Queen and Country or..........??

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Letterwritingman, Jun 19, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Never.....Prefer to abide by my oath of allegiance.(Re-read it)

    0 vote(s)
  2. Prefer to sit on the fence

    0 vote(s)
  1. Just a quick question given that we are coming close to a divide...the government v popular opinion.........me I voted first 8)
  2. Number one, without a doubt.

    I still remember it. No contest. 8)
  3. At least Hitler was a bit more obvious. He kicked off by invading Poland in a bid to 'unite' europe.
  4. Yeah Flash thanx ........did you vote?.............somewhat more dodgy than your monthly visit to justify your VIAGRA prescription?? :twisted:
  5. But it is clear that UK has a veto and complete control over its armed forces, so what are you on about???

  6. Umm Yeah......thanx Mr Goeballs. We retained so much...fortunately there is always the UKIP to protect our interests. Mr CHIRAC has also publically stated it counts for nothing :( :(
  7. So he did it...........we have signed up..you have any worries....can you speak French? Red lines.......only in B-liars mirrror ....they count for shit :evil: :evil:
  8. PO18- Do you seriously believe that we will be allowed to retain ANY sort of veto, in the event that this so-called constitution is ratified? Likewise, how long do you imagine that we will be allowed to retain our permanent seat on the UN Security Council?
    I can't put this any better than Mark Steyn, who, in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, cites the book The Size of Nations, by Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolare. The article runs:-
    The authors note that, of the ten richest countries in the world, only four have populations over one million: USA (260 million), Switzerland (7 million), Norway (4 million) and Singapore(3 million). With the exception the USA, all are small nations. Small nations are more cohesive and have less need for buying off ethnic and regional factions. The USA is the exception that proves the rule, because it is a highly decentralised federation. As Alesina and Spolare put it, if the USA were as centrally governed as France, it would break up! Yet that, in a nutshell, is what the new Europe would be; a juresdiction the size of the USA, but as centralised as France! .....
    Check out the rest of the article, it is well worth reading.
    Note that, of the two European countries mentioned above, neither are members of the EU.
    Remember, PO18, never take anything that a politician says as gospel; they lie for a living. Witness: we believed Ted Heath when he said we were just joining a Common Market... He lied and now we're stuck in the EU swamp, up to our arrses in EU bureaucracy!
  9. Better inside the tent pi**ing out than outside pi**ing in. If we ain't in it, we can't change it. Without UK involvement, you really will see a Franco-German axis develop to our political, economic and possibly military detriment.

    Despite the fact that our forces are small(and getting smaller), they're still the best-trained and most effective in Europe. The French and German armies are in shi*-state by comparison. What are they going to do? Force us to take part in missions we don't approve of? How would they manage that?

    That apart, if we're not part of the EU, we're left as a Spam satellite. That's not a great alternative. I cite the recent unpleasantness in Iraq as a prime example.

    The case for the defence rests, m'lud.
  10. Bit difficult to justify the second part of your signature, in that case...
  11. The signature wasn't meant to be a political statement. I just kind of liked it as a personal credo. 8)
  12. Old Adam,
    Well-argued case in the Torytgraph article, I'll grant you that. It skirts one crucial fact about the UK, though. The Norways of this world tend not to be as hands-on in international affairs as Britain. If you're a major player, then you need powerful allies. It then comes down to which power bloc you link up with.

    I think I'd rather throw in my lot with a Europe we can hopefully influence than with the US, which we quite demonstrably can not, especially with the regime currently infesting the White House.

    It's fairly obvious the "special relationship" is only as special as America wants it to be and only applies on a US timetable and gameplan.
  13. Are you suggesting that this pissant little island is still a major player? We may have thrown out lot in with the spams on this one but major players we are not!!
  14. I beg to differ. We're involved in more than anyone worldwide barring the Spams. What about the Flaklands, Sierra Leone, the Balkans, Iraq, and about 70 other commitments? I'd call that playing a major hand, despite our numerical weakness. Even the Ivans, Germans or French are not that involved beyond their own borders.
  15. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Toss toss and more toss. It depends how you count it. govt wealth, personal bank balances, net assets of industry, value of land etc etc. Whichever way you choose you can then write an argument for it. It's like debating the pro's and con's of being in or out of the forces.
    A fcking notable exception!!! The richet country in the world with the most open immigration policy for the poor in the world, the most economically powerful and about the same population as the rest of Europe! By the fact that this country is in a top ten list with Switzerland (purveyors of quality watches and pen knives to the world as they may be should immediately jump up at you as a warning that this 'top ten' list is deeply flawed
    Hmmm, I'd to hear their arguments about China in 20 years time
    toss and alarmist toss
    Note you are reading the Torygraph for an opinion
    Hmmm, and newspapers are not owned by media magnates with political agendas....