Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) " The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. " It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen." But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) " We are not in the EU  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) " You know how you are always saying “we’ll never know” in relation to Tufton Street’s economic, oops I mean Liz Truss’ economic plans..,well we will never know if this would have happened had the UK remained in the EU. NOTHING the EU decides to do now the UK has left was inevitable before the UK left. Things change and evolve. Things like a closer Federal Europe or USE actually became MORE likely once the UK left. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) You know how you are always saying “we’ll never know” in relation to Tufton Street’s economic, oops I mean Liz Truss’ economic plans..,well we will never know if this would have happened had the UK remained in the EU. NOTHING the EU decides to do now the UK has left was inevitable before the UK left. Things change and evolve. Things like a closer Federal Europe or USE actually became MORE likely once the UK left." Which proves that the remain campaign were correct | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. " All of your questions would presumably have been negotiated and answered in the event of it happening And remainers didn’t lie about an EU army, it’s still not happening. This isn’t one. But regardless, we left, you won. We’re all waiting for the sunlit uplands to arrive any day now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) You know how you are always saying “we’ll never know” in relation to Tufton Street’s economic, oops I mean Liz Truss’ economic plans..,well we will never know if this would have happened had the UK remained in the EU. NOTHING the EU decides to do now the UK has left was inevitable before the UK left. Things change and evolve. Things like a closer Federal Europe or USE actually became MORE likely once the UK left." Of course we could have vetoed any potential EU army as a member, and immediately closed the idea down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. " Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU "Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules . "Exactly, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was some talk of the national veto being scrapped in certain areas. Some members are in favour like Germany and france but others such as Poland and Hungary are less keen. I assume they can use their current veto powers to block losing their veto powers "Yes, a veto could be used to block the removal of the veto. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was some talk of the national veto being scrapped in certain areas. Some members are in favour like Germany and france but others such as Poland and Hungary are less keen. I assume they can use their current veto powers to block losing their veto powers "No way it would ever happen if the UK had stayed in the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) " Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’?" The UK is not the largest arms exporter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? The UK is not the largest arms exporter. "Sorry! Stupid thumbs! 7th largest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’?" I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite." Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? " No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit." level playing though? Isn't that a positive in your view? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit. level playing though? Isn't that a positive in your view?" It’s a positive that our arms industry won’t be involved, frankly anything that harms the arms industry is a good thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit. level playing though? Isn't that a positive in your view? It’s a positive that our arms industry won’t be involved, frankly anything that harms the arms industry is a good thing. " Displaying more economic and political misunderstandings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit. level playing though? Isn't that a positive in your view? It’s a positive that our arms industry won’t be involved, frankly anything that harms the arms industry is a good thing. Displaying more economic and political misunderstandings. " My stance on arms sales is based upon morality, not economics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit. level playing though? Isn't that a positive in your view? It’s a positive that our arms industry won’t be involved, frankly anything that harms the arms industry is a good thing. Displaying more economic and political misunderstandings. My stance on arms sales is based upon morality, not economics. " Lovely | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit. level playing though? Isn't that a positive in your view? It’s a positive that our arms industry won’t be involved, frankly anything that harms the arms industry is a good thing. Displaying more economic and political misunderstandings. My stance on arms sales is based upon morality, not economics. Lovely " Thanks very much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit. level playing though? Isn't that a positive in your view? It’s a positive that our arms industry won’t be involved, frankly anything that harms the arms industry is a good thing. Displaying more economic and political misunderstandings. My stance on arms sales is based upon morality, not economics. Lovely Thanks very much. " No, thank you for proving beyond doubt you are consistent in displaying economic and political misunderstandings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit. level playing though? Isn't that a positive in your view? It’s a positive that our arms industry won’t be involved, frankly anything that harms the arms industry is a good thing. Displaying more economic and political misunderstandings. My stance on arms sales is based upon morality, not economics. Lovely Thanks very much. No, thank you for proving beyond doubt you are consistent in displaying economic and political misunderstandings." Ah well. At least I understand what an asylum seeker is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the UK really only the 7th largest arms exporter? I had USA a clear number one with maybe Russia and China up there. But 7th! Who are 1-6?" USA, Russia, France, China, Germany, Italy, U.K, if I recall from my googling earlier. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) Of course the downside to this economically for the Uk, is that we won’t be considered for any arms contracts (despite being the world’s largest exporter of arms). I loathe the idea of profiting from arms sales, so that’s no bad thing imo - but had we remained in the EU I’m certain we’d have been an economic beneficiary of this plan. Another Brexit ‘benefit’? I hate, hate, hate that this forum is so antiquated that you can’t add links, images of edit posts. Absolute shite. Do you hate the fact that you were called out for clearly saying the "worlds largest" when you clearly meant 7th and it was a mistake? Or you have been called out again for being economical with your wording to cause a negative impact? No, I type fast, and phones aren’t the best at that. Of course we’re not the worlds largest arms exporter. It’s not even close. Yes, the fact that this forum doesn’t have an edit function is horse-shit. level playing though? Isn't that a positive in your view? It’s a positive that our arms industry won’t be involved, frankly anything that harms the arms industry is a good thing. Displaying more economic and political misunderstandings. My stance on arms sales is based upon morality, not economics. Lovely Thanks very much. No, thank you for proving beyond doubt you are consistent in displaying economic and political misunderstandings. Ah well. At least I understand what an asylum seeker is. " You might think you do, but not being able to distinguish between asylum seekers and other groups who are migrating tells me you don't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the UK really only the 7th largest arms exporter? I had USA a clear number one with maybe Russia and China up there. But 7th! Who are 1-6? USA, Russia, France, China, Germany, Italy, U.K, if I recall from my googling earlier." Fucking French, Germans and Italians! Bloody EU warmongering bastards! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the UK really only the 7th largest arms exporter? I had USA a clear number one with maybe Russia and China up there. But 7th! Who are 1-6? USA, Russia, France, China, Germany, Italy, U.K, if I recall from my googling earlier. Fucking French, Germans and Italians! Bloody EU warmongering bastards!"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules . "The problem. Being. How often did governments veto. They didn't. People are conflating issues. Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past. But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter. Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)"The U.K did use their veto, as have many other EU nations at various points. Cameron used it to block a treaty on the euro in 2011. And once again, we could have used our veto as a member to block any move to majority voting. Of course now we can’t, since we decided that we don’t want a seat at the table anymore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)"Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know. All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK. "I agree with you on this, we will never know. However, "No way it would ever happen if the UK had stayed in the EU."??? As you just told Morley, you can't have it both ways  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK.
