More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[Bordeauxclaret]

It’s a good job Ringo is only fanatical about Brexit rather than something else like religion for example.

Being so dangerously stupid could cause real problems then.

[RingoMcCartney]

It’s a good job Ringo is only fanatical about Brexit rather than something else like religion for example.

Being so dangerously stupid could cause real problems then.

I admire your approach to this message board Bordeauxclaret. Not contributing to it at all, just sitting comfortably on the sidelines, with the occasional ,disparaging, quip and snide "idiot" remark. Its clever. It really is.

Isn't that the "say nothing at all, otherwise I could reveal just how dangerously stupid I am" verbal sniper technique!?

(And before you all offer me advice that I should adopt that technique.)

I'd rather be considered as dangerously stupid, but at least having an opinion. Compared to you Bordeauxclaret, who, I suspect is just, well, dangerously stupid!.......

But fair play to you Brains!

[nil_desperandum]

I almost felt embarrassed for the Remoaners, Nicky "why did leave my cosseted metropolitan bubble?" Morgan

Just to clarify. I'm not particularly a fan of Morgan but she represents a key marginal seat in Leicestershire. (It's regarded by many analysts as the true barometer of public opinion, and the elected MP has always represented the winning party since 1974.)
Now this doesn't mean that she is always correct, but what it does theoretically suggest is that she should be well-informed, accountable and having her finger on the pulse. To describe her as living in a "cosseted metropolitan bubble" is way off the mark.

[randomclaret2]

" well informed, accountable and having her finger on the pulse"...because she represents a marginal seat ?

[RingoMcCartney]

Just to clarify. I'm not particularly a fan of Morgan but she represents a key marginal seat in Leicestershire. (It's regarded by many analysts as the true barometer of public opinion, and the elected MP has always represented the winning party since 1974.)
Now this doesn't mean that she is always correct, but what it does theoretically suggest is that she should be well-informed, accountable and having her finger on the pulse. To describe her as living in a "cosseted metropolitan bubble" is way off the mark.

Fair enough. But she looked visibly struck by the real anger in the audience. A duplicitous , anglophobic, undermining, obstructing traitor is never going to get an easy ride from an honest , straight talking, Burnsley audience are they!? And deservedly so in my opinion.

I wonder why, as somebody who as remain campaigner, Morgan was more than happy to give sovereignty in buckets full, to the EU. But now that very same sovereignty now seems to be so vitally important!!! Also she feels a need to scrutinise. Why was she, and her like, not quite as keen for scrutiny as treaty after treaty our sovereignty was gifted to Brussels?

You don't think sovereignty and scrutiny are simply politically correct terms for trying to stop brexit do you!?

The majority of country DO! Even many Remoaners agree!

The odious Starmer wasn't even there and he got some right grief!!

[Bordeauxclaret]

I admire your approach to this message board Bordeauxclaret. Not contributing to it at all, just sitting comfortably on the sidelines, with the occasional ,disparaging, quip and snide "idiot" remark. Its clever. It really is.

Isn't that the "say nothing at all, otherwise I could reveal just how dangerously stupid I am" verbal sniper technique!?

(And before you all offer me advice that I should adopt that technique.)

I'd rather be considered as dangerously stupid, but at least having an opinion. Compared to you Bordeauxclaret, who, I suspect is just, well, dangerously stupid!.......

But fair play to you Brains!

What’s that quote about opening your mouth and removing all doubt?


Keep entertaining us Ringo. Good lad.

[nil_desperandum]

" well informed, accountable and having her finger on the pulse"...because she represents a marginal seat ?

Why do you question that?
A marginal seat by definition has a broad cross-section of the population residing within it, so in her daily constituency work, she will constantly be encountering the widest possible spectrum of views, problems and complaints and dealing with them. She will have to go out onto the doorsteps to canvas support at the next election, unlike so many in safe seats.
Incidentally. I didn't say she was "well informed, accountable" etc. I said that theoretically she should be, given that she is so obviously not "cosseted in the Westminster bubble."

[randomclaret2]

I see no connection at all, but thats just my opinion.

[aggi]

Well you can try and dismiss Macron ""autonomous capacity for action" through a joint military force."? - An EU army.

