Britain will veto EU army, says Defence Secretary

[Nigel Tufnel]

Rofl no. I mean this probably isn't your intention but you're not winning points with me going to the whole "commie" thing already

Yes, I know. I wasn't being serious. Just trying to bring some light relief. I'm going back to banging my head against my shadow priest's shit dps now. bb

[Kalis]

The problem with insurance is that it is run for profit

Not all of it is, mutuals are a significant factor in many sectors.

Also insurance was often run at a deliberate loss in some sectors, the regulators didn't really like that though. That was mainly in motor insurance, the reason being that they made money from investing premium income, so wanted more premium income and that meant undercutting the competition so far they made losses from premiums.

Ther is nothing fundamentally wrong with running a business at a profit, though that is arguable with how US health insurance is set up, as even in the insurance industry we think that is a con job. Companies need funds to invest in their company.

[Deleted]

Those EU Parliamentarians don't get to dictate shit, they sort out the details, actual policy direction is dictated by the likes of Merkel.

No but 351 of them has to vote Yes.
If 351 vote No, then what merkel wants is out the door.

[Zarc]

If you make strict rules regarding immigration people will die trying to get around them. Look at Australia

I wasn't saying "strict rules regarding immigration", I am in favor of a generous immigration policy. I said strict rules regarding external borders of the Union. Then when you actually have legal ways for people to come into Europe, people would see how other refugees come here by airplane safe and sound, while the few that would still try getting here illegally would not be able to. Some of them might die, yes. There will always be people trying to get in illegally. But if there were legal ways in and many people coming legally far less people would try the illegal way, I believe. And so far less people would die trying. And so people would have much more faith and hope in being able to come here by waiting in the legal line rather than taking the risk of crossing the sea. Many of the people who come here illegally gets sent back anyway, so it's better that they receive that answer without having to come here first. That way we would also be able to prioritize those most in need, like children.

[Kalis]

No but 351 of them has to vote Yes.
If 351 vote No, then what merkel wants is out the door.

And how long do you think the EU is going to last if they start undermining the nation that funds them? Germany is the economic force in the EU, would the EU Parliament want to wage economic war on the UK with a hostile Germany? That would be insanity for the EU.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Probably easier than banging your head against my "PURE IDEOLOGY"

No, it's a lot fucking harder. See the priest board.

[Zarc]

I mean if you are for a losening of the rules then I guess I have nothing against that... Just the rules being there make them subject to change

Well yes, having a regulated and orderly immigration is not a contradiction to having a generous immigration policy.

[Dreknar20]

British policy for hundreds of years has been to avoid/prevent the majority of Europe under one rule

Why would this be surprising

[Kalis]

Y'see I don't see people's welfare as a business opportunity. "running at a loss" in some sectors does not mean you are not doing it for profitable reasons either.

Insurance is not a charity, it is a service. You pay a premium and in return they get you back on your feet if shit hits the fan. If insurers don't get anything out of the deal, then why would they bother making a deal in the first place? Screw that, I'd invest somewhere else.

I mean id you can recognize health insurance as a con why not take one more step back.

Because the different insurance sectors work differently? In my line of insurance there is no practical way to set up the insurer-hospital style cartels that they have in the US. The biggest problem in the US is actually the health providers, they have the insurers over a barrel in respect of costs, which the insurers then pass onto the customers.

The US system is bizarre from my point of view, if we don't like what a shipyard quotes for repair in Italy, then we go to another shipyard in Greece and get a quote from them and we can keep doing that over-and-over again. That is not possible with most medical care, you can't really start hospital shopping, a cheaper hospital in New York is probably not going to be much help to someone in Houston.

[Moon-Man]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7313081.html

We need this army badly. Good thing they are leaving soon.

No, EU don't need the army. UN needs to go, and now.

Its UN provoking Russia, not the otherway around.

Every1 should know that Russia in terms of army power, it is bigger and stronger then even U.S Army.

Russians only take competent soldiers, unlike U.S where they will take gay, lesbians and so forth.

EU army has no chance whatsoever against Russia. Maybe they should stop provoking Russia. Good thing that countries leaving UN are probably going to ally with Russia.

[Deleted]

Under one rule unless it was them ruling lol

- - - Updated - - -



When did Putin start playing wow and posting here I wonder

You have to tell us your nationality, those without sin and all that.

[Deleted]

I don't buy nationalist rhetoric soz

Ah, one of those.

