View Full Version : Would you support a United European Military
News of unusual Russian activity over European airspace is hardly going to constitute a war however I would like the topic to be be discussed anyway.
Basically the topic is
'Should the European Union nations pool resources together and create a unified peacekeeping military at the abolition of each nations standard military?'
Arguments for would probably revolve around safety in numbers/more legitimacy for anti-insurgency activities abroad and internally/money saved for each country having to maintain their own military/a unified European super-power etc.
Arguments against would probably revolve around multiple language barriers/arguments over troop requirements/conflict of interest between nations etc.
Would you welcome this? Do you want less unity with Europe?
Poll included
joeysteele
31-10-2014, 10:38 AM
I could be persuaded to fully support such a move so yes.
I think the more the UK does hand in hand with the other European Nations can in the long run, only be a good thing.
I could be persuaded to fully support such a move so yes.
I think the more the UK does hand in hand with the other European Nations can in the long run, only be a good thing.
I am inclined to agree Joey. Just as I support the Union of nations on this Isle I also support a United European alliance of nations. Matters like renewable energy, space exploration, humanitarian issues and also military force I think are better shared out amongst our European brethren. Some of these we already do, but for our interests in our dealings with Russia, China and possibly India in the future I think it's time we abolish our individual armed forces and combine them.
Livia
31-10-2014, 12:52 PM
I think you would have to ask the military. Would our soldiers be willing to do away with hundreds of years of history and merge into an international force? No, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. And anyway, the UN already has an international peace keeping force. Furthermore, I'm not willing to hand over my national security to a foreign power. What next? The security services? MI5? MI6?
Britain is currently leading the way (along with the USA) against the ebola outbreak committing hundreds - and eventually thousands - of troops. Our European "brethren" haven't stepped up to the plate at all. If this was ever to be seriously considered the first people who should be consulted is the military. This, like everything else to do with the military, cannot be worked out by civilians
Kizzy
31-10-2014, 12:59 PM
I don't think we'll have a choice considering the current threat level.
JoshBB
31-10-2014, 01:02 PM
I'm skeptical because I don't know how this would work. Armies could always work together I guess, so I don't see any need tbh. I'm anti-war anyway, so it doesn't make a difference to me.
Would be too difficult in practice, nations would all be pulling in different directions and be more or less inclined to commit their forces depending on the particular scenario. Europe has a lot in common and can achieve a lot working together but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're some monolithic entity who's interests are always going to be the same. Foreign policy is perhaps the biggest area of government in which there would be most disagreement, so much so that any EU military force would probably be rendered impotent through its inability to reach a consensus on anything.
History counts for little. If our military didn't change because of tradition they would all be running around wielding bill hooks and wearing chain mail.
We merged fine into a United Kingdom armed forces which has managed to be the envy of the world for years, if it ever becomes necessary to forge a European standard military I'm sure the brass can work it out.
Livia
31-10-2014, 01:07 PM
I'm skeptical because I don't know how this would work. Armies could always work together I guess, so I don't see any need tbh. I'm anti-war anyway, so it doesn't make a difference to me.
You live in a country full of freedoms fought for by the military. No one is "pro-war", but sometimes it is necessary.
JoshBB
31-10-2014, 01:10 PM
You live in a country full of freedoms fought for by the military. No one is "pro-war", but sometimes it is necessary.
A lot of nationalists and patriots would suggest otherwise. Undoubtedly, there are some instances when war may have been a better option - World War Two for example. If more lives could have been saved with war then it would obviously be the better option. Other methods could have also done the same and much better, but they didn't happen so we wouldn't know.
Would be too difficult in practice, nations would all be pulling in different directions and be more or less inclined to commit their forces depending on the particular scenario. Europe has a lot in common and can achieve a lot working together but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're some monolithic entity who's interests are always going to be the same. Foreign policy is perhaps the biggest area of government in which there would be most disagreement, so much so that any EU military force would probably be rendered impotent through its inability to reach a consensus on anything.
And if a consensus is achieved it can be legitimised by having the full backing of a European coalition of States.
