Brexit, for once some facts.

[Zlatan]

Zlatan... There are two types of threat... For 2000 years or more it has been intra European faction fighting. The last big one ending in 1945. There has been no Wars between EEC ir EU members since. . That is an accomplishment and fleccs comments.
There are other threats .. external actors , and in the case of Europe that has been the USSR between 1946 and about 1990 . OTAN or as the Anglos call it NATO was constructed to contain that threat. And it was a real threat. Now the defence of Europe by NATO actually involved the US military Dropping Nuclear weapons in Northern Germany , to counter massive USSR tank deployment through Luneburg. So in order to protect the USA and the UK and maybe France and Spain,Italy anything from Hamburg, to Hannover would be wiped out. For some reason, the Germans find that distasteful.
Since that has not happened, we can say we have had peace in Europe due to NATO..or perhaps the Russians did not really want to invade. Why would they want to?.

Agreed, but EU supporters often make this claim about EU bringing peace to Europe and it is completely spurious
EU wasn't actually formed until 1993,prior to that was simply a trading block. (EEC) Now correct me if I, m wrong but Europe managed to get to 1993 without going to war again.
European countries realised war was not a viable way forward within Europe after 1945.EU supporters jump into this and push this as being because of EU. Rubbish. There was an awakening after WW2 realising the damage and futility of further European conflict. How on earth is any of that at the behest of EU... Then examine outside threats.. Former USSR now Russia have remained within terms more or less agreed after WW2... (with a few incursions) Is that because of EU? No, it because NATO have sat guard making sure any gains would come with costs. If its not the reason, we'll just send NATO home and stop all European defence budgets. But we won't because secretly we all know that those forces need to be there. Just like Australia are now thinking "hang on a minute, we do need a nuclear capability".
If perhaps you, flecc and Woosh have it right and all these governments spending trillions on defence have it wrong... Sounding a touch pretentious again me thinks.
Woosh, Flecc, and yourself know better than all these silly prime ministers, defence staff, admirals, Arnmnt commanders, Etc etc. I don't think so.
We need NATO or we need something to replace it. EU should be doing so. It can't, won't or doesn't care to. So what is it doing. Telling us to use same charging plugs, with its head up its arse and both firmly in the sand.

Beatles formed in 1960,attributing European peace to EU, we might as well attribute it to John Lennon with Give Peace A Chance. Both had similar effects on European peace.

 

[oyster]

The Torygraph is reporting that Boris is about to relax visa rules for HGV drivers has anyone heard anything? Can't see this going down well with blue passport clutching, fat necked brexit dads. They will be shouting they are all coming over here stealing our jobs again, damn shame the Brits don't want these jobs due to the pay and tough conditions.

I think I briefly saw something.

It is plain ridiculous to insist he will not do so, allow all the damage that has already occurred (and there must be more to come), then cave in. And absolutely 100% typical. Not quite sure where to put it on the ever-extending Johnson ineptitude scale.

Went out a bit earlier and passed a forecourt which was absolutely full. With vehicles queuing to cross the carriageway into it. Never seen anything like it round here - mostly you would be surprised to see more than two vehicles filling up. (It is on a main road and very easy to turn into, and leave quickly.) At a rough guess, maybe thirty or so today.

I really do feel sorry for those who rely on fuel to get to work.

 

[Nev]

My wife had her booster jab on Wednesday, has had problems ever since with head ache, back pain, pain in her arm pit and feeling really tired. Several of her work colleges have had similar symptoms, I don't think any of them had problems with the first two jabs, all of them have now had three doses of Pfizer
The nurse administering the jab told the wife that she had been quite ill for a couple of days after her booster, but had no ill effects when she had the first two jabs.

I wonder if all this is just a coincidence and the after effect will be no worse than with the first two jabs, or if one had AZ for the first two, will one get less side effects if one has Pfizer for the booster.