I agree with you on this, we will never know.
However, "No way it would ever happen if the UK had stayed in the EU."???
As you just told Morley, you can't have it both ways "It is a conundrum
Ok I could word that better “I doubt, based on how the UK behaved and voted as a member of the EU, that this would have happened had Brexit not happened!” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK.
I agree with you on this, we will never know.
However, "No way it would ever happen if the UK had stayed in the EU."???
As you just told Morley, you can't have it both ways
It is a conundrum
Ok I could word that better “I doubt, based on how the UK behaved and voted as a member of the EU, that this would have happened had Brexit not happened!”"There we are, much better
Someone else said you've recently become loose with words so I'm just here to keep you on your toes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK.
I agree with you on this, we will never know.
However, "No way it would ever happen if the UK had stayed in the EU."???
As you just told Morley, you can't have it both ways
It is a conundrum
Ok I could word that better “I doubt, based on how the UK behaved and voted as a member of the EU, that this would have happened had Brexit not happened!”
There we are, much better
Someone else said you've recently become loose with words so I'm just here to keep you on your toes "It’s a fair criticism. I blame my age and gender because we all know men can’t multi-task | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK.
I agree with you on this, we will never know.
However, "No way it would ever happen if the UK had stayed in the EU."???
As you just told Morley, you can't have it both ways
It is a conundrum
Ok I could word that better “I doubt, based on how the UK behaved and voted as a member of the EU, that this would have happened had Brexit not happened!”
There we are, much better
Someone else said you've recently become loose with words so I'm just here to keep you on your toes
It’s a fair criticism. I blame my age and gender because we all know men can’t multi-task "
Getting old, must not wank whilst on the forums | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK.
I agree with you on this, we will never know.
However, "No way it would ever happen if the UK had stayed in the EU."???
As you just told Morley, you can't have it both ways
It is a conundrum
Ok I could word that better “I doubt, based on how the UK behaved and voted as a member of the EU, that this would have happened had Brexit not happened!”
There we are, much better
Someone else said you've recently become loose with words so I'm just here to keep you on your toes
It’s a fair criticism. I blame my age and gender because we all know men can’t multi-task
Getting old, must not wank whilst on the forums "How did you know  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK. "I am not having it both ways Our governments demonstrated they didn't use their vets on regular occasions. Therefore brexit was voted on by people like me because kf it not being used. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK.
I am not having it both ways
Our governments demonstrated they didn't use their vets on regular occasions. Therefore brexit was voted on by people like me because kf it not being used.
"Except for the times when it was used. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK.
I am not having it both ways
Our governments demonstrated they didn't use their vets on regular occasions. Therefore brexit was voted on by people like me because kf it not being used.
"But the UK deviated from the EU on questions of defence and military action, so on that basis I believe what you report in your OP would either not have happened or happened differently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) The idea of a joint EU task force/army never bothered me. In fact it makes perfect sense. It’s not like we’ve never worked together in war zones. It may never have bothered you, nor me tbh. However, we were definitely told it was never going to happen. But apparently we didn't knkw what we were voting for. It bothers me. Who would command tbe troops? What would be the budget? Could the uk have still purchased its arms from america( seemingly we would have been forced to by e.u arms, or receive none kf the budget back) This weakens the uk defense capabilities if we are forced tk by from the e.u vs a superior America ,Australian product. Who commands our naval fleet. The fleet with nuclear weapons on board that are owned by America? Does America the take back it's nuclear deterrent? As the agreement does not allow 3rd parties control of our nuclear arms. That then weakens tbe e.u defense capabilities. Without a nuclear deterrent on our subs. Etc etc. We were lied to by remainers. Remainers stated that there wouldn’t be an EU army IF the UK stayed in the EU
Folk seem to forget the uk had a veto one of a few countries that could block EU rules .
The problem. Being. How often did governments veto.
They didn't.
People are conflating issues.
Brexit was because we didn't trust governments to veto. Because they hadn't done in the past.
But also they are now looking at majority voting. So the veto wouldn't matter.
Also edipra wont fall under anything we'd vote forcindont think. It's literally is paying into the budget and having thay budget dispersed for countries that pool together. (I might be wrong though here)
Morley Morley Morley you cannot have it both ways. Liz Truss’ economic policy = we will never know. EU military procurement if UK had remained = we will never know.