A charter detailing the events and incidents that require the military to intervene in any foreign or internal issue would probably need to be agreed on but it would be a clean slate.
A lot of nationalists and patriots would suggest otherwise. Undoubtedly, there are some instances when war may have been a better option - World War Two for example. If more lives could have been saved with war then it would obviously be the better option. Other methods could have also done the same and much better, but they didn't happen so we wouldn't know.
You can be as anti-war as you want mate but in this day and age the U.K (or a European superstate as we are exploring here) need a standing army. I'm afraid cannons full of daffodils and hugs aren't a very effective defence method.
And if a consensus is achieved it can be legitimised by having the full backing of a European coalition of States.
A charter detailing the events and incidents that require the military to intervene in any foreign or internal issue would probably need to be agreed on but it would be a clean slate.
Isn't this essentially the purpose of NATO and the UN though?
JoshBB
31-10-2014, 01:17 PM
You can be as anti-war as you want mate but in this day and age the U.K (or a European superstate as we are exploring here) need a standing army. I'm afraid cannons full of daffodils and hugs aren't a very effective defence method.
No, but boycotts & cutting supplies are. Preventing overseas electricity and blocking tourists from entering the country would also damage business.
Livia
31-10-2014, 01:18 PM
Would be too difficult in practice, nations would all be pulling in different directions and be more or less inclined to commit their forces depending on the particular scenario. Europe has a lot in common and can achieve a lot working together but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're some monolithic entity who's interests are always going to be the same. Foreign policy is perhaps the biggest area of government in which there would be most disagreement, so much so that any EU military force would probably be rendered impotent through its inability to reach a consensus on anything.
Completely agree with that.
As a matter of interest, has anyone on this thread so far ever served in any of the armed forces?
Isn't this essentially the purpose of NATO and the UN though?
Nope. We are talking about a United European standing army, not a coalition of individual nations and their own forces. NATO can still exist outwith the European countries who would become a singular entity.
Completely agree with that.
As a matter of interest, has anyone on this thread so far ever served in any of the armed forces?
If the point of that comment is that only military personnel can comment on this then are you a former or current member of her majesty's armed forces yourself?
Livia
31-10-2014, 01:26 PM
If the point of that comment is that only military personnel can comment on this then are you a former or current member of her majesty's armed forces yourself?
Get off your box, Kyle. I was asking because I would be interested to know how people's opinions differ when they've served. And no, I am not a former or current member of the armed forces, but I am the daughter of a soldier, a military widow, and part of my work is with the MOD. Not that I think that makes my opinion more valid.
Get off your box, Kyle. I was asking because I would be interested to know how people's opinions differ when they've served. And no, I am not a former or current member of the armed forces, but I am the daughter of a soldier, a military widow, and part of my work is with the MOD. Not that I think that makes my opinion more valid.
And my father is ex Royal Signals if you want to go down that road.
And i think I get the gist of what your saying when your very first post on here is essentially 'it's a military matter, civilians can't say' and now you are asking if anyone currently on this thread is military despite knowing full well they aren't or haven't been.
Nope. We are talking about a United European standing army, not a coalition of individual nations and their own forces. NATO can still exist outwith the European countries who would become a singular entity.
Europe as a single entity and a nation state in its own right is a pipe dream imo. It would neither be sensible or wanted by the vast majority of European countries and their inhabitants
We're at a bit of a strange point in history really, while its true that global organisations have developed into quite sophisticated frameworks nobody actually wants these organisations to become a singular country. If anything there is a drive for more nations not less; look at the way the ex-USSR and Yugoslav states have broken up, most recently Kosovo, and the way that the independence support has gathered speed in Scotland while there are also separatist movements in Ukraine. Ever more regions want independence to govern affairs but also want to be part of global networks for the trade and movement etc. advantages gained from that. It's an interesting paradox.
Livia
31-10-2014, 01:34 PM
And my father is ex Royal Signals if you want to go down that road.
And i think I get the gist of what your saying when your very first post on here is essentially 'it's a military matter, civilians can't say' and now you are asking if anyone currently on this thread is military despite knowing full well they aren't or haven't been.
Go down what road? Stop trying to turn a discussion into an argument.
