EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[Shef1985]

Declaring something ludicrous does not magically make it so.

 

Disagreeing with me doesn't make you right!

[unbeliever]

Disagreeing with me doesn't make you right!

 

Of course not. You're not an idiot. Your view is not insane. I disagree very strongly though. And I have history on my side.

[JFKvsNixon]

It would seem so.

I understand your perspective. But my view is if you're going to take no as something other than no, then you shouldn't ask yes or no questions.

 

 

 

The EU doesn't yet have an army (it's in the works though) and EU law currently explicitly permits exit.

History tells us that this will not always be the case.

 

Take a look at this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe

Then tell me how many referenda there have been on granting these regions independence or change of nationality as they would wish. I'm not saying all the requests should be granted. But how many referenda have there been?

 

It might happen something like this:

The EU had a hell of a time getting the Lisbon treaty ratified. But the project must march onwards. For one thing the Eurozone will never function properly without greater political union. The biggest change that the Lisbon treaty made is that all manner of matters which previously required unanimity changed to qualified majority voting. We were promised a referendum on this treaty if you recall by Labour, but at the last minute there were a few tweaks and the Labour government stated that there was to be no referendum on account of the tweaks.

A treaty is put forward. It's long and complicated and thus difficult for most to completely understand, but on the face of it looks rather minor. A Europhile UK government signs it along with everybody else arguing that it is a minor treaty with no transfers of competence from the UK to the EU. There's a lot of noise from the eurosceptic campaigners and MPs, but in the end it goes through without much difficulty. There's one thing in this treaty that makes a huge difference. Henceforth competencies can be transferred from nations to the EU on the basis of qualified majority voting.

Military unification follows a few years later.

What then if the UK decides we want to leave?

 

There is so much conjecture there to make the post meaningless, and the post does head in the direction of the much used Brexit support's stance that those Europeans cannot be trusted.

 

For example, the suggestion regarding the EU military is a proposal for a collective defence rather than an amalgamation of the the EU countries defences.

 

When you consider that collective defence would be stronger than each individual country standing alone, when you also consider that integration of plans and equipment also increases Europe's security, you can see why it is being considered.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2016 at 14:44 ----------

 

It's not the lash of the dictator or anything. Do you think the Irish people understood at the time, that no did not mean no?

 

I wouldn't patronise the Irish by believing that they did not understand the process that they were going through. It does seem that generally the Irish were happy with the outcome.

[unbeliever]

There is so much conjecture there to make the post meaningless, and the post does head in the direction of the much used Brexit support's stance that those Europeans cannot be trusted.

 

For example, the suggestion regarding the EU military is a proposal for a collective defence rather than an amalgamation of the the EU countries defences.

 

When you consider that collective defence would be stronger than each individual country standing alone, when you also consider that integration of plans and equipment also increases Europe's security, you can see why it is being considered.

 

You've just stated that you think it would be a good idea for the EU to control a military force larger than any single member nation controls.

How would that state of affairs be different to the USA in 1861?

[kidley]

Absolutely 100% yes. What a ludicrous question.

 

just as a matter of interest, how many years is a few

[I1L2T3]

You've just stated that you think it would be a good idea for the EU to control a military force larger than any single member nation controls.

How would that state of affairs be different to the USA in 1861?

 

Seriously, you seem to be losing the plot. Forget this American civil war stuff. It's patently irrelevant.

[JFKvsNixon]

You've just stated that you think it would be a good idea for the EU to control a military force larger than any single member nation controls.

How would that state of affairs be different to the USA in 1861?

 

So are you saying that during the Cold War our first line of defence should have been on our coast rather than relying on the collective defence of NATO with it's integration of plans and equipment?

[unbeliever]

So are you saying that during the Cold War our first line of defence should have been on our coast rather than relying on the collective defence of NATO with it's integration of plans and equipment?

 

NATO was never a political union. It's a military alliance.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2016 at 15:10 ----------

 

Seriously, you seem to be losing the plot. Forget this American civil war stuff. It's patently irrelevant.

 

How it is irrelevant. What is a better historical analogue?

[Shef1985]

Of course not. You're not an idiot. Your view is not insane. I disagree very strongly though. And I have history on my side.

 

We hold differing views, yes. To convince you to share my belief it seems I would have to prove a negative.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2016 at 15:12 ----------

 

just as a matter of interest, how many years is a few

 

Sorry, what's the context to your question?

[The Joker]

Ah, good old NATO.

 

The only reason Obama wants all these Eastern European countries (and Turkey) to join the EU is so he can park the tanks on Putin's doorstep.