You can try and dismiss Arch euro federalist Mogherini boasting, European Union of Security and Defence” was ”not a dream anymore, it is reality coming true”. An EU army.

And you can try and dismiss Remaining EU countries agree to plan to integrate their military forces after Brexit as not being an EU army.

You can ignore the Permanent Structured Cooperation (Pesco) is an eu army in all but name.

And you can hope and pray that the alcoholic clown Drunker, isn't left in charge of it!!!!!!

But as I said this morning. Walk onto any steet of any town in the United kingdom and ask they'd want their defence force to defend these islands or be consumed by an EU army. The majority of the people would choose the former, not the latter.

And the fact that you, and the usual gaggle of Remoaners know that to be the case. And it would be massively unpopular and a great reason to stay out of the EU. Is why you've spent all afternoon trying to deny it's even true!

So absolutely no rowing back from me. None what so ever.

The EU is suffering from worryingly large scale mission creep.

A "trading bloc" with an army!? A f****** army!

I can dismiss it, because what I did was see the headlines and then do some research. Looked at the full speech, read the PESCO briefing, etc. What that told me was that the talk of an EU army was way off the mark.

What I assume you did was look at the headlines, saw what Nigel Farage had to say and left it at that.

I've no idea why you keep wittering on about the man in the street and the EU army, I don't disagree with you there but it's entirely irrelevant in the context of the debate (unless of course you haven't actually understand what PESCO is). It's a straw man argument because you can't actually attack the facts.

[nil_desperandum]

I see no connection at all, but thats just my opinion.

So who is more likely to be in touch, and conscious of what's happening in her / his constituency?
The MP / candidate, (Labour or Tory it doesn't matter), with a built-in 25 / 30, 000 majority who only has to put their name on the ballot paper to get elected, or someone who is fighting for every vote?
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but surely you can see where I'm coming from on this?

[RingoMcCartney]

What’s that quote about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

Exactly Bordeauxclaret!! Thats exactly what you do!!

Better to be suspected of being an idiot, than opening your mouth and removing all doubt!

That's your approach to this message board!

The keep quiet, odd "idiot" remark, zero contributions, and verbal sniper technique. You keep that up and, fingers crossed, no body will ever suspect you of actually being dangerously stupid!!

You hang on in there my gormless friend!

Your secrets safe with me daft lad!

[Bordeauxclaret]

You forget, I’ve played the Ringo Dingo game before. I’m well aware how futile it is. It was even linked on this thread. The one where you claimed someone had said something about our transfer record and Brexit. It was pointed out to you that wasn’t what was said. Even you admitted it hadn’t been said but then continued to argue as though it had.
On and on it went. No matter how many tried to explain you just couldn’t comprehend. A common theme.
At this point I assumed you were drunk. You got upset at that claiming you shouldn’t say people are drunks.
However the hypocrisy comes in then when you claim it about others. It’s not surprising as you can’t seem to remember what you’ve said from one day to the next. If that’s saying you won’t converse with turtle after he claimed you got off on terrorist attacks or upthebeehole for claiming whatever that was.
Time after time, page after page you show your stupidity, completely unable to get your head around what people are explaining to you, if that’s martinp or aggi it matters not.

It’s a lot wiser to sit and watch you make a fool out of yourself page after page.
Still, it’s sweet to see you claiming victories.
34 and counting.

[RingoMcCartney]

You forget, I’ve played the Ringo Dingo game before. I’m well aware how futile it is. It was even linked on this thread. The one where you claimed someone had said something about our transfer record and Brexit. It was pointed out to you that wasn’t what was said. Even you admitted it hadn’t been said but then continued to argue as though it had.
On and on it went. No matter how many tried to explain you just couldn’t comprehend. A common theme.
At this point I assumed you were drunk. You got upset at that claiming you shouldn’t say people are drunks.
However the hypocrisy comes in then when you claim it about others. It’s not surprising as you can’t seem to remember what you’ve said from one day to the next. If that’s saying you won’t converse with turtle after he claimed you got off on terrorist attacks or upthebeehole for claiming whatever that was.
Time after time, page after page you show your stupidity, completely unable to get your head around what people are explaining to you, if that’s martinp or aggi it matters not.

