Boris reprimanded for repeating Brexit lie

[Roger928]

Sadly thats never been an option

Correct and never will.

 

[Judy in the sky]

It would consist of the member states' armed forces, which is why harmonisation of equipment is so important.

If it consists of member states Armed Forces, then why is "harmonisation of equipment so paramount? Do you think the EU care that we use certain rifles, certain tanks and certain aircraft, or do they expect our Armed Forces to start using Heckler and Koch G36 assault rifles instead of our SA80's? Do they expect the Air Force to place an order for Dassault aircraft and stop using Typhoons, Tornado's etc? Perhaps you'll be happy when our Navy is only sailing , ships made in der fatherland? Yep, harmonise equipment,, my bloody a**e.

 

[Notch7]

You are still convinced that the European Defence Union must mean a European Army, it does not?
It would be exactly the same as NATO, made up of member states' armed forces.
There is not a NATO army, There would not be a European Defence Union army. It would consist of the member states' armed forces, which is why harmonisation of equipment is so important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy
Try reading what is written instead of misinterpreting it to suit your own fantasy.

The UK, and other member states do not agree with it anyway. It is purely a wish list of Junkers.
But the brexiteers such as you, will continue to argue that there will be a European army just like you probably argued that billions of Turkish migrants would be heading to UK when turkey joins EU.

Juncker and those at the heart of the European Union have a vision of a EU with increasing Federal status, which includes the possibilty of an army. It has been discussed, it is documented. I know a majority of the member states dont want that, but that doesnt make it fantasy, it makes it possible.

Where did I argue Turkey is about to join the EU? Its not going to happen, until at least next year

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Nowhere near £20bn a year.

The offer will be rejected as the EU have the upper hand no matter what the UK think. The UK should have remained within the EU and championed its transformation from a position of power from within.

It appears there is a difference of opinion:

How much does Britain pay to the EU?
The origin of the £350m claim appears to come from the Treasury's statement on the amount the UK was forecasted to spend on the EU in 2015.

In 2015, the UK’s full membership fee was estimated to end up being £17.8 billion. This is the rough equivalent of £350m per week, the source of the Leave campaign's controversial slogan.

When all the sums were actually totted up by the Treasury in a report in February 2017, this figure was found to be higher, at £19.5bn (£375m a week).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

 

[noseall]

Yep, harmonise equipment,, my bloody a**e.

Gosh Judith you are so naïve.
Google 'NATO rounds' and you will S-L-O-W-L-Y get the idea of harmonising within the armed forces.

 

[noseall]

it makes it possible.

Because it has been discussed? Like colonising Mars has been discussed? Surely you are not that naïve or dumb?

What part of the Daily Fail is your favourite read?

 

[Notch7]

The £350m per week claim has always been as ridiculous as George Osborne scaremongering instant financial ruin.

Both leave and remain campaigns were equally bad.

Boris's recent article did say, we can take back control of the £350m per week, which is semantics and political verbal carp, but it isnt an outright lie.

The membership fee is around £18 billion, we then get a discount and we then get a rebate. Net we pay around £8 billion

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Juncker and those at the heart of the European Union have a vision of a EU with increasing Federal status, which includes the possibilty of an army. It has been discussed, it is documented. I know a majority of the member states dont want that, but that doesnt make it fantasy, it makes it possible.

It is Junker's wishlist, and as president of the Commission he only has two more years in office. Any possibility of a European Defence Union needs a unanimous agreement of all member states, and that is not going to happen. Although I would agree, without UK at the table, it is more possible.

But there are other more important aspects:

1. The current EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the EU aims to be able to undertake humanitarian and rescue tasks, crisis management, and peacekeeping. CSDP does not, however, cover collective defence of EU territory. Nor does any EU government seriously envisage it doing so, given that NATO plays that role.
2. The current multinational European Air Transport Command (EATC), works for two reasons: there is an agreed financing model, and though EATC determines how to use aircraft most efficiently, every country can refuse to take part in a particular operation, without blocking others. If the European Defence Union worked on the same principles, it follows that the 'consistency' of the army must consist of individual member armed forces, that could be withdrawn.
3. The lack of a shared vision of how to use EU forces would be an enormous problem in a crisis. Member-states would be keen to protect their sovereignty, which means that a single government could block a deployment.
4. True integration is not possible. The Franco-German joint brigade illustrates as much. Though created in 1989, it was only first deployed (and then only partially) as part of a training mission in Mali last year. In Afghanistan, the two countries were unable to agree on an acceptable level of risk for the troops involved, blocking deployment. The problem would only be worse in multinational EU units.
5. Some member states worry that an EU army would compete with NATO structures. With 22 of 28 EU states also being NATO members, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg has urged Europeans to avoid duplicating NATO – money invested in an EU army would be money lost for the alliance.

http://www.cer.eu/insights/eu-army-four-reasons-it-will-not-happen

 

[Notch7]

Because it has been discussed? Like colonising Mars has been discussed? Surely you are not that naïve or dumb?

What part of the Daily Fail is your favourite read?

You said it was a fantasy of mine now you are agreeing an EU army has been discussed.

You keep pointing out that the Daily Mail is my paper, is that because you believe it gives weight to your beautifully constructed arguments?.........

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

If it consists of member states Armed Forces, then why is "harmonisation of equipment so paramount? Yep, harmonise equipment,, my bloody a**e.

Gosh Judith you are so naïve.
Google 'NATO rounds' and you will S-L-O-W-L-Y get the idea of harmonising within the armed forces.

Exactly, noseall, but to provide some evidence:

Key aspects are a renewed focus on fulfilling essential defence capabilities and improving interoperability;....
to facilitate equipment standardisation....
the ever closer interaction between armaments,.....
by offering the appropriate planning and programming mechanisms to exploit opportunities for cooperative research, development and production of defence equipment between two or more allies.......
NATO armaments cooperation is an important dimension of the transatlantic partnership.....
To that end, several core functions are identified that should drive NATOs armaments work, ranging from harmonising operational requirements .....

etc, etc, etc.
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2000/0001-05.htm

 

[noseall]

now you are agreeing an EU army has been discussed.

Is that a revelation? I am not shocked, are you? Did anyone take you seriously?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Junckers recent speech showing his vision of a federal Europe, ...... and a EU army etc seems to be a sound justification for the UK having made thr correct decision.

You said it was a fantasy of mine now you are agreeing an EU army has been discussed.

Your original post referred to it as a fait acompli.
At least now you realise it was just an item on a wish list, an item that will not be fulfilled.[/QUOTE]

 

[JohnD]

Boris's recent article did say, we can take back control of the £350m per week, which is semantics and political verbal carp, but it isnt an outright lie.

Yes it is.

£350m is not the real figure, and there is nothing we can do to get our hands on £350m

GoveNHS

• JohnD
• 1 Jul 2016

Brexit 350 Million Lie

• JohnD
• 28 Jun 2016

It's a number the Quitters like to repeat because if they say it often enough, some of the old grumblers will start to believe it.

the Quitter campaign manager admitted that it wasn't true, and that they wouldn't have won the referendum without this lie.

Do you think they would have put it on their bus and kept repeating it if it wasn't essential to their campaign? It's a big number, and they falsely say it could go to the NHS, which we all love.

 

[Notch7]

I said, Junckers recent speech showing his vision of a federal europe, EU army etc, etc.

The sentence says 'his vision' - which does not imply a 'fait accompli'

 

[noseall]

I
The sentence says 'his vision' - which does not imply a 'fait accompli'

..or fantasy.