All that matters is the way things were operated in 2016 before the referendum. Thereafter the EU could set course without any steer or objections from the UK.
I am not having it both ways
Our governments demonstrated they didn't use their vets on regular occasions. Therefore brexit was voted on by people like me because kf it not being used.
But the UK deviated from the EU on questions of defence and military action, so on that basis I believe what you report in your OP would either not have happened or happened differently."How do we stop the e.u paying that budget out how it wants? Wheres our veto on it?- | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) " This would not have happened if the UK was a member. It has happened since the UK left. It is an incentive to get EU countries to tool-up. Not a bad idea considering Russia's recent actions. The incentive is for the money spent in that rearming to be spent within the EU. I'm not sure why that would be a problem either as it maintains capability without relying on an external supplier. During the Falklands conflict, the US Senate denied the UK access to US arms although this was circumvented by President Regan. Why would the EU subsidise non-EU companies anyway? There was never any discussion about joint military procurement not happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) This would not have happened if the UK was a member. It has happened since the UK left. It is an incentive to get EU countries to tool-up. Not a bad idea considering Russia's recent actions. The incentive is for the money spent in that rearming to be spent within the EU. I'm not sure why that would be a problem either as it maintains capability without relying on an external supplier. During the Falklands conflict, the US Senate denied the UK access to US arms although this was circumvented by President Regan. Why would the EU subsidise non-EU companies anyway? There was never any discussion about joint military procurement not happening." Sorry ut can you prove this wouldn't have happened if the uk were a member? Specifically this move by the commission to allow the budget to be repurchased if countries bought the same arms together? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie." I was under the impression that the UK had left the EU - I am certainly told that often enough. Why are we even discussing this or perhaps some still think that we are part of the EU. Really confusing. But..sunlit uplands and all that good stuff... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Council and the EP agreed on an ambitious instrument. Member states who agree to pool their demand and jointly procure defence products in consortia of at least three countries will be partially reimbursed from the EU budget. We were told this wasn't going to happen. But now. If 3 countries purchase weapons en masse the e.u will use its budget to pay them back some money. We would have ended up buying buying weapons for.other e.u states with our contributions. In many instances we would not have been able to take part ourselves with often many of our arms coming from 3rd countries ( usa) This would not have happened if the UK was a member. It has happened since the UK left. It is an incentive to get EU countries to tool-up. Not a bad idea considering Russia's recent actions. The incentive is for the money spent in that rearming to be spent within the EU. I'm not sure why that would be a problem either as it maintains capability without relying on an external supplier. During the Falklands conflict, the US Senate denied the UK access to US arms although this was circumvented by President Regan. Why would the EU subsidise non-EU companies anyway? There was never any discussion about joint military procurement not happening. Sorry ut can you prove this wouldn't have happened if the uk were a member? Specifically this move by the commission to allow the budget to be repurchased if countries bought the same arms together?" I didn't say that it wouldn't have happened. I don't need to "prove" a counterfactual anyway. What does "repurchasing a budget" mean? What's actually wrong with the policy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie." When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say?" We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. " Were we? I'm sure you can explain when and by whom. Why are you worried about what the EU does now that we have left? Do you think that we should still have a say? Should we shave a say on India's budget because they were once in the Commonwealth? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. " Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence!" We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. " Twilight Zone time again
The UK is not in the EU so what you have posted is irrelevant! You have no way of knowing if this policy would have happened if the UK was still in the EU. I strongly believe, based on historic decisions around defence and military action where the UK deviated from the EU, that this approach either would not have happened or would have been quite different.
And you keep saying “we were told” but fail to provide evidence. It is you who always insists on evidence to support claims. Actual official papers and agreements not google searches and FBPE folks mocking. So as you have presented none, I do not believe you. You are making it up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. " We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. Twilight Zone time again
The UK is not in the EU so what you have posted is irrelevant! You have no way of knowing if this policy would have happened if the UK was still in the EU. I strongly believe, based on historic decisions around defence and military action where the UK deviated from the EU, that this approach either would not have happened or would have been quite different.
And you keep saying “we were told” but fail to provide evidence. It is you who always insists on evidence to support claims. Actual official papers and agreements not google searches and FBPE folks mocking. So as you have presented none, I do not believe you. You are making it up."I'm not saying we are in the e.u. I am saying had we have been this was part kf the budget we'd have paid into that was NEVER agreed. Remainers didn't know what they were voting for clearly. We were told that we wouldn't contribute to further funding to military projects. This would be further funding common defence. This is common defense funding under a different name. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...?" You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. Twilight Zone time again
The UK is not in the EU so what you have posted is irrelevant! You have no way of knowing if this policy would have happened if the UK was still in the EU. I strongly believe, based on historic decisions around defence and military action where the UK deviated from the EU, that this approach either would not have happened or would have been quite different.
And you keep saying “we were told” but fail to provide evidence. It is you who always insists on evidence to support claims. Actual official papers and agreements not google searches and FBPE folks mocking. So as you have presented none, I do not believe you. You are making it up.
I'm not saying we are in the e.u.
I am saying had we have been this was part kf the budget we'd have paid into that was NEVER agreed.
Remainers didn't know what they were voting for clearly.
We were told that we wouldn't contribute to further funding to military projects.
This would be further funding common defence. This is common defense funding under a different name.
