EU referendum are you in or out

[KlaxonCow]

history is also littered with the remains of failed European military project collaborations [...] Though the flipside is that there have also been successful joint projects as well.

Well, yes, some collaborations work and some don't.

That's an accurate - almost tautological - description of reality, yes.

But I don't see "some collaborations have historically not worked out" as an argument for "we should never ever ever attempt collaborations with anyone over anything ever again".

Like, once you asked a girl out to the school prom and she said "no". Well, fuck it, I'm now committed to living a lonely and miserable existence, to die alone! Seems like somewhat of an over-reaction, perhaps?

And, yes, the procurement rules would probably be rather nightmarish. But, come on, when aren't they? It's not as if the procurement rules for national armies are super simple, as they stand, right?

And there's argument that it ought to be that way anyway. The combined military budget of all nations chipping in would be way more. There should be more concern for it not being all pissed away.

And, sure, a single European army will inevitably make a poor procurement decision at some point. Again, it's not as if national armies haven't also repeatedly done the same thing. Nothing is perfect and that's just reality for you. Every so often, people make bad decisions. As long as most of the decisions are good or reasonable, though, that's okay, right?

You see, what I'm detecting in you is that "orthodoxy" that you ought to reject the idea of the single European army - some knee-jerk response that's been primed into you - but "it could go wrong" is not a real counterargument, is it? Anything and everything in this reality of ours could go wrong.

The Single Market could have gone wrong. In certain places, it did. But it's the overall that matters, and it's been very much more good than bad.

"It could go wrong" is not a real argument. That applies to all of reality. Anything and everything could potentially go wrong. This has never stopped us continuing to live our lives as best we can regardless.

[F-ZeroOne]

Honestly, KlaxonCow, you might be right that its a "knee-jerk" (as in an immediate, not much prior consideration) reaction, but I'm interested in military history and I think its more a knee-jerk reaction based on immediately thinking of various screwed up procurement programs in the past than a knee-jerk reaction to a "European Army" thats been "primed" in me. I grew up with various SF and many anime and manga which had unified world governments or military organisations (the cross-universe "U.N. SPACY" springs to mind [1]) so I don't really think its a reaction based on that.

[1] From both "Macross" and "Gundam 0083"; probably not a coincidence that some of the same creative staff worked on both.

[zip accident]

Get an FTA with China and you're gold.

Especially since far eastern traders don't pay import duties anyway.

[merman]

Here's the thing though...

Even Boris himself applauds the co-operation between armies that is NATO.
If war had broken out in Europe over the last 40 years - most probably against Russia - EUROPEAN ARMIES WOULD HAVE FOUGHT TOGETHER UNDER A SINGLE COMMAND.

But no, can't call it the EU Army

[zip accident]

Here's the thing though...

Even Boris himself applauds the co-operation between armies that is NATO.
If war had broken out in Europe over the last 40 years - most probably against Russia - EUROPEAN ARMIES WOULD HAVE FOUGHT TOGETHER UNDER A SINGLE COMMAND.

But no, can't call it the EU Army

Not that I'm in any way Euro-sceptic, but that NATO army would have had a USAian commander, not a European one.

[Dio]

To increase the quantity of pedantry here, the military head of NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_ ... _Committee has only infrequently been American. The two supreme commanders under the Chairman always are, though.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Europe's army or America's army in Europe, either way it sounds bad.

[gilesgoat]

Europe's army or America's army in Europe, either way it sounds bad.

[(o)(o)]

Fascintating clip, I've watched it several few times...

The way her 'natural' face hangs appears to exhibit smugness

The way she nods her head, and the way she accentuates her wording - and the side to side tilting at 'people of Westminster' - as if to humiliate the interviewer for even suggesting "the government" has anything to do with the state of Britain....

Technically she is a public servant. Yet here is a person who wouldn't last 1 day with this attitude serving customers in a shop, and she is one of the key players in " Brittania Unhinged "

Europe's army or America's army in Europe, either way it sounds bad.

It sounds horrific. We do NOT need another Empire.

[Rubisco]

Fascintating clip, I've watched it several few times...

The way her 'natural' face hangs appears to exhibit smugness

The way she nods her head, and the way she accentuates her wording - and the side to side tilting at 'people of Westminster' - as if to humiliate the interviewer for even suggesting "the government" has anything to do with the state of Britain....