It’s a lot wiser to sit and watch you make a fool out of yourself page after page.
Still, it’s sweet to see you claiming victories.
34 and counting.

If Carlsberg did raw nerve well and truly hit!

[JohnMcGreal]

Better to be suspected of being an idiot, than opening your mouth and removing all doubt

My sides hurt.

[RingoMcCartney]

I can dismiss it, because what I did was see the headlines and then do some research. Looked at the full speech, read the PESCO briefing, etc. What that told me was that the talk of an EU army was way off the mark.

What I assume you did was look at the headlines, saw what Nigel Farage had to say and left it at that.

I've no idea why you keep wittering on about the man in the street and the EU army, I don't disagree with you there but it's entirely irrelevant in the context of the debate (unless of course you haven't actually understand what PESCO is). It's a straw man argument because you can't actually attack the facts.

Your right you can dismiss it. However, I'm confident that my opinion is the majority one. The EU is suffering from institutional mission creep on grand scale on many levels. You see when an elite has power it's very resistant to relinquish that control. Quite the opposite in fact. But, what you see as the brexit process progresses, is this. Firstly, the promised economic apocalypse has not materialised. Secondly, an arrogant bullying approach by the likes of the belligerent, Barnier and Guy Verhofstadt and the British people find it increasingly disrespectful. And finally, and perhaps more relevant to our discussion. An emboldened EU with plans way beyond its supposed raison d'etre. An EU army typifies this. But some of the proposals Drunker has boasted about will come to the forefront as the spotlight focuses on the direction of the EUs travel. Like unelected eurocrats to over ride, the fiscal and monetary, sovereignty of democratically elected national governments. Forcing nations to accept illegal immigrants against their will is another.

And people can see this. Many people who voted Leave can also see this. Around 70% of the population simply went brexit to happen. Only a small number, but admittedly very influential, hard core Remoaners are still trying to thwart democracy. Worryingly, they're concentrated in Parliament and The Lords. But they'll be smoked out by democracy, the Will of the People and there being too many good men, unwilling to let their usurping and coniving win.

So one by one. Finger buy finger. The elites power-hungry grip will be loosened, whether they want to or not. Mark my words.

By the way. I've actually enjoyed our discussion. Fair play for playing the ball not the man. Not using personal insults and unnecessarily foul language. And not resorting to sneering, belittling or personal insults. So fair play to you. Im signing off for tonight. Enjoy the game tomorrow. A hard fought 2.1 with a deft Wood header being the difference. Up the clarets!

[Bordeauxclaret]

If Carlsberg did raw nerve well and truly hit!

Just keep posting Ringo, that’s all I ask. Good lad.

[RingoMcCartney]

Just keep posting Ringo, that’s all I ask. Good lad.

When there's nothing left to say. Bordeauxclaret's left still saying it!

[Bordeauxclaret]

Keep going. Good lad.
Less time on The Guardian website. More on here.

[If it be your will]

Brexit or not, I think a major European army, which the UK contributes to, is a great idea. Particularly now the major NATO player is losing its marbles. I don't understand the problem, and it seems a logical step forward to counterbalance potential Russian aggression. I can't see Trump stepping in to defend us. We could develop our own missile defence shield, something no individual European country could afford to do alone - the possibilities are endless in fact. (Those supporting Brexit are indeed a strange, varied bunch aren't we?)

[CrosspoolClarets]

I've kept out of this debate up to now, but a European army is potentially the most stupid, reckless idea of a huge number of stupid, reckless ideas all based in overly liberal thinking, with national boundaries becoming unimportant to many [incredibly dim] young people.

Some harmonisation ideas to straddle national boundaries are daft but are only mildly dangerous or threatening. Driving laws being a good example. Can't be just me who has noticed that the quality of driving in the UK has plummeted in recent years because of different driving culture in different countries that drivers originate from. So a proposal to harmonise driving laws would be daft, but only mildly dangerous. As far as I know this hasn't been suggested but it is only a matter of time until it is.