"So you have no proof then? So making it up! You have no way of knowing what agreement would have been made in relation to this budget allocation etc if the UK had remained. It’s pure speculation. I am saying I do not think this would have turned out as described in your OP based on historical differences between the UK and EU over defence. What is the basis for your assertion? Admit it, you don’t know. You are making it up purely driven by your anti-EU beliefs. Not had a good week on here Morley. Not up to your usual standard. Time for a time out and some R&R | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries." You might want to check UK inflation increases vs other EU countries | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries." Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point." I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. " I'm sure you can explain when and by whom we were told that the EU budget would not be used for defence when the UK was a member. Why are you worried about what the EU does now that we have left? Why is that relevant to what might have happened when we were a member? Do you think that we should still have a say in EU decisions? Should we shave a say on India's budget because they were once in the British Empire? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. Twilight Zone time again
The UK is not in the EU so what you have posted is irrelevant! You have no way of knowing if this policy would have happened if the UK was still in the EU. I strongly believe, based on historic decisions around defence and military action where the UK deviated from the EU, that this approach either would not have happened or would have been quite different.
And you keep saying “we were told” but fail to provide evidence. It is you who always insists on evidence to support claims. Actual official papers and agreements not google searches and FBPE folks mocking. So as you have presented none, I do not believe you. You are making it up.
I'm not saying we are in the e.u.
I am saying had we have been this was part kf the budget we'd have paid into that was NEVER agreed.
Remainers didn't know what they were voting for clearly.
We were told that we wouldn't contribute to further funding to military projects.
This would be further funding common defence. This is common defense funding under a different name.
So you have no proof then? So making it up! You have no way of knowing what agreement would have been made in relation to this budget allocation etc if the UK had remained. It’s pure speculation. I am saying I do not think this would have turned out as described in your OP based on historical differences between the UK and EU over defence. What is the basis for your assertion? Admit it, you don’t know. You are making it up purely driven by your anti-EU beliefs.
Not had a good week on here Morley. Not up to your usual standard. Time for a time out and some R&R "Google. Brexit myths budget e.u defense. "Defense one website." "the prospect of having g our security policy dictated by Brussels is a huge concern" This directive is aimed at reducing suppliers of goods for defense across all 26 nations...again no veto. This hands power to tbe e.u It would mean we had to pay part of our defense budget to the e.u, but didn't get it back. This would be an increase in our contributions to the e.u. Contributions that were to remain at the agreed rates. Politico "waging war on the myth of an e.u army." Euro skepticism focused on plans to create and e.u military headquarters and stoked fear over the sensitive area of national sovereignty....defense. Plans to use pesco to forego the uk veto have gone nowhere....oops. Looks like they got round thay procurement and veto point on contributions and defense spending. The fund prohibits the purchase of certain expenses too. The instrument will identify priorities at an e.u level( not uk) But feel free to search csdp brexit on twitter and see the mocking. And other such various terms by fbpe types. Remainers didn't know ow whay they ere voting for. No one ever told them their budget would divert 500m away from e.u social and economic care to a military fund reimbursement. But apparently brexiteers were the ones that were duped. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. I'm sure you can explain when and by whom we were told that the EU budget would not be used for defence when the UK was a member. Why are you worried about what the EU does now that we have left? Why is that relevant to what might have happened when we were a member? Do you think that we should still have a say in EU decisions? Should we shave a say on India's budget because they were once in the British Empire?" I'm not worried. It's just one more thing remainer siddnt knkw whay they were voting for thay came to pass. In 2016 did you know future e.u economic and social budgets for the member states would be diverted to defence procurement. I sure didn't. We were told the e.u wasn't going tknitnerfere in such things past the European defense fund.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? " Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. Twilight Zone time again
The UK is not in the EU so what you have posted is irrelevant! You have no way of knowing if this policy would have happened if the UK was still in the EU. I strongly believe, based on historic decisions around defence and military action where the UK deviated from the EU, that this approach either would not have happened or would have been quite different.
And you keep saying “we were told” but fail to provide evidence. It is you who always insists on evidence to support claims. Actual official papers and agreements not google searches and FBPE folks mocking. So as you have presented none, I do not believe you. You are making it up.
I'm not saying we are in the e.u.
I am saying had we have been this was part kf the budget we'd have paid into that was NEVER agreed.
Remainers didn't know what they were voting for clearly.
We were told that we wouldn't contribute to further funding to military projects.
This would be further funding common defence. This is common defense funding under a different name.
So you have no proof then? So making it up! You have no way of knowing what agreement would have been made in relation to this budget allocation etc if the UK had remained. It’s pure speculation. I am saying I do not think this would have turned out as described in your OP based on historical differences between the UK and EU over defence. What is the basis for your assertion? Admit it, you don’t know. You are making it up purely driven by your anti-EU beliefs.
Not had a good week on here Morley. Not up to your usual standard. Time for a time out and some R&R
Google.
Brexit myths budget e.u defense.
"Defense one website."
"the prospect of having g our security policy dictated by Brussels is a huge concern"
This directive is aimed at reducing suppliers of goods for defense across all 26 nations...again no veto. This hands power to tbe e.u
It would mean we had to pay part of our defense budget to the e.u, but didn't get it back.
This would be an increase in our contributions to the e.u.
Contributions that were to remain at the agreed rates.
Politico "waging war on the myth of an e.u army."
Euro skepticism focused on plans to create and e.u military headquarters and stoked fear over the sensitive area of national sovereignty....defense.
Plans to use pesco to forego the uk veto have gone nowhere....oops.
Looks like they got round thay procurement and veto point on contributions and defense spending.
The fund prohibits the purchase of certain expenses too.