I asked whether anyone had served because I would be genuinely interested in a "service" opinion... I had no idea whether you had served or not, how would I? I don't know anything about you. I'd be interested in your father's opinion to be honest. And yes, I do think its a military matter and that civilians really shouldn't have a say in military matters, and I include myself in that.
kirklancaster
31-10-2014, 01:39 PM
You can be as anti-war as you want mate but in this day and age the U.K (or a European superstate as we are exploring here) need a standing army. I'm afraid cannons full of daffodils and hugs aren't a very effective defence method.
What an image this conjured up.
Go down what road? Stop trying to turn a discussion into an argument.
I asked whether anyone had served because I would be genuinely interested in a "service" opinion... I had no idea whether you had served or not, how would I? I don't know anything about you. I'd be interested in your father's opinion to be honest. And yes, I do think its a military matter and that civilians really shouldn't have a say in military matters, and I include myself in that.
Course I've never served and it's plainly obvious I haven't. Just as I can tell you that I'm damn sure a pacifist in JoeySteele hasn't served, a super liberal Kizzy hasn't served, a student or former student MTVN hasn't served and an anti-war activist in Josh hasn't served. And yes, I know you haven't served either although I knew about your military ties. Now if a ****** like me with less posts per day can work that out from what people's say on here then I'm damn sure someone with the brains you have can.
And also Livia, I love your passion can I marry you?
kirklancaster
31-10-2014, 01:42 PM
No, but boycotts & cutting supplies are. Preventing overseas electricity and blocking tourists from entering the country would also damage business.
Very valid points. Thought provoking.
Livia
31-10-2014, 01:45 PM
Course I've never served and it's plainly obvious I haven't. Just as I can tell you that I'm damn sure a pacifist in JoeySteele hasn't served, a super liberal Kizzy hasn't served, a student or former student MTVN hasn't served and an anti-war activist in Josh hasn't served. And yes, I know you haven't served either although I knew about your military ties. Now if a ****** like me with less posts per day can work that out from what people's say on here then I'm damn sure someone with the brains you have can.
I'm sorry Kyle, you really have overestimated your impact. I know nothing about you. I don't know how old you are, what you do for a living or what you've done previously. Although it's fair to say I've learned quite a bit about you today.
kirklancaster
31-10-2014, 01:47 PM
I think you would have to ask the military. Would our soldiers be willing to do away with hundreds of years of history and merge into an international force? No, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. And anyway, the UN already has an international peace keeping force. Furthermore, I'm not willing to hand over my national security to a foreign power. What next? The security services? MI5? MI6?
Britain is currently leading the way (along with the USA) against the ebola outbreak committing hundreds - and eventually thousands - of troops. Our European "brethren" haven't stepped up to the plate at all. If this was ever to be seriously considered the first people who should be consulted is the military. This, like everything else to do with the military, cannot be worked out by civilians
At the risk of appearing as your personal ass-licker, I once again agree with you. I think there are too many insurmountable administrative obstacles for this idea to work.
Kizzy
31-10-2014, 01:49 PM
Course I've never served and it's plainly obvious I haven't. Just as I can tell you that I'm damn sure a pacifist in JoeySteele hasn't served, a super liberal Kizzy hasn't served, a student or former student MTVN hasn't served and an anti-war activist in Josh hasn't served. And yes, I know you haven't served either although I knew about your military ties. Now if a ****** like me with less posts per day can work that out from what people's say on here then I'm damn sure someone with the brains you have can.
Hey, I'm not superliberal, just super.
Many members of my family have served too not me personally but this online soapbox is a great platform to discuss whether we are better together from a civilian perspective.
I'm sorry Kyle, you really have overestimated your impact. I know nothing about you. I don't know how old you are, what you do for a living or what you've done previously. Although it's fair to say I've learned a fair bit about you today.
I haven't overestimated anything chief. I have never claimed any form of popularity on here (though my most loved scores have been quite impressive for a nobody) but what I do you see is take in the general ethos of people by what they say and contribute to the forum and that's how we get to know people. If you want to try and offend me by saying you don't take notice of anything I say then good luck cos it's water off a ducks back. :wavey:
arista
31-10-2014, 01:52 PM
Nope. We are talking about a United European standing army, not a coalition of individual nations and their own forces. NATO can still exist outwith the European countries who would become a singular entity.
