Brexit mega thread part 12: David Cameron: Return of the King

[SerendipityJane]

(previous thread)

That's "king" as a suffix not a prefix. Also part of a phrase.

I was more playing with the notion of Brexit backing boroughs becoming dependent on the wallets of foreigners and having to greet them and be nice to them as a result of their choices.

The same way the much vaunted blue passports are made in Poland because the French company that won the contract doesn't see it as a big deal.

I heard the mission bell
And I was thinking to myself
"This could be heaven or this could be hell"

Ah the wonderful sticky blue signifier of idiocy with the gold that only lasts for 2 holidays. Been away 6 times since Brexit and no gold left on mine at all!

The water issue near me is absurd. Water company now delivering so much water people don't know what to do with it and water is back on. However now everyone knows that there was sewage leaking into the water they were drinking before, no one knows if it is safe...

Wrong thread Pointy?

I like it

Definitely wrong thread. I'll suggest it on the right thread instead.

To all those on here who said that postings like ones I've made about an EU Army were scaremongering and that as an argument for leaving the EU it was nonsence I draw your attention to President Macron's latest proposal.

France, as the EUs pre-eminent current military power is by far the most likely nation to exert a controlling influence on such a force. While the headline mentions 'EU backlash' nowhere in the article is anyone actually speaking on behalf the EU quoted in opposition to this.

Macron faces EU backlash after suggesting sending troops to Ukraine | Sweden | The Guardian

That's where an EU army ends up, a shooting war with the Russians in Ukraine.

"He said he accepted no consensus existed for the plan"

So basically, it's scaremongering from the press.

And, actually, I think an EU army would be a good thing, as long as it's properly organised, and doesn't stop countries having their own armies...

What exactly would be so wrong with an EU army though? Did you see what happened when we tested Trident last week
You think we are well equipped to fight Russia off solo?

A properly constituted EU army would be a great counterbalance against Russian aggression, especially if Mad Trump becomes the next US president. We will need help.

I also think that if we were still in the EU that the UK could share the lead with France in an EU Army. But the Brexiters knew better.

See that's a good point. The test was an embarassment. No I'm sure we couldn't fight Russia off solo, that's what NATO is for.

Whats wrong with it is that it would put member state's personnel into a structure where the decision of them being committed to a war isn't made by the political representatives of the country they come from.

That's wrong IMO, it doesn't matter who agrees or who doesn't with any decision, when our armed forces act they should be acting with accountability to our reps and by extension us. Unless, of course, the missiles are arriving from Russia/China ANother within the next few minutes in which case that's not possible and all is lost anyhow.

Macron, notice is talking about committing "Western" troops to the war in Ukraine, that means ours, more than likely. He doesn't talk about committing "French" troops to war in Ukraine which he is able to do on his own as President of France. Ergo, he wants other nations people to die for his gloryfication.

NATO is a military alliance, we know what's been signed up for there. The EU is supposed to be a peaceful alliance (it's advocates often, rightly, point this out) so what does it want with its own army?

Countries have armies, trading blocs do not. Some people are clearly very comfortable with the EU acting like a country. I'm not and I've never been shy about it.

In a different world, where there wasn't the likelihood of a Trump presidency again, how much say did elected representatives have when the USA decided to commit NATO to some action? Were there any NATO operations where the USA quietly sat on the sidelines? (Genuine question, I can't think of any, but I am not a military historian.)

The world has certainly changed this century - shortly after NATO was founded the USA became hysterical with McCarthyism, even though the chance of Russia attacking the USA was almost certainly zero. Now there is a genuine need for a defensive alliance against Russia, with a war going on in Europe and the USA i.e. Trump appears to want to encourage him.

Countries have armies, trading blocs do not. I think you will find that they do.

Consider how the UK acquired India - it came about when the British Government took over after the army owned by the East India Company made a complete mess of things.

I will grant that a company running an army won't call it one.

I will grant that a company running an army won't call it one.

I believe they are known these days as security advisers / consultants.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68419238

The shit is about to hit the fan in NI.

The Legacy Act has been found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to the High Court in Belfast.

The Act in question basically seeks to brush crimes committed during the Troubles under the carpet, leaving victims and bereaved with no redress whatsoever.

If only they'd run sub post offices.

The Legacy Act has been found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to the High Court in Belfast.

Which will get the extreme right wingers in Sunak's Government foaming at the mouth again with talk of opting out of the ECHR.

This really saddens me, seeing as it was founded after the horrors committed in WW2 and British lawyers took the lead drafting the legislation, with the very valid reason of wanting to do more in future to prevent such atrocities happening again.

OK, if even the Torygraph are laying plain the failures of Brexshit...

While I don't like Truss, I do think the article does seem to put an inordinate amount of blame for the state of the country/Brexit onto her, considering she was the shortest serving PM who was outlived by a lettuce...

Maybe, but she did more damage in such a short time to the economy than many longer serving PMs have managed...

As everyone who comes off a fixed rate mortgage taken out before September 2022 is finding out. And that happened on top of the CoL crisis precipitated by Ukraine.

And she is still bleating on about how right she was.

I really wish there was a meme (from "the man from Auntie") of Mrs. Thatcher insisting the down escalator should be going up as she was climing to stand still.

There used to be a joke bumper sticker in the 80s about gravity being a CIA plot. I can guarantee that in a sample of 100 people who think like Liz Truss you would have an above average number of believers.

There is absolutely no mention of Johnson in that article. Now while Truss may have done considerable damage crashing the economy, and being too stupid to shut up about it, Johnson destroyed any idea of politicians having integrity. Lying and cheating is now the order of the day.

Not forgetting how he trashed the Brexit deal Theresa May got us and gave us the microwave watered down version with lumps in.

I think you can blame the whole lot of them from Cameron onwards - Cameron for calling the Referendum, without insisting on a threshold of something like 60% in favour, and then running away as soon as the results came in.

Johnson for immediately running away to play cricket instead of putting his name forward for PM.

May for her red lines, perhaps trying to overcome her Remain position.

Johnson then taking over, not being prepared, lying and cheating and signing agreements which he had no intention of keeping.

Truss - enough said.

Sunak - well just too weak but by the time he took over Brexit had happened, and he has been a little more pragmatic.

@Peregrina Cameron for calling the Referendum, without insisting on a threshold of something like 60% in favour.

There was not a threshold specified in the 1975 referendum, So, for consistency, there could not be a threshold specified in 2016. As Cameron was a remainer, he would have immediatley been called out for bias and attempting to fudge a remain result, if a threshold was specified.

May was a remainer and tried to fudge pay to remain by signing a deal that had not authority to do so. She also attempted to conceal the legal advice provided by the attorney general. MPs held her in contempt and won their demand to see the advice. It was rejected three times as it was pay to remain on worse terms than before.

Whereas now we have pay to leave on far worse terms! "Pay to remain" - you really do make yourself sound ridiculous!