The instrument will identify priorities at an e.u level( not uk)
But feel free to search csdp brexit on twitter and see the mocking. And other such various terms by fbpe types.
Remainers didn't know ow whay they ere voting for.
No one ever told them their budget would divert 500m away from e.u social and economic care to a military fund reimbursement.
But apparently brexiteers were the ones that were duped.
"How would this spending as a group impact the NATO commitments of 2% of GDP? Or are the EU trying to take over that role? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. " You didn't answer the question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. " 'Wealth' and 'income' are different things. Are you really saying that bloke A should get a pay rise because he has 3 kids and smokes a lot, but bloke B gets a pay cut because he's sensible and has saved a lot for the future? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. Twilight Zone time again
The UK is not in the EU so what you have posted is irrelevant! You have no way of knowing if this policy would have happened if the UK was still in the EU. I strongly believe, based on historic decisions around defence and military action where the UK deviated from the EU, that this approach either would not have happened or would have been quite different.
And you keep saying “we were told” but fail to provide evidence. It is you who always insists on evidence to support claims. Actual official papers and agreements not google searches and FBPE folks mocking. So as you have presented none, I do not believe you. You are making it up.
I'm not saying we are in the e.u.
I am saying had we have been this was part kf the budget we'd have paid into that was NEVER agreed.
Remainers didn't know what they were voting for clearly.
We were told that we wouldn't contribute to further funding to military projects.
This would be further funding common defence. This is common defense funding under a different name.
So you have no proof then? So making it up! You have no way of knowing what agreement would have been made in relation to this budget allocation etc if the UK had remained. It’s pure speculation. I am saying I do not think this would have turned out as described in your OP based on historical differences between the UK and EU over defence. What is the basis for your assertion? Admit it, you don’t know. You are making it up purely driven by your anti-EU beliefs.
Not had a good week on here Morley. Not up to your usual standard. Time for a time out and some R&R
Google.
Brexit myths budget e.u defense.
"Defense one website."
"the prospect of having g our security policy dictated by Brussels is a huge concern"
This directive is aimed at reducing suppliers of goods for defense across all 26 nations...again no veto. This hands power to tbe e.u
It would mean we had to pay part of our defense budget to the e.u, but didn't get it back.
This would be an increase in our contributions to the e.u.
Contributions that were to remain at the agreed rates.
Politico "waging war on the myth of an e.u army."
Euro skepticism focused on plans to create and e.u military headquarters and stoked fear over the sensitive area of national sovereignty....defense.
Plans to use pesco to forego the uk veto have gone nowhere....oops.
Looks like they got round thay procurement and veto point on contributions and defense spending.
The fund prohibits the purchase of certain expenses too.
The instrument will identify priorities at an e.u level( not uk)
But feel free to search csdp brexit on twitter and see the mocking. And other such various terms by fbpe types.
Remainers didn't know ow whay they ere voting for.
No one ever told them their budget would divert 500m away from e.u social and economic care to a military fund reimbursement.
But apparently brexiteers were the ones that were duped.
"Ok Morley so I googledBrexit myths budget e.u defense” And then took a look at the Defense one website. None of the content you posted is there? The article the search clucks through to is about the myth of the EU Army. In fact it us quite scathing of the Brexiters stance and lies. So what are you quoting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. I'm sure you can explain when and by whom we were told that the EU budget would not be used for defence when the UK was a member. Why are you worried about what the EU does now that we have left? Why is that relevant to what might have happened when we were a member? Do you think that we should still have a say in EU decisions? Should we shave a say on India's budget because they were once in the British Empire? I'm not worried. It's just one more thing remainer siddnt knkw whay they were voting for thay came to pass. In 2016 did you know future e.u economic and social budgets for the member states would be diverted to defence procurement. I sure didn't. We were told the e.u wasn't going tknitnerfere in such things past the European defense fund...." What point do you believe that you are making? This was initiated by the heads of state of EU Governments at the European Council in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "Confronted with growing instability, strategic competition and security threats, we decided to take more responsibility for our security and take further decisive steps towards building our European sovereignty, reducing our dependencies and designing a new growth and investment model for 2030. In this respect, we addressed today three key dimensions: a) Bolstering our defence capabilities; b) Reducing our energy dependencies; and c) Building a more robust economic base." "We invite the Commission, in coordination with the European Defence Agency, to put forward an analysis of the defence investment gaps by mid-May and to propose any further initiative necessary to strengthen the European defence industrial and technological base." So, ultimately this is what was proposed: "The Instrument responds to Member States’ request to address the most urgent and critical defence product needs resulting from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The Commission proposes to commit €500 M of EU budget from 2022 to 2024." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? " Boris didn't mention inflation in his speech though. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-58814707 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. I'm sure you can explain when and by whom we were told that the EU budget would not be used for defence when the UK was a member. Why are you worried about what the EU does now that we have left? Why is that relevant to what might have happened when we were a member? Do you think that we should still have a say in EU decisions? Should we shave a say on India's budget because they were once in the British Empire? I'm not worried. It's just one more thing remainer siddnt knkw whay they were voting for thay came to pass. In 2016 did you know future e.u economic and social budgets for the member states would be diverted to defence procurement. I sure didn't. We were told the e.u wasn't going tknitnerfere in such things past the European defense fund.... What point do you believe that you are making? This was initiated by the heads of state of EU Governments at the European Council in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "Confronted with growing instability, strategic competition and security threats, we decided to take more responsibility for our security and take further decisive steps towards building our European sovereignty, reducing our dependencies and designing a new growth and investment model for 2030. In this respect, we addressed today three key dimensions: a) Bolstering our defence capabilities; b) Reducing our energy dependencies; and c) Building a more robust economic base." "We invite the Commission, in coordination with the European Defence Agency, to put forward an analysis of the defence investment gaps by mid-May and to propose any further initiative necessary to strengthen the European defence industrial and technological base." So, ultimately this is what was proposed: "The Instrument responds to Member States’ request to address the most urgent and critical defence product needs resulting from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The Commission proposes to commit €500 M of EU budget from 2022 to 2024."" The poi t was the e.u budget is set for other factors not this. Wheres the veto? Wheres the vote? Wheres the decision on how e.u budget is spent..this was not whay the original contributions were for? We used to vote on the defense budget spending of e.u. This is a work around As stated if youndont buy with 3 other states you don't get your refund. This was not I the declared e.u budget treaties The point is the e.u is an ever changing beast thay does and enacts what it wants. And that exerciser union meant in cases such as this. Remainers didn't knkw what they voted for Did you know in 2p15 you were voting to possibly ja e uk budget contributions going to other member states who bought military hardware as a group? It sure as he'll wasn't told to me. When I looked at the e.u defense budget I saw no 500m ring fenced fund from the normal e.u budget. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. I'm sure you can explain when and by whom we were told that the EU budget would not be used for defence when the UK was a member. Why are you worried about what the EU does now that we have left? Why is that relevant to what might have happened when we were a member? Do you think that we should still have a say in EU decisions? Should we shave a say on India's budget because they were once in the British Empire? I'm not worried. It's just one more thing remainer siddnt knkw whay they were voting for thay came to pass. In 2016 did you know future e.u economic and social budgets for the member states would be diverted to defence procurement. I sure didn't. We were told the e.u wasn't going tknitnerfere in such things past the European defense fund.... What point do you believe that you are making? This was initiated by the heads of state of EU Governments at the European Council in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "Confronted with growing instability, strategic competition and security threats, we decided to take more responsibility for our security and take further decisive steps towards building our European sovereignty, reducing our dependencies and designing a new growth and investment model for 2030. In this respect, we addressed today three key dimensions: a) Bolstering our defence capabilities; b) Reducing our energy dependencies; and c) Building a more robust economic base." "We invite the Commission, in coordination with the European Defence Agency, to put forward an analysis of the defence investment gaps by mid-May and to propose any further initiative necessary to strengthen the European defence industrial and technological base." So, ultimately this is what was proposed: "The Instrument responds to Member States’ request to address the most urgent and critical defence product needs resulting from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The Commission proposes to commit €500 M of EU budget from 2022 to 2024." The poi t was the e.u budget is set for other factors not this. Wheres the veto? Wheres the vote? Wheres the decision on how e.u budget is spent..this was not whay the original contributions were for? We used to vote on the defense budget spending of e.u. This is a work around As stated if youndont buy with 3 other states you don't get your refund. This was not I the declared e.u budget treaties The point is the e.u is an ever changing beast thay does and enacts what it wants. And that exerciser union meant in cases such as this. Remainers didn't knkw what they voted for Did you know in 2p15 you were voting to possibly ja e uk budget contributions going to other member states who bought military hardware as a group? It sure as he'll wasn't told to me. When I looked at the e.u defense budget I saw no 500m ring fenced fund from the normal e.u budget. " This was initiated because EU states requested it. It's been through the European Parliament "European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2023 on the implementation of the common security and defence policy – annual report 2022 (2022/2050(INI))" You should have some quiet time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. 'Wealth' and 'income' are different things. Are you really saying that bloke A should get a pay rise because he has 3 kids and smokes a lot, but bloke B gets a pay cut because he's sensible and has saved a lot for the future?" No, I’m saying that a CEO shouldn’t be getting a pay rise/bonus while the workers who earned the pay rise/bonus for him go without. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question" Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. " Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA" I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? " Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP" So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? " Run your reasoning by me? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? " That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses." You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. " You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion." It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. " The people who are spending too much aren’t the ones who will suffer under a recession | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. The people who are spending too much aren’t the ones who will suffer under a recession" You are missing the point that they are suffering now and will continue to suffer the longer the BoE keep tentatively increasing the interest rates. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. The people who are spending too much aren’t the ones who will suffer under a recession You are missing the point that they are suffering now and will continue to suffer the longer the BoE keep tentatively increasing the interest rates. " I’m not missing the point. The poorest in the country are on life support now. You want to pull the plug on them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. The people who are spending too much aren’t the ones who will suffer under a recession You are missing the point that they are suffering now and will continue to suffer the longer the BoE keep tentatively increasing the interest rates. I’m not missing the point. The poorest in the country are on life support now. You want to pull the plug on them. " Nope… I never said that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. The people who are spending too much aren’t the ones who will suffer under a recession You are missing the point that they are suffering now and will continue to suffer the longer the BoE keep tentatively increasing the interest rates. I’m not missing the point. The poorest in the country are on life support now. You want to pull the plug on them. Nope… I never said that" Yeah you did. I’m sure you don’t think you did - but you did. Recession is the worst thing that can happen right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. Show us the evidence to back up that claim. Who told “us” (who is us) and when? What exactly did they say and through what official channel? Also, a lot has changed since 2016. Even more so since 2020. We can only base predictions on how things operated within the EU prior to 2016 when the UK was part of it. After the referendum the EU was able to start charting a course that did not have to accommodate the views of the UK. You can’t defend the Tufton St “budget” that Truss and Kwartang tried to get through by saying we will never know and then claim we do know what the EU would have done anyway regardless of UK influence! We were told we'd have a veto on changes to the common security and defense policy. Thay uk budget money would not be used to fund any e.u initiatives This is the e.u working round it. Using e.u budgeted money to give back to other governments who purchase items together. This is mot what the e.u budget was for and the csdp exists for such things. But again we were told there'd be no changes to funding If you type in csdp brexit into twitter You will see the hoardes of fbpe mocking the idea we'd be contributing even more to e.u to buy its weapons. Jens atoltenburg at the time warned the e.u to invest more in defense. But not to duplicate. There was the European defence fund. Which the uk previously contributed to. And now with cresting a new budget. This would mean the uk spending even more for these nations. Members can veto the common defence. But not this new made up budget thats going to be distributed. Twilight Zone time again
The UK is not in the EU so what you have posted is irrelevant! You have no way of knowing if this policy would have happened if the UK was still in the EU. I strongly believe, based on historic decisions around defence and military action where the UK deviated from the EU, that this approach either would not have happened or would have been quite different.