Technically she is a public servant. Yet here is a person who wouldn't last 1 day with this attitude serving customers in a shop, and she is one of the key players in " Brittania Unhinged "

It's not the government's fault, it's those goddamned lower-middle earners. Those on £18k to £29k are responsible for all that poverty. If the government want to tackle poverty they should concentrate on taxing them, rather than targeting the richest 50% who by definition have no effect on the "poverty" statistic.

If the government were serious about the issue they would introduce a 100% tax on the poorest 50% of incomes, which would eliminate relative poverty altogether. We're not monsters though so a flat-rate Universal Basic Income of $1.90 per day would tackle extreme poverty as defined by the U.N.

[(o)(o)]

Even Patel isn’t denying that 1 in 4 in Barrow are born into poverty in the 6th richest nation on earth she says it’s “appalling”.

She is simply denying her government has anything to do with it.

Which begs the question WTF are YOU on about?

[Cloudane]

I live down the road from Barrow. Primarily they're a bunch of racists who cheered on good old Tommy boy (Yaxley-Lennon) when he came to town, voted Brexit and voted for Tories. Their bed, and all that - though I do feel sorry for the kids.

[Rubisco]

Even Patel isn’t denying that 1 in 4 in Barrow are born into poverty in the 6th richest nation on earth she says it’s “appalling”.

She is simply denying her government has anything to do with it.

Which begs the question WTF are YOU on about?

Only 3.3% of people in China (the 2nd richest nation on earth) are in poverty.

Yet their Gini coefficient is worse than the UK's. The gap between their rich and poor is wider. So fewer people in China are defined as "in poverty" because their poor are more equally poor.

That's what poverty defined as 60% of the median household income measures. High poverty means high income inequality amongst the poorest 50%, whilst completely ignoring what the richest 50% are earning.

[gilesgoat]

Even Patel isn’t denying that 1 in 4 in Barrow are born into poverty in the 6th richest nation on earth she says it’s “appalling”.

She is simply denying her government has anything to do with it.

Which begs the question WTF are YOU on about?

How is this poverty "generated" ?

i.e. I mean it's because there are not many jobs available for people to take ?

Jobs are too poorly paid ?

People can't work and are not supported enough ?

All of the 3 above ? Which one is "more prominent" ? Not enough jobs or jobs too poorly paid ?

I think it's a "terrible loop" people don't have money, people don't spend, small business closes as they don't have to sell things that people won't buy ( or would buy at too low prices they can't sell the quantities they'd need ), more business close, more people without jobs/poverty.

On the other side I continue to blame "the pure capitalist system", it just does not work, full stop, it works only in the sense it leads to "survival of the strongest, everyone else is a slave or dies".

A "socialist layer" is necessary, a control on capitalist expansion too, it can not be left purely to itself without limits in place.

It's not just a matter of "richest/poorest" is "unequal division of resources" and "unequal division of opportunities", capitalist system is NOT equal, it NOT free, is NOT the same for everyone, it's survival of the strongest and the least emphatic, everything is profit, everything is maximized without restraints.

It's the fire that burns everything until there's nothing left to burn.

Anyway "the government" .. .. eh .. "how the heck you can trust governments like those we see to do anything really for the people ?" ..

You tell me ..

[zip accident]

Only 3.3% of people in China (the 2nd richest nation on earth) are in poverty.

Yet their Gini coefficient is worse than the UK's. The gap between their rich and poor is wider. So fewer people in China are defined as "in poverty" because their poor are more equally poor.

That's what poverty defined as 60% of the median household income measures. High poverty means high income inequality amongst the poorest 50%, whilst completely ignoring what the richest 50% are earning.

I think you might have a good point, but if so, you've explained it badly.

The median household income is the income of the household who happen to land on the 50% line of all the household incomes, that is to say, they don't have a 50% income of what the richest have, they are the ones who if you are counting households from richest to poorest, are the exact middle number, not the middle income. That's obvious if you know what median means, otherwise not clear at all.

Poverty as 60% of median is very silly. I would go so far as to say almost nobody (excluding children of malignant parents) in this country, or indeed the EU or the USA is poor, and they haven't been since WW2.