Although I don't like the sound of these side effects I will be taking my booster when it is offered to me.

 

[Nev]

I think I briefly saw something.

The Guardian now has the story.
Supply chain crisis: Tories poised to U-turn on foreign worker visas | Supply chain crisis | The Guardian

 

[oyster]

My wife had her booster jab on Wednesday, has had problems ever since with head ache, back pain, pain in her arm pit and feeling really tired. Several of her work colleges have had similar symptoms, I don't think any of them had problems with the first two jabs, all of them have now had three doses of Pfizer
The nurse administering the jab told the wife that she had been quite ill for a couple of days after her booster, but had no ill effects when she had the first two jabs.

I wonder if all this is just a coincidence and the after effect will be no worse than with the first two jabs, or if one had AZ for the first two, will one get less side effects if one has Pfizer for the booster.

Although I don't like the sound of these side effects I will be taking my booster when it is offered to me.

Very early (last year) there were suggestions that three of the same might not be such a good idea.

Listened to a radio progam earlier today which appeared to suggest that the origins of Covid-19 might indeed be bats - from evidence of coronaviruses in bats in Laos.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000zv3t

 

[oldgroaner]

Ha
Habitually offensive with nothing to add to argument. Normal for you OG.
Do you want Europe to stop spending on defence to rely on the EU message or not.
Yep, it's great having high ideals as no doubt we all have. Can you guarantee Russia, North Korea, Taliban, Isis, China have similar morals... Guarantee it OG.
No, I didn't think you could. So we rely on having a retaliatory capability to prevent(well attempt to) stop it happening.
World isn't full of pacifists. The US is not the enemy. They have tried to keep peace, failed in many places, caused mayhem in some attempts, but generally Europe has benefitted to tune of 75 years of peace because of it.
Throw it away at your peril. The EU in its current form could not stop a riot in a nursery school,even if they tried. It would be someone else's responsibility. The individual country's or NATO's. EU is useless.

You just described yourself. Naive
The USA is the worst form of enemy, it has used and abused us and grown rich on the blood of our soldiers, in the first world war till our ability to pay for arms ran out, and in the second world war would have been happy to stay out of it raking the profits in, until Japan forced their hand.
As to morals, are you accusing the USA of having better morals that anyone? how many deaths have they notched in the name of revenge? or "Peacekeeping"?
Get Real.
As to having a big stick, that is an even bigger illusion , what we have is literally controlled in the final analysis in America, and if we were in trouble nuclear wise the USA would write us off as collateral damage.
The EU is not a military power and was not set up to be one, why do you continue fail to understand that?
You might was well arm the boats of the RNLI, they have a much bigger fleet than the Royal Navy.

 

[Danidl]

Agreed, but EU supporters often make this claim about EU bringing peace to Europe and it is completely spurious
EU wasn't actually formed until 1993,prior to that was simply a trading block. (EEC) Now correct me if I, m wrong but Europe managed to get to 1993 without going to war again.
European countries realised war was not a viable way forward within Europe after 1945.EU supporters jump into this and push this as being because of EU. Rubbish. There was an awakening after WW2 realising the damage and futility of further European conflict. How on earth is any of that at the behest of EU... Then examine outside threats.. Former USSR now Russia have remained within terms more or less agreed after WW2... (with a few incursions) Is that because of EU? No, it because NATO have sat guard making sure any gains would come with costs. If its not the reason, we'll just send NATO home and stop all European defence budgets. But we won't because secretly we all know that those forces need to be there. Just like Australia are now thinking "hang on a minute, we do need a nuclear capability".
If perhaps you, flecc and Woosh have it right and all these governments spending trillions on defence have it wrong... Sounding a touch pretentious again me thinks.
Woosh, Flecc, and yourself know better than all these silly prime ministers, defence staff, admirals, Arnmnt commanders, Etc etc. I don't think so.
We need NATO or we need something to replace it. EU should be doing so. It can't, won't or doesn't care to. So what is it doing. Telling us to use same charging plugs, with its head up its arse and both firmly in the sand.