And you keep saying “we were told” but fail to provide evidence. It is you who always insists on evidence to support claims. Actual official papers and agreements not google searches and FBPE folks mocking. So as you have presented none, I do not believe you. You are making it up.
I'm not saying we are in the e.u.
I am saying had we have been this was part kf the budget we'd have paid into that was NEVER agreed.
Remainers didn't know what they were voting for clearly.
We were told that we wouldn't contribute to further funding to military projects.
This would be further funding common defence. This is common defense funding under a different name.
So you have no proof then? So making it up! You have no way of knowing what agreement would have been made in relation to this budget allocation etc if the UK had remained. It’s pure speculation. I am saying I do not think this would have turned out as described in your OP based on historical differences between the UK and EU over defence. What is the basis for your assertion? Admit it, you don’t know. You are making it up purely driven by your anti-EU beliefs.
Not had a good week on here Morley. Not up to your usual standard. Time for a time out and some R&R
Google.
Brexit myths budget e.u defense.
"Defense one website."
"the prospect of having g our security policy dictated by Brussels is a huge concern"
This directive is aimed at reducing suppliers of goods for defense across all 26 nations...again no veto. This hands power to tbe e.u
It would mean we had to pay part of our defense budget to the e.u, but didn't get it back.
This would be an increase in our contributions to the e.u.
Contributions that were to remain at the agreed rates.
Politico "waging war on the myth of an e.u army."
Euro skepticism focused on plans to create and e.u military headquarters and stoked fear over the sensitive area of national sovereignty....defense.
Plans to use pesco to forego the uk veto have gone nowhere....oops.
Looks like they got round thay procurement and veto point on contributions and defense spending.
The fund prohibits the purchase of certain expenses too.
The instrument will identify priorities at an e.u level( not uk)
But feel free to search csdp brexit on twitter and see the mocking. And other such various terms by fbpe types.
Remainers didn't know ow whay they ere voting for.
No one ever told them their budget would divert 500m away from e.u social and economic care to a military fund reimbursement.
But apparently brexiteers were the ones that were duped.
Ok Morley so I googledBrexit myths budget e.u defense”
And then took a look at the Defense one website.
None of the content you posted is there? The article the search clucks through to is about the myth of the EU Army. In fact it us quite scathing of the Brexiters stance and lies.
So what are you quoting?"Seems one of Morley’s go to Twitter sources Gully Foyle is supportive of Anglo-EU defence collaboration.... “According to a joint statement from both nations, the UK and Netherlands are exploring opportunities to develop a future littoral strike platform for the UK MRSS and Dutch Landing Platform programmes.“ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. The people who are spending too much aren’t the ones who will suffer under a recession You are missing the point that they are suffering now and will continue to suffer the longer the BoE keep tentatively increasing the interest rates. I’m not missing the point. The poorest in the country are on life support now. You want to pull the plug on them. Nope… I never said that Yeah you did. I’m sure you don’t think you did - but you did. Recession is the worst thing that can happen right now." We have been down this road before, I'm giving you the reaction to a likely action. I do support this but not the way it being handled by BoE, it is too slow and creating a long drawn out problem. Do I want people to lose jobs, house etc, of course I don't and you should consider how you throw that type of accusation around... By you saying recession is the worst thing that can happen right now, you are actually telling me you do not understand the solution to an economic problem that we have unfolding right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. The people who are spending too much aren’t the ones who will suffer under a recession You are missing the point that they are suffering now and will continue to suffer the longer the BoE keep tentatively increasing the interest rates. I’m not missing the point. The poorest in the country are on life support now. You want to pull the plug on them. Nope… I never said that Yeah you did. I’m sure you don’t think you did - but you did. Recession is the worst thing that can happen right now. We have been down this road before, I'm giving you the reaction to a likely action. I do support this but not the way it being handled by BoE, it is too slow and creating a long drawn out problem. Do I want people to lose jobs, house etc, of course I don't and you should consider how you throw that type of accusation around... By you saying recession is the worst thing that can happen right now, you are actually telling me you do not understand the solution to an economic problem that we have unfolding right now. " Oh I understand it well enough. I’m just pointing out that creating a recession as soon as possible - your idea, not mine - is not a particularly sound plan unless you want to inflict more long-term pain on the people who are already bearing the brunt of the financial crisis. I’m comfortable accusing you of wanting people to lose jobs etc because you’re the one who said “ Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. The people who are spending too much aren’t the ones who will suffer under a recession You are missing the point that they are suffering now and will continue to suffer the longer the BoE keep tentatively increasing the interest rates. I’m not missing the point. The poorest in the country are on life support now. You want to pull the plug on them. Nope… I never said that Yeah you did. I’m sure you don’t think you did - but you did. Recession is the worst thing that can happen right now. We have been down this road before, I'm giving you the reaction to a likely action. I do support this but not the way it being handled by BoE, it is too slow and creating a long drawn out problem. Do I want people to lose jobs, house etc, of course I don't and you should consider how you throw that type of accusation around... By you saying recession is the worst thing that can happen right now, you are actually telling me you do not understand the solution to an economic problem that we have unfolding right now. Oh I understand it well enough. I’m just pointing out that creating a recession as soon as possible - your idea, not mine - is not a particularly sound plan unless you want to inflict more long-term pain on the people who are already bearing the brunt of the financial crisis. I’m comfortable accusing you of wanting people to lose jobs etc because you’re the one who said “ Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP”" This is clearly way way off topic but it's gone there. Do you have an idea of a solution? It's all good and well to throw accusations around but do you offer an alternative? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were told that our money was not to go toward anything to do with armament. This is looking like another lie. When we're we told this? Why does it matter to you what the EU is doing after we have left? Do you feel that we should still have a say? We were told no funds would go to anything yo do with e.u army, defense, procurement there would be no shared fund of any kind. This was not true. There is now a reimbursement fund for countries to buy arms together. We were also told by Boris, he was planning to make the U.K a high skilled, high wage economy. But the government has fought tooth and nail to stop wage growth. Does that upset you. Were we lied to...? You may want tk check uk wage increases vs other eu countries. Average weekly earning growth in the UK 2001-2023 Published by D. Clark, Jun 13, 2023 Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 7.2 percent in April 2023, although when adjusted for inflation wages fell in real terms by 1.3 percent. When bonus pay is included in wage growth calculations, wages grew by 6.5 percent in nominal terms, but shrank by two percent in real terms. Between March and June 2020, there is a clear fall in wage growth, brought on by the sudden economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the high-growth rates in the first half of 2021 also skewed somewhat by the pandemic. Between June 2021 and July 2022, real wage growth in the UK declined considerably, falling from 4.6 percent to -3 percent, with growth gradually improving since that point. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people think that wages should rise in line with high inflation. I wonder what would happen if everyone had a 8% pay rise? Maybe the neediest could have good pay rises and the wealthiest could take a small pay cut to compensate. Wealth disparity in the U.K is among the highest in Europe. You didn't answer the question Whenever I answer your questions you tell me I haven’t - even when I provide you with links/evidence, so frankly I can’t be arsed anymore. Give it a go, what happens if everyone gets a 8% uplift in pay, and you can leave out those pesky CEO's who do sweet FA I don’t know, do you? What is your proposed solution to the cost of living crisis? Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP So you want people to lose jobs, lose homes etc? Run your reasoning by me? That’s what happens in recessions. Mortgages defaulted on. Companies go under - particularly small businesses. You know that is happening now? It will continue to happen until spending is controlled, the quicker that happens the sooner inflation will drop. This drip feeding of rises is death by a thousand cuts. You’re condemning the already poorest to financial oblivion. It is going to be painful, it always is when you force a recession but that’s how things work because people are spending too much. The only way to stop that is squeezing them because they’re not slowing down and that causes even more people into hardships as inflation continues to rise. The people who are spending too much aren’t the ones who will suffer under a recession You are missing the point that they are suffering now and will continue to suffer the longer the BoE keep tentatively increasing the interest rates. I’m not missing the point. The poorest in the country are on life support now. You want to pull the plug on them. Nope… I never said that Yeah you did. I’m sure you don’t think you did - but you did. Recession is the worst thing that can happen right now. We have been down this road before, I'm giving you the reaction to a likely action. I do support this but not the way it being handled by BoE, it is too slow and creating a long drawn out problem. Do I want people to lose jobs, house etc, of course I don't and you should consider how you throw that type of accusation around... By you saying recession is the worst thing that can happen right now, you are actually telling me you do not understand the solution to an economic problem that we have unfolding right now. Oh I understand it well enough. I’m just pointing out that creating a recession as soon as possible - your idea, not mine - is not a particularly sound plan unless you want to inflict more long-term pain on the people who are already bearing the brunt of the financial crisis. I’m comfortable accusing you of wanting people to lose jobs etc because you’re the one who said “ Up the interest rate by 1.5% and get us into recession ASAP”" You clearly don't understand the process and are driven by emotive reasoning. No point going any further, we have again come to the point were we have nothing either of us are willing to listen to rationally. Have a great Saturday | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the UK really only the 7th largest arms exporter? I had USA a clear number one with maybe Russia and China up there. But 7th! Who are 1-6? USA, Russia, France, China, Germany, Italy, U.K, if I recall from my googling earlier. Fucking French, Germans and Italians! Bloody EU warmongering bastards!" They don't learn, those they sell to will one day shoot them in the arse with it. The UK is actually pretty restricted in what it can sell and to whom. We have some of the best radar, sonar and weapons in the world, and as such thankfully not for sale. As for an EU army, will never happen, they rarely agree on anything, let alone who'll be incharge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
