Brexit

Quoted from Skrill

Having lower tax is also the best thing a government can do for the working class and middle classes. Ever heard of the laffer curve? Might want to learn the economics.

hahahahahah m8 I've got a degree in economics and I can tell you the laffer curve is a load of discredited balderdash with no grounding in reality

Nah Skrill read it on Breitbart so it must be gospel.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

We haven't left yet. We have already seen some of the warning signs (like cancellation of investment plans, relocation of some financial services out of the UK).

I keep thinking there is one common denominator in all the "doom and gloom" that is being bandied about... the Self-servative government who for practically nine years have overseen an economic decline

Whatever happens with Brexit, they'll still be the ones mismanaging our country...

Quoted from Chrisblor

hahahahahah m8 I've got a degree in economics and I can tell you the laffer curve is a load of discredited balderdash with no grounding in reality

You surprise me. A poorly briefed Brexiteer. Who'd have thought it.

Quoted from Skrill

Having lower tax is also the best thing a government can do for the working class and middle classes. Ever heard of the laffer curve? Might want to learn the economics.

Another one with a degree in economics here although probably one from those 'lefty unis'. Even if there is a small element of truth in the laffer curve, it like all things would run into diminishing marginal returns so reducing tax further and further would have less and less effect.

Anway the UK has one of the lowest levels of corporation tax in the west. If a company was going to be attracted from abroad by the low tax rate they're probably already here. Trumps tax cuts are showing what happens when you cut an already low corporate tax. You get a small amount of investment but most is just a give away to the rich. All this to make the American deficit scarily high. Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing, Infrastructure projects with decent business cases should pay for themselves but not just to simply give away to the rich who will flee with their money when they inevitably have to pay the debt back.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Like I said it all takes time. And money. But half the reason Russia feels threatened is because this infrastructure gives NATO (the US) offensive capabilities that you say Europe couldn't hope to match unless it ups spending significantly over many years. But it could defend itself.

If you are going to implement a European Army to front up to Russia as been spouted in Brussels you don't have time or anywhere near the money / resources

Russia as a military power has total military 3,586,128 (2,572, 500 as active reservists) they are ranked 2nd in the world after the US. Pick a fight with Russia and no doubt China will step in. China are in 3rd place with  2,693, 000 active personnel, we simply don't have the man power or bullets needed without the US.

EU countries ranked in order of firepower and outside of France and UK, with maybe Romania you can forget the rest of any notable military expertise, the Netherlands sent Marines to Iraq and when they came back a lot of them cracked up as they couldn't handle it, they had to be screened and counselled in Cyprus before they were allowed home. In my time supporting NATO ops, I have only ever seen the ones listed below in bold.

5th - France
6th - UK
10th - Germany
11th - Italy
19th - Spain
22nd - Poland
28th - Greece
30th - Czech Republic
31st - Sweden
38th - Netherlands
40th - Romania
54th - Denmark
57th - Hungary
59th - Finland
60th - Bulgaria
61st - Austria
62nd - Slovakia
63rd - Portugal
68th - Belgium
72nd - Croatia
92nd - Slovenia
95th - Lithuania
105th - Latvia
108th - Estonia
116th - Ireland

List goes up to 136 places so outside that list is, Republic of Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta.

Then add in countries that have closer ties with Russia
Main allies are China, Serbia, Cuba, Syria.

Important partners
Pakistan, Laos. Venezuela, Greece, Armenia, Tajikistan, Vietnam, Mongolia, Slovakia, India, Belarus, North Korea, Algeria, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, so don't expect a roll over.

Then we talk about command, so who would make the decision to commit a European army to war? If it’s the European Union, would it have to be a unanimous decision by all EU nations, as it is now to admit a new country to the bloc? Norway and Greece might have different ideas of what’s an issue worth fighting for, and a pan-European army would have numerous weak links, of which the political would be the biggest. Also if only 4 out of 29 NATO members met the NATO threshold of spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense (the U.S. accounts for 70 percent of NATO spending), then why would a pan-European force be any better funded? Europe has enough problems sustaining the military it has, such as most of Germany’s advanced Typhoon fighters being unfit to fly .

