You are presenting that as if you proved something on this point.

The reality is that if this country remained in the EU that this would be the eventual destination. Pointing to vetos that exist now as some sort of safeguard in the future is not a sufficient counter to this.....as vetos tend to be removed in later treaties or negotiated away as we have already seen with Blair with 'Thatcher's veto'.

You get a pro EU leader in and suddenly all those safeguards get given up.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Jan 2020 9.32am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The facts: an all-powerful president, responsible for initiating legislation to push a core agenda of "ever closer union" will use the EU "Treaties" (the constitution renamed) to strip veto powers of nation states, as indicated here for taxation:

[Tweet Link]

Don't forget - taxation is meant to be a national competence: one that individual "member states" decide on themselves. You see above her CLEAR intent to take that power

So - an EU president, voted through (barely) on a ballot paper of ONE candidate, is using her powers to:

1. Ratchet away powers that should be decided by national parliaments, into the juris of the EU
2. Remove any right of veto on those powers, so national governments are forced to OBEY whatever legislation she dreams up.

But don't worry! Defense is a national competence. No way they'll come for that! The EU wouldn't dream of pushing for powers over defense and military, would they? It's not like they've already started, right?

[Link]

If you EU-acolytes can't see the writing on the wall by now, there is no chance for you. Just remember the previous president's mantra:

"There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties"

Tick-tock. 35 hours until we leave the EU. Thank God.

That is partisan conjecture with a heavy dose of self-imposed resignation and/or blinkered thinking. And of course you're welcome to it. However if I need to repost I will bother finding it, alternately people could read up on things in the round themselves (novel idea that, I'm assuming you do but plenty of others are clearly just winging it).

I won't argue the direction of travel is more centralised power, but you can't just don a tin hat and think that means it's happening imminently, inevitably or otherwise, across every possible branch of life – I usually find it's best to be objective based on the currently available information. Anything else is simply partisan conjecture.

On a scale of 1-10, I'd happily bet my house on the likelihood of this particular branch of centralisation (An actual, cross border EU Army that does away with national armies) happening being a 2. That's being generous. And certainly not within the next 50 years, barring one caveat – You'd need a major catastrophe or confrontation for that probability to change anytime soon.

In the near to medium term, quite likely long term, You're simply not going to get all member states signing up to deleting their national armies. Not going to happen.

Maybe it's an objective, maybe it's a concept. Maybe it's been blown out of all proportion for the sake of argument (ding). Maybe it means something a little less fantastical, and, plausible (ding).

But to some, the sky is always falling in. So meh

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

It's pretty f***ing childish. I'm all for making a point, and that was done absolutely to a T in the speech. Don't then turn into a prissy little toddler waving a pathetically tiny flag around like you've won something other than self-perceived validation of your own existence. It's embarrassing and unnecessary.

To be clear, I'd be making the exact same point if we'd ended up remaining and silly pricks went around waving tiny EU flags in peoples faces in a sitting session in parliament.

Grow up.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Fine with leaving chump. Not a 'remoaner' or a 'brexiteer' (shudder). Got to look forward not back, which a lot of people seem to still be doing...

Just don't like obvious misinformation, conjecture or bias being peddled as fact – and you've just proved that point to be accurate in your last post. No debate against the counter argument, just a emotionally led, factless posturing and deflection.

Ultimately, you follow your church, your dictator, your ministry of information. I have no church. Only my brain. I cross reference with the aim of being objective. You, along with DANGERMOUSE absorb and regurgitate whatever information you come across that aligns with your own partisan, self flagellating preconceived view. I get that. It’s comforting. But it’s not helpful.

Sometimes there is a grain of reason visible amongst the waves of dross, most times it is copy pasted from the Sun, or most noticeably, propaganda bots on twitter. That’s fine, but don’t expect others to treat you with anything more than contempt when you can’t even construct and hold a debate without lazily wallowing back into the usual tropes, responses and echo chambers of partisan information/and or cliché.

When I can be bothered, I'll point that out. And yes, on the odd occasion something vaguely considered has been said, I’ll agree with it. Barring a couple on here that actually know how to debate, construct and sustain an argument – it’s usually pretty uncommon.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

FYI I never read the Sun and have never been on Twitter FACT. Another FACT I am not a chump but if you have concluded this without knowing me or having met me that is your prerogative. You seem to be a very angry individual which is a shame