Beatles formed in 1960,attributing European peace to EU, we might as well attribute it to John Lennon with Give Peace A Chance. Both had similar effects on European peace.

There is disinguity, and that opening paragraph wins a prize. . The Council of Rome set up the Coal and Steel agreements,1956 which in turn , and yes the avowed aim of the Rome Treaty was no more European War , set up the EEC,. Multiple treaties later , and expansion from 6 to 28 we get the EU ..with others waiting in the wings ..but there is a totally linear progression.
When you and your dearly beloved are asked how long you are together, ..You will probably or she will certainly , identify the day and the place back in the year dot .
What flecc and I are attempting to point out is that there is usually another way than pointing big guns. If I get a knife, you get a sword, , I then get a spear , you get a slingshot. It makes so much more sense for us both to go to a court then nothing except egos get hurt. And if you still want to bully me, ... And others see it is unnecessary and unjustified, they boycott you.

 

[oyster]

The Guardian now has the story.
Supply chain crisis: Tories poised to U-turn on foreign worker visas | Supply chain crisis | The Guardian

Somewhat concerning it appears there are ministers who would be happy to continue with this disaster.

 

[Zlatan]

There is disinguity, and that opening paragraph wins a prize. . The Council of Rome set up the Coal and Steel agreements,1956 which in turn , and yes the avowed aim of the Rome Treaty was no more European War , set up the EEC,. Multiple treaties later , and expansion from 6 to 28 we get the EU ..with others waiting in the wings ..but there is a totally linear progression.
When you and your dearly beloved are asked how long you are together, ..You will probably or she will certainly , identify the day and the place back in the year dot .
What flecc and I are attempting to point out is that there is usually another way than pointing big guns. If I get a knife, you get a sword, , I then get a spear , you get a slingshot. It makes so much more sense for us both to go to a court then nothing except egos get hurt. And if you still want to bully me, ... And others see it is unnecessary and unjustified, they boycott you.

Yes, I can see all that Danidl and perhaps in 2000 years when all humans have grown up then possibly we could rely on that ideology... Unfortunately at moment it relies on carrying as big a stick as likely aggressors and spending trillions on such things as NATO..
You aren't trying to convince me, it's the entire world.. Look at World Wide defence budgets... Of course in an ideal world we wouldn't need such a stance but we don't live in an ideal world, it just appears to some of us that way because we are enjoying the security that very spending affords us.
We don't notice what NATO, Nuclear submarines and the vast spending buys because it is working. We are free, we enjoy liberties and a lifestyle envied all over the world. Enjoy it. It could easily be lost.

 

[flecc]

How come Andorra and Iceland have managed to avoid war?

Stop being so silly. Andorra and Iceland have no record of war between them so they are irrelevant to this discussion. The European countries have an appalling record of war stretching back many centuries, and that's what the EU and it's former selfs have successfully stopped happening. Following the two world wars, the people of Europe said "never again in Europe", so in succession through the Treaty of Rome the ECSC, the EEC and the EU that objective was pursued. They've completed that successfully totally unaided externally, a huge achievement in an amazingly short time, but due to your bigotry you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that truth.
.

 

[flecc]

Agreed, but EU supporters often make this claim about EU bringing peace to Europe and it is completely spurious
EU wasn't actually formed until 1993,prior to that was simply a trading block. (EEC) Now correct me if I, m wrong but Europe managed to get to 1993 without going to war again.
European countries realised war was not a viable way forward within Europe after 1945.EU supporters jump into this and push this as being because of EU.

Your ignorance and total lack of knowledge of this subject is staggering.

Read and learn:

"The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was a European organisation created after World War II to regulate the coal and steel industries. It was formally established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, signed by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The ECSC was an international organisation based on the principle of supranationalism,[2] and started a process of integration which ultimately led to the creation of the European Union.

