So out means remain

Farage was no self made man - father was a stock broker and as a boy he was sent to to Dulwich College, very expensive school.

 

VdL and Juncker as I've stated have been clear it can be used within....surely this could have been an opportunity when the Danish Govt shot 11 of its own people after being forced to vote again over Maastricht in 1993. It would be a lot more convenient to use EU troops.( sorry if the link is tricky, I'm not at the peak of pc wizadry)

Police shoot 11 in Copenhagen as anti-Maastricht demonstrators riot after the result

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1993/may/20/eu.politics?

 

You're really reaching here, I hope you can see that. On a hint of language spoken by people who are non English, you're basically suggesting we're entering George Orwell 1984 territory where the EU seize control through some secret non secret army. I'd seriously step back from this, because it's seriously paranoid and entering the realms of Lucan, Shergar, Loch Ness Monster and Bermuda Triangle theory.

 

It may be more creditable to say police shot and wounded (non fataly) 11 people .

 

There are few similarities here. Firstly the margin of the vote was a lot greater - 57-43.
Secondly this was a response to a full on riot, where 26 police were also injured & there were no fatalities.

How would a European army be mobilised to respond to something like this, when there are armed police?

Sorry you are clutching at straws to make your points.

As @Jimmy cricket said earlier. If we'd stayed in we could have vetoed any such army. Something I'm fairly sceptical about too, but I'm also sceptical about NATO, given who is in the White House. We have already joined in a bunch of conflicts with the US that were in breach of UN agreements & international law.

 

So. Genuine question as I do not have an answer. Let me get this straight. IF we sign up to this deal, we remain tied to EU rules, present and future for the duration of the transition period. IF the EU decide to pass a rule, say, no referendums within X years of a referendum for EU membership, or even NO referendums for EU Membership, since we no longer have any power of veto, where would that leave us?

 

Sorry? You have lost me. The EU have no power over our parliament over this. Any referendum is called by the UK Parliament in accordance with our constitution. The only referenda we would not be able to take part in is an EU wide one presumably... but WE ARE LEAVING.

 

Blame the Grauniad. ..their headline.

 

Does that go for what was written on the side of a bus then .

 

Im really surprised you've come to that conclusion....hardly anything conspiratorial or OrwellIan. .the two main drivers of the idea have both stated unequivocally that it's troops could be used to restore peace within an EU State...I'm not suggesting that I know the proverbial helicopter pilot, or read it on Breitbart...I'm not theorising anything that Juncker has not told one of Germany's biggest newspapers and VdL has not reinforced in crystal clear terms.
As everyone states The EU is a stickler for rules, and it's clear they've put it in the rules as one of its two stated aims, whether they are ruthless enough to use it is another matter, but to state that it's a conspiracy theory when it's there in black and white suggests you are in denial of the truth.

 

Absolutely not, the bus was not misspelt.

 

I'm surprised you're inferring that the EU want to militarily control Europe. But lets leave it there. I know we don't agree on our main standpoints, this just really takes some initial statements and spins them into raging hyperbole.

 

Debabatable. Alot of the Pesco stuff is already well past infancy.

 

you could well be right because the guise that the eu army is to defend against china,russia and possibly the usa doesnt stack up, cobble together the remaining 27 eu member and you'd hardly have enough spend to tackle blackerhill never mind the three biggest military mights in the world. .out of the eu now theres only us,greece and maybe two others spend the 2% of gdp on defence that nato asks for so to suggest somehow the eu can knock together enough military might to tackle even just one of those three is pie in the sky

the whole suggestion of a eu army imo simply suggests yet more integration between member states,the more the member nations are tied in the more a eu superstate becomes reality.

 

I think a lot of countries in Europe are concerned about not being too involved with America, particularly when Presidents like this one are being elected. Maybe Orban or La Penn are delighted about Trump's success & a few other right wing politicians, but I can see them not wanting to put 2% of GDP by an organisation that is largely run by the Americans, all be it that it has worked well in the past. A European army would have been in the hands of Germany, France, ourselves & to lesser extents the other nations. By bowing out of the EU, we may lose influence over this, if it IS created and passed.

 

trump cant be no worse than past presidents or even past politicians over here that have took us into wars on the back of false allegations.

These countries (if they do exist) that do not like trump would probably be quite happy for americas assistance should anything kick off,I personally think distancing themselves from NATO which IS working well would be a mistake because for the life of me i cannot see a european army having anything like the power and capability to counter anything by russia., indeed like i said previously i'm convinced the eu army is nothing more than another means of closer integration within the eu 'superstate'.

 

I'm not suggesting that it wants to control Europe by military force, I'm sure they would all prefer Member states and their Citizens to acquiesce, what I am saying is that by forming a force under Brussels direction, it is giving itself not only the capability to intervene in a State's internal affairs but has also set as a founding aim justification for doing so.

 

Really? You seem a pretty bright bloke. It isn't the first time we had a Bush or a Reagan type, but this guy is someone that if he was a spitting image puppet, 95% of people would have said had gone too far. I don't think you are defending him, surely?

 

no,i'm not defending him , what i'm saying as far as wars go is he any less trustworthy than those of the last 30 years? time will tell i suppose..

 

You have a point on the track record. America is a tyrant at the best of times. That is why I'm unsure about them & a few others being our only buddies.