[Dreknar20]

Under one rule unless it was them ruling lol

British never sought mainland European gains, preferring overseas colonies.

Any from of united Europe is a direct threat to the British

[Deleted]

It’s nice to know that you speak universally on their behalf, that is speaking on behalf of any and all pro-leave groups.

No i said that Front national does not like free trade.

She also denounced the "Europe of Brussels" which "everywhere imposed the destructive principles of ultra-liberalism and Free trade, at the expense of public utilities, employment, social equity and even our economic growth which became within twenty years the weakest of the world"

See other people dislike the EU for other reasons.

Nope, I mean invidious. You can look that one up. Rather than try and interpret what I say, take it as it is stated.

Invidious: (of an action or situation) likely to arouse or incur resentment or anger in others.

Insidious: proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with very harmful effects.

Moreover, funding parties is simply one way of steering politics. Other, far more invidious measures could be taken.

But open political hostility may very well occur if the EU is daft enough to carry on down the path you seem to think it will. I have more faith in the EU leaders than you seem to. And by the way, if you're going to criticise my reading skills, you may wish to try getting your spelling right, and looking up the words you do not understand.

Just out of curiosity, which party has more leverage, The EU, or the UK?
There is one objectively true answer to this question, and Hint, its not the UK.
And this was the question being stated (and why i said you should read)

I thought they were leaving. I guess this is a way for them to attempt to get leverage in negotiations when they do.

They have nothing to leverage with. The army will go ahead either way when they are out.

What i said:

No, see they dont - Once they hand in their article 50 they can be ignored, because once two years are up, they cease to be a member of the EU.
Lets say they hand in their papers in a few months, a year tops, then they have 3 years to stall this - Mighty leverage.
I mean even if the UK was magically not a part of the EU, and all EU countries were really keen on this idea (population and government) - It would still take longer than 3 years.

This is the reason this leverage is completely moot.

And consequently the EU, in its current incarnation at least, is simply inadequate to deal with the challenges it faces.

I dont think you understand the prerequisites for a common market.

One such challenge is dealing with Brexit itself.

There is no challenge here - The problem with brexit is the demos being pissed, not that the UK wants to leave, that's just a symptom.

That is, dealing with it in a way which allows for agreement among remaining member states. The difficulty here alone could amount to an existential threat.

But there doesn't need to be an agreement - Worst comes to pass, its a 3% GDP decline across the EU.
and 15% decline across the UK.

[Deleted]

Isn't the process to leave like 2 years long? Why would they be barred from having a say in things when those things can still effect them?

In theory, in practice it would be fast if it would just take 2 years.

[Kalis]

British never sought mainland European gains...

To be fair, if we thought we could have accomplished it, I am sure we would have given it go.

[NED funded]

If the UK refuses to accept freedom of movement as it stands, which is likely consdering that was a primary factor in voting to leave, then the EU will have to either dig its heels in or negotiate some sort of acceptable compromise.

The thing is, if you look at the nations that benefit most from freedom of movement to the UK, or Poland as it is called, do you honestly think that Germany wouldn't throw Poland under the bus to obtain a deal that Germany likes? Or France?

The EU might make a big thing of unity, but money is power and Germany, France and the UK have the most money, any deal will be a deal that suits the interests of those three countries.

Yes but London benefits from freedom of movement, it's one of the key elements in passport banking which is what london lives from. If it came down to it I think the UK would throw their entire electorate under the bus in order to protect London and it's financial institutions.

[Kalis]

Yep but they would have sought mainland Europe if they thought they had the chance

France tried, Germany tried, it is not worth the hassle for just five extra armies. Everyone knows you go for Australia first, it is easier to defend.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes but London benefits from freedom of movement, it's one of the key elements in passport banking which is what london lives from. If it came down to it I think the UK would throw their entire electorate under the bus in order to protect London and it's financial institutions.

London doesn't need lower end Polish immigrants though, we have Commonwealth nationals for those positions, we would not want to restrict qualified people from entering the UK and that is what drives London's financial markets.

[Kalis]

I've lived in a lot of places in my life none of which I've become particularly attached to if that's what you mean. I understand the roots of nationalism just having an outside perspective makes it very easy to laugh at

You don't have to like where you come from to come from it.

[Deleted]

If you make strict rules regarding immigration people will die trying to get around them. Look at Australia

Where no one has died since they started towing the boats?