What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

I neither agree nor disagree with an "EU Army". I'm just trying to understand why Brexiters hate that concept - and use it as an argument for leaving the EU - but don't have a problem with NATO. It's mind-boggling.

Meanwhile ex-PM disaster Liz Truss is in Taiwan proclaiming there should be some sort of "Economic NATO" to challenge China. What? A Union of European Countries working together to strengthen mutual economic stability? It's sometimes hard to believe these things are actually happening. Therapeutic for those who experience 'Imposter Syndrome' though.

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by Cheese

15 hours ago, Traf said:

So, it's immigrants using foodbanks?

Or are you suggesting whiteys are resorting to foodbanks because we've allowed too many foreigners in?

We need clarity here.

Unlike you to even sniff around the bait mate 

10 hours ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Not for anyone who’s main reason for leaving was to not be part of a federal European project.

The bit they always miss. They are happy to be led by the nose by unelected bureaucrats it seems.

8 hours ago, Casino said:

why?

i suspect you will have difficulty with that as you wont be explain what a 'federal europen project' actually means

its just lazy ukip cliches all the way

FFS, they are even looking at a 'European Army'. One that will rely on the army of an independent UK to dig them out if ever they accidentally stumbled into anything beyond the ceremonial.

***Should have read the rest of the thread before responding. I see that the EU army has been discussed. Pretty sure we would not be part of it for the most obvious of reasons. independence of strategy and direction.

They will need us somewhere along the line just as they are freeloading on the Tirdent deterrent.

Edited May 18, 20233 yr by bolty58

12 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Unlike you to even sniff around the bait mate 

 

7 hours ago, Cheese said:

Meanwhile ex-PM disaster Liz Truss is in Taiwan proclaiming there should be some sort of "Economic NATO" to challenge China. What? A Union of European Countries working together to strengthen mutual economic stability? It's sometimes hard to believe these things are actually happening. Therapeutic for those who experience 'Imposter Syndrome' though.

Hahaha. To be fair wasn’t she another bullshitter who was pro eu who then switched for personal gain/movement like bozo and May

 

Edited May 18, 20233 yr by tomski

4 hours ago, bolty58 said:

The bit they always miss. They are happy to be led by the nose by unelected bureaucrats it seems.

Liz and Rishi😂

10 hours ago, Cheese said:

Nope.

Yes

22 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Yes

Nope. Unless you're under the impression that the location of an International Alliance's HQ determines who "controls" it? 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/126169.htm

Edited May 18, 20233 yr by Cheese

1 minute ago, Cheese said:

Nope.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/126169.htm

You forgot the BOOM.

Miami’s box of them is about to expire so just use one of them

The EFL Headquarters are in Preston.

Bastard Prestoners controlling our football league system.

Sooner we leave it the better and we can make all our own rules up.

I see Ford and JLR are saying the same as Stellantis now.

I think it's probably too late but if they manage to sort it out ASAP one or two might invest here.

Edited May 18, 20233 yr by Winchester White
Typo

10 hours ago, Cheese said:

Is it because the EU Headquarters are in Brussels, so that must mean people from Brussels control everything the EU does? It can't be that fucking stupid, can it? NATO's headquarters are also in Brussels. Someone please explain.

Highlighted bit is correct. The rest is a bit thick. 

59 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Nope. Unless you're under the impression that the location of an International Alliance's HQ determines who "controls" it? 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/126169.htm

I'm not under the impression the location of an international alliance's headquarters determines who controls it, but it's pretty clear that in practice the US has de facto control of NATO - the sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan being a good example

I'm not sure why it's even in dispute, it's quite an obvious point

17 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I'm not under the impression the location of an international alliance's headquarters determines who controls it, but it's pretty clear that in practice the US has de facto control of NATO - the sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan being a good example

I'm not sure why it's even in dispute, it's quite an obvious point

Royal White wants proof, not conjecture.

A graph will suffice.

37 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I'm not under the impression the location of an international alliance's headquarters determines who controls it, but it's pretty clear that in practice the US has de facto control of NATO - the sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan being a good example

I'm not sure why it's even in dispute, it's quite an obvious point

Those who chuck most money in are the leaders and USA are clearly in that position, pretty similar to Germany having massive say/sway in EU. 

44 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I'm not under the impression the location of an international alliance's headquarters determines who controls it, but it's pretty clear that in practice the US has de facto control of NATO - the sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan being a good example

I'm not sure why it's even in dispute, it's quite an obvious point

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-taliban-idUSKBN20N06R

Separately, NATO pledged to adjust the coalition troop levels in the first phase too, bringing down NATO’s numbers to about 12,000 from roughly 16,000 troops at present.

“We went in together in 2001, we are going to adjust (troop levels) together and when the time is right, we are going to leave together, but we are only going to leave when conditions are right,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who was in Kabul on Saturday, told reporters.

12 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Those who chuck most money in are the leaders and USA are clearly in that position, pretty similar to Germany having massive say/sway in EU. 

Like we did? 

58 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Highlighted bit is correct. The rest is a bit thick. 

So I was right. Your reason for hating a hypothetical "EU Army" but being perfectly fine with NATO really is that fucking stupid.

6 minutes ago, Cheese said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-taliban-idUSKBN20N06R

Separately, NATO pledged to adjust the coalition troop levels in the first phase too, bringing down NATO’s numbers to about 12,000 from roughly 16,000 troops at present.

“We went in together in 2001, we are going to adjust (troop levels) together and when the time is right, we are going to leave together, but we are only going to leave when conditions are right,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who was in Kabul on Saturday, told reporters.

Yes, because they knew that without the support of the US they had no hope of maintaining order

Honestly, I really don't understand why such an obvious point is a bone of contention

9 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Yes, because they knew that without the support of the US they had no hope of maintaining order

Honestly, I really don't understand why such an obvious point is a bone of contention

Doesn't matter.

Michael Gove is growing on me

5 minutes ago, Spider said:

Michael Gove is growing on me

Have you booked an appointment with your GP?

5 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Have you booked an appointment with your GP?

He’s pissed Rees Mogg off something rotten. I’m ok with it.