] and Tories some crappy fake-letter-from-Boris-but-sent-by-local-MP today but they're missed the boat, I already voted [postal].

[zip accident]

Labour put 2 pieces of canvassing through my letterbox, Brexit party the same.
Nothing from Lib Dems [yet?] and Tories some crappy fake-letter-from-Boris-but-sent-by-local-MP today but they're missed the boat, I already voted [postal].

Our one piece of canvassing so far was Green, it seems he's from Ireland, but he's anti-brexit, so I'm cool with that.

[(o)(o)]

The problem with that is that there aren't many rich people, so even if you got everything they owed, even though it would be a lot case by case, there would be so few cases that it wouldn't amount to much..

This popped up :

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

Also reports on 6 major tech corporate tax transgressors :

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/12/02/cyber-mondays-tax-gaps-what-the-big-six-tech-companies-do-not-pay/

[tufty]

Watching this at the moment :

[(o)(o)]

Watching this right now :

[merman]

Johnson just stood up at the NATO summit and said how great it was all the countries were co-operating together after seventy years.

Maybe someone should form some sort of European group of countries Britain could be part of...

[Baggypants]

Johnson just stood up at the NATO summit and said how great it was all the countries were co-operating together after seventy years.

Maybe someone should form some sort of European group of countries Britain could be part of...

The European Army?

[KlaxonCow]

The European Army?

Yes.

Because if Europe were to have a single army then there could no longer be any wars within Europe.

If Europe were to have a single army, then every single nation would be protected by the joint strength of all 27. Like NATO, if an external enemy were to invade France, then the whole continent would rise to defend them (and which we should realise, historically, makes abundant sense, as world wars no longer stop at borders anymore, so an invasion of France would only be a precursor to invading Europe - so why not formalise it? Because it would happen anyway, as any enemy trying to take on France or Spain or the Netherlands or Poland is almost certainly going to be a threat to the entire European continent - they're just not going to stop there, are they? - and would pragmatically force a Europe alliance to see it off anyhow. So why not formalise it and work together, train together, have a joint budget (well in excess of what any individual nation could ever afford to fund cutting-edge weapons technologies) and so forth).

Why did men die in the trenches of World War I and in World War II?

I'd say that a single European army - ensuring that no European war could ever happen again - would be the ultimate justification for their sacrifice. That their sacrifice secured a genuine lasting peace for Europe.

Otherwise, what was their sacrifice for, if we just return to national bickering and petty skirmishes? That we don't fundamentally change anything and just repeat and repeat and repeat history ad infinitum.

There's an orthodoxy that seems to expect us all to automatically reject "The United States of Europe" or "a single European army". But why?

Can somebody actually rationally express any solid reasoning against it? Put it into words. A solid argument.

Because, you see, I've never once heard it. I've heard racist / jingoistic nonsense, but never a solid reasoned out explanation of why the United States of Europe is supposedly such a terrible idea. Churchill backed it - he was the guy who first used those words and proposed it.

Before all this, you might have made a similar "pfft" dismissal of the idea of "a single European market". What poppycock! It'll never work!

But, umm, we've had that and it worked out just fine. More than sensible - as the world's largest trading bloc, Europe secured for all its members the best available deals. It expanded every nation's economy and it's available opportunities and made them all stronger.

Sure, in the economic doldrums of the Banking Crisis, under the thumb of Tory-imposed austerity (which comes not from Europe, but from Westminster, and definitely won't end with Brexit - they'll be solely in charge, so it'll likely be stepped up, if anything), then things might not feel too rosy right now, but they were more than fine for the last 30 years before it, weren't they? Better than fine. Did us all a massive favour.

I mean, you don't judge the climate by a single day's weather, right?

So, yeah, a single European army.

Have you got a problem with that? That's fine, democracy embraces disagreement.

But could you rationally express what that problem actually is? As I just ain't seeing it myself.

[(o)(o)]

So, yeah, a single European army.

Have you got a problem with that? ....

But could you rationally express what that problem actually is?

Here's Killing Joke with Youth on Bass.

Jazz Coleman wasn't there in person as he was in Iceland escaping the apocalypse.

[snaff]

There's an orthodoxy that seems to expect us all to automatically reject "The United States of Europe" or "a single European army". But why?

Can somebody actually rationally express any solid reasoning against it? Put it into words. A solid argument.

[F-ZeroOne]

Sorry, is your argument that some of the EU ministers of defence are smiley women?

[F-ZeroOne]

KlaxonCow, whilst I agree with some of what you've said about a "European Army", history is also littered with the remains of failed European military project collaborations or others which started off as collaborations but which wound up with the various "partners" going their own way (the Rafale/Eurofighter being a good example; an early split in what was initially a collaboration ended up with the production of two very similar aircraft [1] both of which now compete against each other for international orders); quite what the procurement arguments for a single European military entity would be like I shudder to imagine. Though the flipside is that there have also been successful joint projects as well.

[1] Very simplified description - for one thing, the French had a clear naval requirement, whereas although a naval Eurofighter was proposed during the planning for the "Queen Elizabeth" class carriers it was not part of the initial development.

[KlaxonCow]

That looks like an argument "for" rather than "against" for me.

(And it depends how you "read" it, doesn't it? Those men look stern because they're worried and insecure, and paranoid at their potential defeat. Putting on their military uniforms to attempt to project a scary image, like a cat arching its back to seem bigger than it really is. The women, on the other hand, are care-free and happy, because nothing bothers them much. You could read the photo with the women as "perfectly secure", while the men are "insecure and worried".)


And if there's some underlying misogyny here that women can't command armies then that's certainly never been the British tradition whatsoever.

I mean, are you forgetting who the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army is?



And she lived through the war, and the Royal Family of the time refused to leave London during the Blitz (though they were heavily pressured, as you might imagine, to do so) to show solidarity and keep up morale with the people.

So she lived through the Blitz. What have you ever comparably done?

And, you know, up until the most recent call for a General Election, this woman was in charge of asking the Queen to declare war:



And a few Prime Ministers before her, of course, was this woman:



The Iron Lady. Who, whether you loved her or loathed her, no-one would describe as "soft" or "weak".

(Indeed, if only she'd been a bit more compassionate during her reign of terror on the country would be the chief counterargument to this woman.)

Other previous female Commanders-in-Chief (who successfully commanded wars against foreign powers):




And, of course, let us not forget Boudicca:



Presumably, you've never gone toe-to-toe with a Celtic woman, if you still hold onto any delusions of women being "soft" or "weak".

As for your image, Poland is in the EU, so that most angry bloke is actually on our side.

The Russian guy just looks lost and miserable, to be honest, like he doesn't want to be there. The Iranian seems distracted and day-dreaming about something else. The Chinese guy looks very bureaucratic - very efficient at pushing pens, I'm sure. Two of them have sight problems, as they're wearing glasses. Two of them are a bit podgy in the face, which does not suggest rigorous military training, but more sitting on their arses behind a desk all day.

They do not strike me as being particularly scary from those photos, frankly.

And, anyway, this is edited propaganda, of course - I'm sure there's photos of these men smiling somewhere, and equally photos of the women looking more stern and serious.

For example, here's a happy little man relaxing over some food and drink at home in a nice comfy chair:



He doesn't seem too scary or nasty there, does he? Though, of course, he absolutely definitely was.

The power of cherry-picking your example photos, yes?


Anyway, all that to one side, I asked for a reasoned rational argument in words. An actual logical progression, we can all follow, that's based on actual facts and not emotional appeal, which even begins to make your case.

I've explained my reasoning. Please explain yours.