A European army though would be far more dangerous. It would, based on the EU’s Global Strategy on Foreign Security Policy, potentially allow the EU to control military resources in EU countries. Thus, if Belgium doesn't want to send resources to the eastern front when eastern EU states feel threatened by Putin, it may not have a choice. France retaining control of nuclear weapons would seem important, but not guaranteed. NATO would end up playing second fiddle too, a dangerous move away from the status quo that has kept us safe. If the US have to play second fiddle to a EU army, will they keep funding NATO? Will young people still join up if they are joining up to serve the European flag on their uniform, not the Union Jack (it's not the ultra-liberals living in cities who tend to be the recruiting ground for the forces)?

Luckily, it won't happen. The majority of people in Europe are not daft, far from it.

[RingoMcCartney]

I've kept out of this debate up to now, but a European army is potentially the most stupid, reckless idea of a huge number of stupid, reckless ideas all based in overly liberal thinking, with national boundaries becoming unimportant to many [incredibly dim] young people.

Some harmonisation ideas to straddle national boundaries are daft but are only mildly dangerous or threatening. Driving laws being a good example. Can't be just me who has noticed that the quality of driving in the UK has plummeted in recent years because of different driving culture in different countries that drivers originate from. So a proposal to harmonise driving laws would be daft, but only mildly dangerous. As far as I know this hasn't been suggested but it is only a matter of time until it is.

A European army though would be far more dangerous. It would, based on the EU’s Global Strategy on Foreign Security Policy, potentially allow the EU to control military resources in EU countries. Thus, if Belgium doesn't want to send resources to the eastern front when eastern EU states feel threatened by Putin, it may not have a choice. France retaining control of nuclear weapons would seem important, but not guaranteed. NATO would end up playing second fiddle too, a dangerous move away from the status quo that has kept us safe. If the US have to play second fiddle to a EU army, will they keep funding NATO? Will young people still join up if they are joining up to serve the European flag on their uniform, not the Union Jack (it's not the ultra-liberals living in cities who tend to be the recruiting ground for the forces)?

Luckily, it won't happen. The majority of people in Europe are not daft, far from it.

A fine fine post!!

Good on ya!

[Spijed]

I've kept out of this debate up to now, but a European army is potentially the most stupid, reckless idea of a huge number of stupid, reckless ideas all based in overly liberal thinking, with national boundaries becoming unimportant to many [incredibly dim] young people.

Some harmonisation ideas to straddle national boundaries are daft but are only mildly dangerous or threatening. Driving laws being a good example. Can't be just me who has noticed that the quality of driving in the UK has plummeted in recent years because of different driving culture in different countries that drivers originate from. So a proposal to harmonise driving laws would be daft, but only mildly dangerous. As far as I know this hasn't been suggested but it is only a matter of time until it is.

A European army though would be far more dangerous. It would, based on the EU’s Global Strategy on Foreign Security Policy, potentially allow the EU to control military resources in EU countries. Thus, if Belgium doesn't want to send resources to the eastern front when eastern EU states feel threatened by Putin, it may not have a choice. France retaining control of nuclear weapons would seem important, but not guaranteed. NATO would end up playing second fiddle too, a dangerous move away from the status quo that has kept us safe. If the US have to play second fiddle to a EU army, will they keep funding NATO? Will young people still join up if they are joining up to serve the European flag on their uniform, not the Union Jack (it's not the ultra-liberals living in cities who tend to be the recruiting ground for the forces)?

Luckily, it won't happen. The majority of people in Europe are not daft, far from it.

And what about Europe wide sharing of intelligence data and police information? That requires harmonisation.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its not a fine post indeed sadly

He's blamed foreigners for Brits being **** at driving, he's got as much knowledge as you have on how to run an actual army or the command structure of NATO and he's incapable of seeing just how ridiculous his post is. In short, he's gone full ringo.

This is the bit that worries me the most.

Thus, if Belgium doesn't want to send resources to the eastern front when eastern EU states feel threatened by Putin, it may not have a choice.

That is a ******* NATO requirement for god sake.

it is called collective responsibility and "an attack on one, is an attack on all". Without, we might as well not be a member of NATO. has the idoicy of brexit got that far so that intelligent people think that is acceptable?

