On 15/11/2017 14:22, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 November 2017 17:13:34 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:31:13 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 November 2017 15:55:54 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:35:58 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 November 2017 13:36:21 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
snip
I hope I'm wrong, but I can see the need for a European army.

I don't and even if they did it'd be a waste of money because they'd never agree on getting anything done.


Funny isn't it, first the EU 'can't agree to getting anything done'
(when the EU isn't a thing, it's all of us, the clue is in the title)

It's not all of us when did you last get to vote on anything regarding the EU ?

When would I have needed to?

When they moved the goal post, when they decided that free movement of WORKERS wasn't enough and decided that the free movement of anyone in the EU working or not was OK allowing anyone to reside in the country that handed out the most benifits or spoke the most common language.
This is why germany brought in 800,000 refugees the majoroty didn't speak german and wanted to come to an English speaking country, now some berliners are complaining that they only hear the English language spoken in their own country.



and when they do (finally) step in to ensure something actually does
get done (because 'we' can't sort it our between us) people whine
about that as well. ;-(

Where are the EU nuclear weapons ?

Under the sea / hidden?

Well we are leaving the French have a few nuclear warheads but the EU doesn't pay the UK anything, and apparently we can't use them without the USAs content anyway.

That seems rather unlikely. We are fully capable of analysing the
electronics of the delivery systems to ensure that there is no override.
Although we send missiles to the US for maintenance, we could actually
do it ourselves. We even have (and use) the facilities for manufacturing
our own warheads.

What would a Euro army do that NATO or the US can't, throw sharply pointed bagettes at the enermy.

It could have the advantage of being overseen at the point of potential
attack. It is always possible that the US could decide that it was not
in their interest to defend other NATO members.

You know you don't want what you've got ... but don't know what you
actually want,

Most do.

Not according to most polls, even now.

What pole has asked them.

What pole asked them do you want the UK to have it;s lowest level of home ownswership (considering people want to buy their council houses) you shoul,d know what the asnwer is.

Do you want your children to have less prospects than you do.

We have experienced our middle son not being allocated a place at the
same primary school as his brother, despite it being impossible for my
wife (I am at work 2 hours earlier) to be at two primary schools at the
same time and despite us having close links to the school - wife,
baptised at, confirmed at and attended the church there, wife's parent
attended there, we got married there, all three children baptised there,
wife and her sister attended the school, eldest son at the school,
eldest and middle son attended the nursery at the school. The reason was
purely down to applications for the 26 places rising from 23 to 56 in
only three years - due to a sudden influx of East Europeans to houses in
the area that had been split into multiple flats.

Given there were nearly as many
leave as remain (who then cancel out), those who are left didn't seem
to have an opinion either way.

They didn't vote for whatever reason.

Hardly 'most' buy any sane standards.

Most people know what they want other wise why have a vote in the first place or perhaps they knew their vote would be as meaningless as they usually are.

How many nurses and other govenrment workers (note how MPs arentl; considered govenrment workers) would accept a pay freeze for 7 years ?


only what you think you want (and you especially don't
know what would be best for you, you can only guess at that). ;-(

and the EU is so expert at this are they ?

The EU is *us* mate.

No the EU isn't *us* it's 28 countries did you not know that.


Clue. 'We' are in the EU.

We joind the EEC.

We joined the Common Market.

We (our representatives) are party to most
of the decisions made within it and all that concern us. Few decisions
are made by 'da management' alone.

Most are.

Tell me ... are you encouraged by the general progress we are making
re leaving the EU? Does it look like it's all going smoothly ...

No, but then again I wasn't expecting it to. Why would I assume that 27 countrties on one side would agree with the one country on the other side of the discussion. I can understand why the EU want us to pay as much as possible into their coffers as we ARE one of the biggest contributers to their 'state'.

How could it be expected to have progressed when the EU have dictated
(when they are no restriction in article 50) that payments and citizens;
rights must be agreed before anything else can even be discussed?

We should treat EU citizens that have moved here well, but the EU want
them to retain more rights than UK citizens and those to be overseen by
the ECJ. Both of which are unnaceptable. Those that have been here for
the required period can apply for UK citizenship and have the same
rights as everyone else and that is sufficient.

or
even 'as hoped' by the Brexiteers (you can't say 'as planned' because
there were none).

Perhaps we should have left before we were countd as members of the EU.



What do we want (well a tiny minority of those who bothered) want out
of the EU?

51%+ since when was that a minority, when only 48% wanted to remain ?
Is 48% the majority now ?

Yes. A mojority is a majority, but remainers seem to think that a small
margin is not enough and that nothing should therefore change.

SteveW