No we do not get on in Europe
Never Happen
kirklancaster
31-10-2014, 01:55 PM
Would be too difficult in practice, nations would all be pulling in different directions and be more or less inclined to commit their forces depending on the particular scenario. Europe has a lot in common and can achieve a lot working together but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're some monolithic entity who's interests are always going to be the same. Foreign policy is perhaps the biggest area of government in which there would be most disagreement, so much so that any EU military force would probably be rendered impotent through its inability to reach a consensus on anything.
Yes, I agree here.
joeysteele
31-10-2014, 02:01 PM
I'm skeptical because I don't know how this would work. Armies could always work together I guess, so I don't see any need tbh. I'm anti-war anyway, so it doesn't make a difference to me.
In all truth Josh as you say armies do work together anyway,they did in the 2nd World war and in some other conflicts since,I see no reason to not explore something like this.
Anything that makes Europe look stronger together,especially as to defence and in these times of so much terrorist issues too, can only,in my view anyway, be a positive thing overall.
Northern Monkey
31-10-2014, 05:30 PM
I would'nt wanna put all our eggs in one basket.Abit like having a joint account in a relationship,I don't put all my money in there,Just donate a proportion of it.I would be up for that but not the dismantling of the British military,Never would i think that would be a good idea.Might not be an option if we leave the EU anyway.
joeysteele
31-10-2014, 06:35 PM
And my father is ex Royal Signals if you want to go down that road.
And i think I get the gist of what your saying when your very first post on here is essentially 'it's a military matter, civilians can't say' and now you are asking if anyone currently on this thread is military despite knowing full well they aren't or haven't been.
My Father is an ex serviceman as are my 3 older Brothers, 3 for the RAF and one for the Army.
I haven't served in the forces obviously but I asked all 4 of them today how they felt as to this and all were in favour of it if it was organised right.
Livia
31-10-2014, 06:47 PM
My Father is an ex serviceman as are my 3 older Brothers, 3 for the RAF and one for the Army.
I haven't served in the forces obviously but I asked all 4 of them today how they felt as to this and all were in favour of it if it was organised right.
That's interesting Joey... I didn't know your brothers were in the military. I spoke to my father earlier - he's ex-Parachute Regiment - and the colour drained out of his face before he said he would be totally against it.
My Father is an ex serviceman as are my 3 older Brothers, 3 for the RAF and one for the Army.
I haven't served in the forces obviously but I asked all 4 of them today how they felt as to this and all were in favour of it if it was organised right.
That was good of you to ask for their opinion. What sort of things were they saying?
For what it's worth I haven't spoke to my Dad since this topic's inception but if I know him like I think I do I think he would be dead against it. He's pretty euro-sceptic and doesn't think highly of foreign regiments he worked with. His opinion of the Americans especially is hilarious :laugh:
kirklancaster
31-10-2014, 08:00 PM
That was good of you to ask for their opinion. What sort of things were they saying?
For what it's worth I haven't spoke to my Dad since this topic's inception but if I know him like I think I do I think he would be dead against it. He's pretty euro-sceptic and doesn't think highly of foreign regiments he worked with. His opinion of the Americans especially is hilarious :laugh:
That is interesting Kyle.
I refused to go down the pits or in the Army like my father, grandfather, 4 uncles and 4 brothers did. Some are passed and I haven't consulted those still here, but I know that all their thoughts would pretty much tie in with your dad's.
I think your suggestion would be a brilliant reality if it could be made to work but I don't really know how that could be achieved. I do also have the same concerns as Livia about potentially placing our security in the hands of foreign powers.
My old man is ex navy and I can say with some certainty that he would be completely against it
joeysteele
31-10-2014, 08:27 PM
That's interesting Joey... I didn't know your brothers were in the military. I spoke to my father earlier - he's ex-Parachute Regiment - and the colour drained out of his face before he said he would be totally against it.