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"[3]"

Its successors, the EEC and the EU continued that theme to make war impossible between any member countries. That they've done with total success.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Your ignorance and total lack of knowledge of this subject is staggering.

Read and learn:

"The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was a European organisation created after World War II to regulate the coal and steel industries. It was formally established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, signed by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The ECSC was an international organisation based on the principle of supranationalism,[2] and started a process of integration which ultimately led to the creation of the European Union.

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"[3]"

Its successors, the EEC and the EU continued that theme to make war impossible between any member countries. That they've done with total success.
.

Your dismissal of what NATO has done, is doing and needs to do for a while longer yet is beyond staggering and extremely dangerous.
Imagine 2 scenarios.
First one EU failed to materialise and Europe remained 36 or so distinct sovereign states. Outcome... Well not much difference. Probably poorer standardisation, probably harder movement of labour, immigrants, emigrants, tourists...
Scenario 2
No NATO, no massive defence spending by France, UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy. No US help. They went home straight ofter VE day.
Mmm. I wonder..
You certainly wouldn't be typing freely on here. You don't appreciate the efforts made on your behalf to keep the very things you pretend the EU has given you.
You and your supporters, have still failed to offer one shred of concrete evidence that EU has either helped facilitate peace between the European countries we view as allies (and fought beside and for in 2 world wars) or one piece of action EU has taken to defend Europe... Not one... Because there aren't any.
Whereas for past 60 years NATO troups have been sat throughout Europe, silently doing their job, defending Europe yet amazingly you chose to ignore all that and give the praise of their efforts to a set of idiots in Brussels. Who drove the tanks, flew the helicopters, manned the fighters, watched, the radar screens and patroled our skies? The, EU sure as hell did not. They don't pay towards it, advise it or help with any of it. Then foolish liberals tell all those folk their jobs are pointless because the EU has given us peace. Utter rubbish.
Go tell Australia they don't need Atomic subs, tell our Mod they are a waste of money, go tell NATO they should be debunked and sent home...
Tell all the tax payers defence spending is pointless because your EU with scant regard for our security has somehow kept us safe... Without spending a single Euro on defence. Magical. World peace guaranteed. Just let EU take charge.
Its an utterly selfish attitude flecc and totally unappreciative of those who have strived to keep Europe war free. Its missing the point by lightyears. And unbelievably dangerous.
See what happens if all defence spending by and on Europe was stopped. EU would not last a month.

 

[Danidl]

Agreed, but EU supporters often make this claim about EU bringing peace to Europe and it is completely spurious
EU wasn't actually formed until 1993,prior to that was simply a trading block. (EEC) Now correct me if I, m wrong but Europe managed to get to 1993 without going to war again.
European countries realised war was not a viable way forward within Europe after 1945.EU supporters jump into this and push this as being because of EU. Rubbish. There was an awakening after WW2 realising the damage and futility of further European conflict. How on earth is any of that at the behest of EU... Then examine outside threats.. Former USSR now Russia have remained within terms more or less agreed after WW2... (with a few incursions) Is that because of EU? No, it because NATO have sat guard making sure any gains would come with costs. If its not the reason, we'll just send NATO home and stop all European defence budgets. But we won't because secretly we all know that those forces need to be there. Just like Australia are now thinking "hang on a minute, we do need a nuclear capability".
If perhaps you, flecc and Woosh have it right and all these governments spending trillions on defence have it wrong... Sounding a touch pretentious again me thinks.
Woosh, Flecc, and yourself know better than all these silly prime ministers, defence staff, admirals, Arnmnt commanders, Etc etc. I don't think so.
We need NATO or we need something to replace it. EU should be doing so. It can't, won't or doesn't care to. So what is it doing. Telling us to use same charging plugs, with its head up its arse and both firmly in the sand.