I'm sticking to my position that supporters of Brexit lose their marbles when they have to try to justify it.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's amazing that someone would complain that driving quality in the UK has lowered and then in the same breath criticise the harmonisation of driving laws which would clearly improve driving quality in the uk. It's like intelligent people are running out of intelligent reasons to oppose the things they hate and so are using the stupid reasons they read about from the right-wing news/blogs/forums and deciding that's good enough.

The unbelievable stupidity of stupid people isn't the problem, it's the stupidity of non-stupid people that is threatening this country. Crosspool is supposed to be one of the intelligent ones, but if you didn't know better you'd never be able to tell.

[If it be your will]

I've kept out of this debate up to now, but a European army is potentially the most stupid, reckless idea of a huge number of stupid, reckless ideas all based in overly liberal thinking, with national boundaries becoming unimportant to many [incredibly dim] young people.

Some harmonisation ideas to straddle national boundaries are daft but are only mildly dangerous or threatening. Driving laws being a good example. Can't be just me who has noticed that the quality of driving in the UK has plummeted in recent years because of different driving culture in different countries that drivers originate from. So a proposal to harmonise driving laws would be daft, but only mildly dangerous. As far as I know this hasn't been suggested but it is only a matter of time until it is.

A European army though would be far more dangerous. It would, based on the EU’s Global Strategy on Foreign Security Policy, potentially allow the EU to control military resources in EU countries. Thus, if Belgium doesn't want to send resources to the eastern front when eastern EU states feel threatened by Putin, it may not have a choice. France retaining control of nuclear weapons would seem important, but not guaranteed. NATO would end up playing second fiddle too, a dangerous move away from the status quo that has kept us safe. If the US have to play second fiddle to a EU army, will they keep funding NATO? Will young people still join up if they are joining up to serve the European flag on their uniform, not the Union Jack (it's not the ultra-liberals living in cities who tend to be the recruiting ground for the forces)?

Luckily, it won't happen. The majority of people in Europe are not daft, far from it.

It's exceptionally rare for my mind to be changed by simple accusations of stupidity or (supposed!) youthful innocence. It is equally rare if the argument relies on unsubstantiated stereotypical insults of people from other countries. As such, I've totally disregarded your first two paragraphs.

The third holds my attention, though, as does Lancaster's response. I too, cannot really see the difference between this and the requirements of NATO, which you clearly favour. If there was a co-ordinated effort by Europe to have some form of harmonised armed defence, and - crucially - was prepared to pay for it, US funding of NATO would be less pivotal, and Trump doesn't seem overly inclined to fund NATO anyway ('America First' and all that). So I'm left with 'would young people still sign up' as the remaining concern of those you list. I really don't know the answer to this. Do you?

If I may, can I ask you to explain the problems again, without relying on insults to further the argument? I'm treating this a bit like a dispassionate chess game and asking myself 'Would Putin want Europe to do this or not?' And I think not. I think he's desperate for European fragmentation.

[If it be your will]

The unbelievable stupidity of stupid people isn't the problem, it's the stupidity of non-stupid people that is threatening this country.

I'm going to 'like' my own post with this highlighted to see if it works. (I like it to the extent I'm going to plagiarise it when I'm off this messageboard.)

edit - no it doesn't work.

[biggles]

EU army? maybe the EU wants to distance itself from the USA [especially Trump]. I shudder to think what dangerous situations he could get Europe into. Also, the US contributes a lot of money and resources to NATO. it's about time the EU coughed up a lot more for the defense of Europe instead of being happy to see the US subsidising them. and one of the drawbacks is that by basically funding NATO the US calls the shots and the European nations have to follow where the US decides to go [which is usually wherever the US will gain the most from]. Anyone who thinks that the UK won't be involved in both NATO and a european force, post brexit, is wrong [imho]. it is yet more scare-mongering and mass hysteria from the remain camp to suggest that the UK will be isolated and cast adrift after we leave the EU.

[RingoMcCartney]

That is a ******* NATO requirement for god sake.

it is called collective responsibility and "an attack on one, is an attack on all". Without, we might as well not be a member of NATO. has the idoicy of brexit got that far so that intelligent people think that is acceptable?
.