Well, 3 of them jokingly,(I think), said that if this Govt. cuts defence much more we will need someone elses army for ourselves in any event.
They just feel the World has changed and the stronger the ties the less likely a break or major threat could come as to the defence of Europe and the West particularly.
On the other side of things too,which is a factor as to my stance on this Livia,(I equally respect your view and position on it too from your perspective), I and my Family are extremely pro Europe and the EU, believing in a strong union with same.
So as to defence,for us it seems a likely more logical step to look at and at least explore.
In most matters of conflict or action now we already try to harness European support for that and encourage their involvement in it too, so for me anyway, for one, this would just seem a more progressive cooperative step to take.
It does however seem I and and my Family hold a minority view :joker:as to this according to the small poll result at present.
I have to say to Kyle good question again, however it is always interesting learning others take on things like this.
Livia
31-10-2014, 09:00 PM
Well, 3 of them jokingly,(I think), said that if this Govt. cuts defence much more we will need someone elses army for ourselves in any event.
They just feel the World has changed and the stronger the ties the less likely a break or major threat could come as to the defence of Europe and the West particularly.
On the other side of things too,which is a factor as to my stance on this Livia,(I equally respect your view and position on it too from your perspective), I and my Family are extremely pro Europe and the EU, believing in a strong union with same.
So as to defence,for us it seems a likely more logical step to look at and at least explore.
In most matters of conflict or action now we already try to harness European support for that and encourage their involvement in it too, so for me anyway, for one, this would just seem a more progressive cooperative step to take.
It does however seem I and and my Family hold a minority view :joker:as to this according to the small poll result at present.
I have to say to Kyle good question again, however it is always interesting learning others take on things like this.
We differ on many things you and I, but it's always a pleasure. Always.
Anaesthesia
31-10-2014, 11:29 PM
And my father is ex Royal Signals if you want to go down that road.
I'm an ex-sig too. Worked in rebro. I wouldn't support it in a million years.
Ninastar
31-10-2014, 11:46 PM
And also Livia, I love your passion can I marry you?
back the **** off, she is married to me!!!!
lostalex
01-11-2014, 10:56 AM
Absolutely.
It's about time Europe started pulling it's weight around the world instead of relying on America. It's been long enough since the second war. Europe needs to shape up. If Europe doesn't start standing up as a major power, Russia and China will and are.
In the Future a strong united Europe will be necessary.
We have fought too long, and too hard to let the BRICs grab a foothold now.
I've decided this is necessary actually pending the invasion of America we will have to carry out in a few years, they're getting out of hand atm
Russia will be invited to join as our fellow Europeans of course
lostalex
01-11-2014, 11:12 AM
I've decided this is necessary actually pending the invasion of America we will have to carry out in a few years, they're getting out of hand atm
Russia will be invited to join as our fellow Europeans of course
Why not China too then? anyone who's ever looked at a map knows how silly the idea of europe and asia being separate continents is anyway.
Nah only democratic leaders like Mr Putin are permitted
I think you would have to ask the military. Would our soldiers be willing to do away with hundreds of years of history and merge into an international force? No, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. And anyway, the UN already has an international peace keeping force. Furthermore, I'm not willing to hand over my national security to a foreign power. What next? The security services? MI5? MI6?
Britain is currently leading the way (along with the USA) against the ebola outbreak committing hundreds - and eventually thousands - of troops. Our European "brethren" haven't stepped up to the plate at all. If this was ever to be seriously considered the first people who should be consulted is the military. This, like everything else to do with the military, cannot be worked out by civilians
Have to largely agree with this. Having some experience in the general arena, a european defense force is just too impractical. It may be something that can be worked toward as/if european integration continues, but I don't see the UK ceding to europe for defence for a long long time.
Nato was designed to provide some collective defense and its worked effectively until now. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
lostalex
01-11-2014, 01:40 PM
Have to largely agree with this. Having some experience in the general arena, a european defense force is just too impractical. It may be something that can be worked toward as/if european integration continues, but I don't see the UK ceding to europe for defence for a long long time.