Beatles formed in 1960,attributing European peace to EU, we might as well attribute it to John Lennon with Give Peace A Chance. Both had similar effects on European peace.

I accept we do need methods of protection and enforcement and I submit that the UNO should be that power. Now it does need restructuring ... The Asian side of the world needs to be in the security council.

 

[Zlatan]

I accept we do need methods of protection and enforcement and I submit that the UNO should be that power. Now it does need restructuring ... The Asian side of the world needs to be in the security council.

Totally agreed. NATO is viewed as an EU partner with shared goals... But without NATO would we have an EU or Europe?
Should be a European force or as you say a world wide power...

 

[flecc]

Your dismissal of what NATO has done, is doing and needs to do for a while longer yet is beyond staggering and extremely dangerous.
Imagine 2 scenarios.
First one EU failed to materialise and Europe remained 36 or so distinct sovereign states. Outcome... Well not much difference. Probably poorer standardisation, probably harder movement of labour, immigrants, emigrants, tourists...
Scenario 2
No NATO, no massive defence spending by France, UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy. No US help. They went home straight ofter VE day.
Mmm. I wonder..
You certainly wouldn't be typing freely on here. You don't appreciate the efforts made on your behalf to keep the very things you pretend the EU has given you.
You and your supporters, have still failed to offer one shred of concrete evidence that EU has either helped facilitate peace between the European countries we view as allies (and fought beside and for in 2 world wars) or one piece of action EU has taken to defend Europe... Not one... Because there aren't any.
Whereas for past 60 years NATO troups have been sat throughout Europe, silently doing their job, defending Europe yet amazingly you chose to ignore all that and give the praise of their efforts to a set of idiots in Brussels. Who drove the tanks, flew the helicopters, manned the fighters, watched, the radar screens and patroled our skies? The, EU sure as hell did not. They don't pay towards it, advise it or help with any of it. Then foolish liberals tell all those folk their jobs are pointless because the EU has given us peace. Utter rubbish.
Go tell Australia they don't need Atomic subs, tell our Mod they are a waste of money, go tell NATO they should be debunked and sent home...
Tell all the tax payers defence spending is pointless because your EU with scant regard for our security has somehow kept us safe... Without spending a single Euro on defence. Magical. World peace guaranteed. Just let EU take charge.
Its an utterly selfish attitude flecc and totally unappreciative of those who have strived to keep Europe war free. Its missing the point by lightyears. And unbelievably dangerous.
See what happens if all defence spending by and on Europe was stopped. EU would not last a month.

Pathetic. It's like arguing with a ten year old.

Grow up Zlatan.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Pathetic. It's like arguing with a ten year old.

Grow up Zlatan.
.

Not a particularly convincing argument for claim EU has given us peace for last 60 years flecc, but then again perhaps inevitable, because there isn't one.
Resorting to insults... Last resort and all that.
And still no explanation of any events, structure, policies or actions EU has carried out in achieving peace... Not one.
Just like EU... Just words.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Totally agreed. NATO is viewed as an EU partner with shared goals... But without NATO would we have an EU or Europe?
Should be a European force or as you say a world wide power...

This debate assume there is shared goals, a moral side. I think not. The chinese supported mugabe, Zuma. Much the way US support al-sisi or Russia al-assad. Or the way the US threw all the materiel it could at stalin who not only had a pact with Hitler but was slaughtering his civilians much faster. the eu has the least innocent blood on its hands and since were bloodthirsty dissembling offspring of that murderous apex predator homo erectus it's probably better to create more quasi legal structures to live in rather than arm ourselves more.

 

[oldgroaner]

Tweet of the Day


Otto Von Jizzmark@Ottojizzmark


The human brain is an amazing organ. It keeps working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. From before you leave the womb, right up until you vote
@Conservatives

 

[oldgroaner]

Dripping with stupidity

 

[daveboy]

Our local petrol stations have limited fuel to £40 or less after this photo emerged at
a Pontefract Shell station.