Given that "it's a ******* NATO requirement gor gods sake"

And, as you concede, collective responsibility actually already exists in NATO.

Rather than saying, "we might as well not be a member of NATO"

The question you should be asking given that were already a member of NATO, (which., importantly, includes the USA) . Is, "Why the hell do we need an EU army that will rival NATO for God's sake?"

But you won't. Becauae, you're a Hard core europhile Remainer. So blinkered that this blind, almost religious fervour, of the EU experiment, that grips you. Means common sense goes right out the same window as your respect for the result of the referendum and the democratic Will of the People.

A "trading bloc" with an army!?

Reamoners - openly encouraging the EU's blatent mission creep.

[If it be your will]

The question you should be asking given that were already a member of NATO, (which., importantly, includes the USA) . Is, "Why the hell do we need an EU army that will rival NATO for God's sake?"

Because as biggles points out, the main concern of Trump is the USA, not NATO. Added to that Trump has a vision that doesn't tally with the overwhelming majority of Europeans - us in Europe should be preparing to look after ourselves militarily. (I'm politely saying 'Trump is an unhinged nutter' here.)

I think I see the EU (and referendum) as independent from European security. The first I see as an economic block the rules of which I don't like, yet have no objection to a degree of harmonisation of Europe militarily. I therefore edge towards Brexit but lean towards something resembling a combined European armed force.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think we are drifting away from the actual issue a bit here (not a shock when you look at who is involved)

There still isn't an EU army.

His constant deflections are a combination of hilarious and downright worrying. I genuinely think if he'd just admitted at the start than he didn't know anything about this, he'd have been fine. But he's kept going, and going, and going, hoping that by shouting a lot that he'll somehow win the argument.

Every single stereotype of a Brexit voter he nails. Its uncanny, its almost like he's taking the **** and he's really good at it, a sort of messageboard Borat.

But he isn't, he's deadly serious, and he's dragging other Brexiteers down to his level.

[Spiral]

and he's dragging other Brexiteers down to his level.

...I see what you did there.

[Paul Waine]

A lot of posters are posting re a possible EU "defence force" and comparing it with NATO.

We all know that when the UK leaves the EU will have 27 member states.

We all know that USA is the largest country that is a member of NATO. Did we know that 29 countries are members of NATO?

Of course, there are a significant number of countries that are both member states of the EU and member countries of NATO, but there are also a number of countries that are members of one but not a member of the other.

[RingoMcCartney]

A lot of posters are posting re a possible EU "defence force" and comparing it with NATO.

We all know that when the UK leaves the EU will have 27 member states.

We all know that USA is the largest country that is a member of NATO. Did we know that 29 countries are members of NATO?

Of course, there are a significant number of countries that are both member states of the EU and member countries of NATO, but there are also a number of countries that are members of one but not a member of the other.

If Russia wanted to benefit from a divided western Europe, would it prefer to be faced by a united Europe (NATO). Or one divided on which way to jump? NATO or PESCO?

Many people were of the opinion that when the Berlin Wall fell, it was the death of Communism. Others realised that it had simply spilled West......

[Spiral]

Many people were of the opinion that when the Berlin Wall fell, it was the death of Communism. Others realised that it had simply spilled West......

Yes, because the brexit vote was a rejection of communism. Not globalisation or neoliberalism, no; the brexit vote was a lurch towards an unrealistic, illusory solution to the problems caused by communist Europe.

Right. That's that settled, then.

By the way, you're a f.ucking retard.

It'd be chivalrous of you to at the very least provide citation to the meme-esque blogpost-sourced quotes you're attempting to pass off as your own profound wisdom.

What's the weather like in St Petersburg?

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

No need to keep going, the Brexit Ringo voted for has gone. I said a long time ago the intelligent people of the country would fix the decision of the stupid and they are.
When the European parliament is applauding Theresa May then you know little Britain has hit the right tone.
You can't cure Ringo, no matter how weak, pathetic and watered-down "Brexit" becomes he will always think he's won because he's an idiot...