Nato was designed to provide some collective defense and its worked effectively until now. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
so if you think an EU def3e4nce force is impraticcal, what is thje alternative? just relying on the US???
wake up!
what happens if the US decides NATO is a waste tomorrow, what would you suggest? i bet you'd be calling for an EU defense/military then.
NATO is making Europe lazy and cheap. time for a wake up caLL. the US should cut funding to NATO until Europe steps up and starts pulling it's OWN weight. The US is being made a fool of by doing all the important stuff for the security of people on the other side of the planet. Europeans clearly think we are idiots. why should they do it when they can just use US to do it.
Europe is making Americans look like stupid fools, they are just using us for their security without having to pay the bill.
It's time for Europe to MAN THE **** UP.
joeysteele
01-11-2014, 02:11 PM
Well I am glad you joined Kyle and I in the yes section Lostalex, it was starting to feel a little lonely there.
Seriously however,I do still support this idea and think it would in the long term be a really positive move.
Some really great comments posted as to the question I have to say.
arista
01-11-2014, 02:25 PM
I've decided this is necessary actually pending the invasion of America we will have to carry out in a few years, they're getting out of hand atm
Russia will be invited to join as our fellow Europeans of course
So this is now a Joke thread
needed to go on Chat And Games?
user104658
01-11-2014, 02:31 PM
Not to point out the obvious but if there was to be a conflict on the scale that would require a united European military (against Russia or China or, I suppose, the US...) then the world is finished. It's game over. I'm not particularly bothered who "wins" the charred scraps that would be left.
so if you think an EU def3e4nce force is impraticcal, what is thje alternative? just relying on the US???
wake up!
what happens if the US decides NATO is a waste tomorrow, what would you suggest? i bet you'd be calling for an EU defense/military then.
NATO is making Europe lazy and cheap. time for a wake up caLL. the US should cut funding to NATO until Europe steps up and starts pulling it's OWN weight. The US is being made a fool of by doing all the important stuff for the security of people on the other side of the planet. Europeans clearly think we are idiots. why should they do it when they can just use US to do it.
Europe is making Americans look like stupid fools, they are just using us for their security without having to pay the bill.
It's time for Europe to MAN THE **** UP.
Don't even begin to lecture me on this subject, OK?
This is not about America, this is about Europe, and I will state categorically that the UK wouldn't even entertain a European defense force within the next 50 years. What the rest of Europe does is entirely up to them, I am specifically referring to the UK, who, have been punching above their weight in terms of international defense for a long long time. So don't play the do more card on that one.
Jessica.
01-11-2014, 02:46 PM
No, I want Ireland to keep out of everything.
arista
01-11-2014, 04:19 PM
No, I want Ireland to keep out of everything.
Northern Ireland is part of my nation
user104658
01-11-2014, 06:16 PM
Northern Ireland is part of my nation
He's findin' out what being royal's all about
Arista the first.
Makin' his way it's an adventure every daaay...
It's gonna be his time,
To tellem all that he's
Arista the fiiiiirrrrrrrrst
yeah!
Congrats good fellow, I've always yes knows that you deserved the Crown.
Jessica.
01-11-2014, 06:22 PM
Northern Ireland is part of my nation
That's not Ireland
bye
Cherie
01-11-2014, 09:20 PM
Course I've never served and it's plainly obvious I haven't. Just as I can tell you that I'm damn sure a pacifist in JoeySteele hasn't served, a super liberal Kizzy hasn't served, a student or former student MTVN hasn't served and an anti-war activist in Josh hasn't served. And yes, I know you haven't served either although I knew about your military ties. Now if a ****** like me with less posts per day can work that out from what people's say on here then I'm damn sure someone with the brains you have can.
Nice to see you take on board people views and understand what makes people tick on the forum rather than just posting your own opinions.
Cherie
01-11-2014, 09:22 PM
That's not Ireland
bye
Is this the same Ireland that took every EU hand out going ?
Nice to see you take on board people views and understand what makes people tick on the forum rather than just posting your own opinions.
And not too proud to admit defeat on a topic either.