[Bfcboyo]

It's amazing that someone would complain that driving quality in the UK has lowered and then in the same breath criticise the harmonisation of driving laws which would clearly improve driving quality in the uk. It's like intelligent people are running out of intelligent reasons to oppose the things they hate and so are using the stupid reasons they read about from the right-wing news/blogs/forums and deciding that's good enough.

The unbelievable stupidity of stupid people isn't the problem, it's the stupidity of non-stupid people that is threatening this country. Crosspool is supposed to be one of the intelligent ones, but if you didn't know better you'd never be able to tell.

And we all know its the grooming gangs of asian taxi drivers that are at fault for the reckless driving we witness. Charging up and down texting young girls whilst at the wheel. ( tongue in cheek )

Not the good honest European drivers from Poland and Romania.( bloody hell I've done it again )

On a serious note though . If we look at driving standards , and having driven myself in many European countries , the Asian and African continents. We do seem to set a high standard of driving quality in the UK which may take decades for some nations to implement and enforce with any harmonisation.
Not everybody wants to play the long waiting game. I'm prepared to though, on the other side of the brexit fence. And in 50 years Im confident my leave vote will be for the positive of the UK.

[CrosspoolClarets]

While my driving example was fairly tongue in cheek, it gets the point across because to many the defence conversation is a bit abstract, not relevant to many lives.

The whole direction in the EU is to harmonise everything and start to reflect the US. Imagine healthcare, education, justice, etc all having common elements across the EU. Is it really so hard to imagine? Defence is simply the biggest thing in this long imaginary list that should get alarm bells ringing. As someone who comes from a forces family in the past, we should be proud of our forces and invest in them, we don't want our values we instil in our troops diluted by the EU.

This is probably the one area where I struggle to mutually respect an opposing argument. I simply cannot rationalise the mentality of people seeking to eliminate national boundaries and the advantages of them in this and the last millenium.

[nil_desperandum]

. As someone who comes from a forces family in the past, we should be proud of our forces and invest in them, we don't want our values we instil in our troops diluted by the EU.

I haven't engaged in this part of the debate, because I really don't know sufficient about it, and haven't reached a firm conclusion. However, what I do know to be a fact is that we are NOT investing in our defence, but continue to make cuts. It is unlikely that there will be a funding boost post-brexit, indeed most reports suggest there'll be less money.
A co-ordinated approach to security and defence has been our policy since the 2nd World War. Whether Europe - in the broadest sense- can continue to rely on USA dominated / funded NATO, must be open to debate in the current climate.
I'm not sure what you mean by our values being diluted by the EU. Would this be any more the case than it has been hitherto as a member of NATO?

[JohnMcGreal]

Not everybody wants to play the long waiting game. I'm prepared to though, on the other side of the brexit fence. And in 50 years Im confident my leave vote will be for the positive of the UK.

If 'the long waiting game' is 50 years, i.e. the rest of most voters lives, you're too bloody right that not everybody is prepared to play it. I'd actually question the sanity of anyone who is prepared to play that game.

Just the half a century to wait for some sort of positive or benefit to materialise then? On your bike.

[Lancasterclaret]

As someone who comes from a forces family in the past, we should be proud of our forces and invest in them, we don't want our values we instil in our troops diluted by the EU.

Everyones family has a member of the forces in it. I know why that is, and so does everybody on here.

That was seventy years ago. If only there has been some pan-European ideal that had helped keep the peace since then.........

[Spijed]

Brexit: Britons now back Remain over Leave by 10 points, exclusive poll shows

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 14406.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nil_desperandum]

Brexit: Britons now back Remain over Leave by 10 points, exclusive poll shows

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 14406.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This could - of course -just be a "rogue" poll, but it's not. It's one of several recently that shows a clear trend of "regrets-it-ers" swapping sides to join Ringo's "remoaners"

[If it be your will]

No need to keep going, the Brexit Ringo voted for has gone. I said a long time ago the intelligent people of the country would fix the decision of the stupid and they are.
When the European parliament is applauding Theresa May then you know little Britain has hit the right tone.
You can't cure Ringo, no matter how weak, pathetic and watered-down "Brexit" becomes he will always think he's won because he's an idiot...

You are, of course, right. We're heading towards a deal that makes absolutely no sense to anyone - better to just remain. I still read your 'stupid' as 'dispossessed', though. But that's not to say a substantial minority of dispossessed leavers have behaved stupidly - all hate, triumphalism and gloating, and a bizarre belief the Tories would deliver what they wanted despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary.

How has Ringo not realised the Conservative Party both hates and laughs at him in equal measure?

[If it be your will]

This is probably the one area where I struggle to mutually respect an opposing argument.

Yes. I can see that.

[claretandy]

This could - of course -just be a "rogue" poll, but it's not. It's one of several recently that shows a clear trend of "regrets-it-ers" swapping sides to join Ringo's "remoaners"

From what i can gather, all this poll shows is that the non voters who voted for brexit, have gone back to being non voters, now we are past phase 1 these polls are irrelevant. Remain odds are given as less than 1% now.

[nil_desperandum]

From what i can gather, all this poll shows is that the non voters who voted for brexit, have gone back to being non voters, now we are past phase 1 these polls are irrelevant. Remain odds are given as less than 1% now.

I think you are conflating two entirely separate issues here.
1. Is there currently a majority in the country for Brexit"?. All recent polls / surveys suggest not.
2. Do people believe that the UK will leave the EU? Overwhelmingly people believe that this will happen.
So when you put these two together, the most likely outcome is that we will get a deal that seeks to satisfy everyone, but in fact pleases no one:
A "brexit" which takes us out of the EU but in reality means that nothing much changes in terms of trade, financial services, security, immigration, what we pay etc. (The Irish border question has all but removed doubt over this recently) The only major difference will be that we will lose much of the influence in Brussels that we had, since we won't be at the voting table on many issues.
Before anyone says it: that's only my opinion, but I believe it's a view that has been gaining momentum and likelihood ever since May chose to risk losing her parliamentary majority in her reckless election gamble.

[RingoMcCartney]

You are, of course, right. We're heading towards a deal that makes absolutely no sense to anyone - better to just remain. I still read your 'stupid' as 'dispossessed', though. But that's not to say a substantial minority of dispossessed leavers have behaved stupidly - all hate, triumphalism and gloating, and a bizarre belief the Tories would deliver what they wanted despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary.

How has Ringo not realised the Conservative Party both hates and laughs at him in equal measure?

I've voted for at least 4 different parties over the years.

I was a fully paid up member and leafleter for the Labour party when it used to represent and actually be concerned for the rights, welfare, prospects and incomes of the British proletariat.

How has ifitbeyourwill not realised I'm not a Tory? They can laugh and hate all they want.

[RingoMcCartney]

If 'the long waiting game' is 50 years, i.e. the rest of most voters lives, you're too bloody right that not everybody is prepared to play it. I'd actually question the sanity of anyone who is prepared to play that game.

Just the half a century to wait for some sort of positive or benefit to materialise then? On your bike.

Well, we waited over 40 odd years to see if there were any positive benefits to materialise by being IN the EU. The majority off The People decided there weren't.....

It's just a pity that the minority on the losing side, 18 months after the result, still refuse to accept it.

[Bfcboyo]

If 'the long waiting game' is 50 years, i.e. the rest of most voters lives, you're too bloody right that not everybody is prepared to play it. I'd actually question the sanity of anyone who is prepared to play that game.

Just the half a century to wait for some sort of positive or benefit to materialise then? On your bike.

Oh the benifit wont be for me but my children and their children. The greater good.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

The majority off The People decided there weren't.....

It's just a pity that the minority on the losing side, 18 months after the result, still refuse to accept it.

The majority of 'the people' didn't vote for Brexit.

The majority of people who voted, voted for Brexit. There's a big difference.

You jeer and gloat about winning something but that something hasn't happened yet and looks less and less likely by the day.

Absolutely none of what you voted for will be delivered, anyone with an ounce of sense can see that but your triumphant stupdity pretty much makes you the only one plowing this particularly lonely furrow.

I must admit, I'm pretty surprised by your attitude to it all, no matter what is said or done all you can seemingly fall back on is "ner ner ner ner we won".

If you aren't actually a child why on earth would you take pride in debating like one?