I have not changed my views on this....however....I will concede defeat on this in that I appear to be very much in the minority on this issue as the poll and discussion has shown.
kirklancaster
01-11-2014, 10:48 PM
And not too proud to admit defeat on a topic either.
I have not changed my views on this....however....I will concede defeat on this in that I appear to be very much in the minority on this issue as the poll and discussion has shown.
Don't throw in that towel yet mate because there has been a shift in percentages. Whatever the end result, it's been a real brain taxing poser.
Don't throw in that towel yet mate because there has been a shift in percentages. Whatever the end result, it's been a real brain taxing poser.
As it stands mate it's 4 for and 11 against with somebody also playing the role of Switzerland. :joker:
I don't think I have enough multi's to swing the balance :hehe:
joeysteele
01-11-2014, 11:31 PM
And not too proud to admit defeat on a topic either.
I have not changed my views on this....however....I will concede defeat on this in that I appear to be very much in the minority on this issue as the poll and discussion has shown.
It was a good question, it made some really think I would say and although at present it seems we are the minority as to this, it is still something I would not be at all surprised to see talked about at least in the future by those in power.
World events may also influence something coming about,possibly even on the lines of this scenario too.
You made a really good thread with a really good question.
kirklancaster
02-11-2014, 12:00 AM
As it stands mate it's 4 for and 11 against with somebody also playing the role of Switzerland. :joker:
I don't think I have enough multi's to swing the balance :hehe:
:joker::joker:
Kizzy
02-11-2014, 12:37 AM
And not too proud to admit defeat on a topic either.
I have not changed my views on this....however....I will concede defeat on this in that I appear to be very much in the minority on this issue as the poll and discussion has shown.
That's it kyle stand firm.. even if you are a lone voice as I so often am on here, if I vote one way on a poll you can bet your granny the rest of the forum will vote the other :joker:
joeysteele
02-11-2014, 10:04 AM
That's it kyle stand firm.. even if you are a lone voice as I so often am on here, if I vote one way on a poll you can bet your granny the rest of the forum will vote the other :joker:
The lone voices are often the right ones Kizzy, Winston Churchill was once a lone voice as to World affairs but he was often proven right.
Tony Benn was considered a dangerous and militant nutcase by the Conservatives for advocating the UK coming out of Europe. Yet look where the majority probably are now as to that issue.
I forget where it came from but at Uni someone once quoted to me, the lines, '' listen real good to the lone voice in the crowd''.
It can be amazing what you hear and learn when you do.
lostalex
02-11-2014, 12:31 PM
The lone voices are often the right ones Kizzy, Winston Churchill was once a lone voice as to World affairs but he was often proven right.
Tony Benn was considered a dangerous and militant nutcase by the Conservatives for advocating the UK coming out of Europe. Yet look where the majority probably are now as to that issue.
I forget where it came from but at Uni someone once quoted to me, the lines, '' listen real good to the lone voice in the crowd''.
It can be amazing what you hear and learn when you do.
the lone voice n the crowd? you mean like the crazy guy with the beard shouting about how Jesus will come back and punish all the gays and girls in short skirts?
If it's a lone voice, there's probably a REASON that it's a lone voice, cause it's usually a ****ing nutter.
Good ideas tend to have traction and gain popularity quickly if they make sense. Anyone with a "lone voice" is probably insane. (and possibly dangerous)
joeysteele
02-11-2014, 02:02 PM
the lone voice n the crowd? you mean like the crazy guy with the beard shouting about how Jesus will come back and punish all the gays and girls in short skirts?
If it's a lone voice, there's probably a REASON that it's a lone voice, cause it's usually a ****ing nutter.
Good ideas tend to have traction and gain popularity quickly if they make sense. Anyone with a "lone voice" is probably insane. (and possibly dangerous)
He's not usually a lone voice in a crowd Lostalex, often he is shouting off to people passing with very few listening.
I was referring to when you have a group of people with a majority in favour of something,often it is the lone voice/s of the minority among them who actually get proven right in the end.
Kizzy
02-11-2014, 03:08 PM
That's right joey, and it seems the onus is not on right or wrong but who can convince the largest amount of people by careful subterfuge.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.