Charles de Gaulle famously asked about France: "How can anyone govern a nation that has 246 different kinds of cheese?"

"I would rather fight a coalition than be a part of one," said Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon knew that an alliance is only as strong as its weakest link.

However, it’s one thing to create a small EU brigade that could be used for small peacekeeping or humanitarian operations in the Balkans or North Africa, or maybe dispatching a couple of battalions to Eastern Europe as a diplomatic signal. But combat against a large, high-tech opponent like Russia, even in a limited conflict such as a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, would require divisions and brigades supported by all the specialized systems that a modern army needs: air cover, air transport, electronic warfare, reconnaissance systems, and more. Currently, many of those capabilities are provided by the United States: NATO’s 2011 military intervention in Libya was only made possible because the U.S. provided air tankers, smart bombs and reconnaissance planes.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Why does it have to be colour? I think we can all figuratively, get the picture even if it's in black and white.

And is it so difficult to find pictures of actors from A Bridge Too Far portraying characters who were involved in the liberation of Brussels? If only there were easy to find colour pictures out there of Edward Fox as Horrocks ....oh!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0.....&fv1=still_frame

flipping hell Skrill. I've heard of lazy racism, but you're the first case of lazy patriotism I've come across. If you're going to play the big patriot and quote war stories, pull your finger out and get them flipping right.

As for a Bill of Rights. We've got one of those already. Have had for 300 years. Strengthened and expanded by case law, and further legislation including the Human Rights Act which enshrined principles of the ECHR drafted by a British MP and sponsored by Winston Churchill. Again, if you want to be a British patriot, try to learn about your own flipping country.

If you think that Winston Churchill ever thought that the ECHR would prevent this country from removing terrorists or preventing twits who went out to support ISIS from returning to the UK then you are clearly raving mad.

They are our citizens. It's our responsibility to deal with them, even if we end up incarcerating them for years and it costs us a fortune. Same goes for the young lass that went out there, got knocked up and then wants to come back.

If you're going to have citizenship, you can't pick and choose the ones you want.

Quoted from Maringer

They are our citizens. It's our responsibility to deal with them, even if we end up incarcerating them for years and it costs us a fortune. Same goes for the young lass that went out there, got knocked up and then wants to come back.

If you're going to have citizenship, you can't pick and choose the ones you want.

Fully agree we have to take  responsibility of our citizens and lock them up if need be,

It is not up to the USA to look after them.

Quoted from Marinerz93

If you are going to implement a European Army to front up to Russia as been spouted in Brussels you don't have time or anywhere near the money / resources

Russia as a military power has total military 3,586,128 (2,572, 500 as active reservists) they are ranked 2nd in the world after the US. Pick a fight with Russia and no doubt China will step in. China are in 3rd place with  2,693, 000 active personnel, we simply don't have the man power or bullets needed without the US.

EU countries ranked in order of firepower and outside of France and UK, with maybe Romania you can forget the rest of any notable military expertise, the Netherlands sent Marines to Iraq and when they came back a lot of them cracked up as they couldn't handle it, they had to be screened and counselled in Cyprus before they were allowed home. In my time supporting NATO ops, I have only ever seen the ones listed below in bold.

5th - France
6th - UK
10th - Germany
11th - Italy
19th - Spain
22nd - Poland
28th - Greece
30th - Czech Republic
31st - Sweden
38th - Netherlands
40th - Romania
54th - Denmark
57th - Hungary
59th - Finland
60th - Bulgaria
61st - Austria
62nd - Slovakia
63rd - Portugal
68th - Belgium
72nd - Croatia
92nd - Slovenia
95th - Lithuania
105th - Latvia
108th - Estonia
116th - Ireland

List goes up to 136 places so outside that list is, Republic of Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta.

Then add in countries that have closer ties with Russia
Main allies are China, Serbia, Cuba, Syria.

Important partners
Pakistan, Laos. Venezuela, Greece, Armenia, Tajikistan, Vietnam, Mongolia, Slovakia, India, Belarus, North Korea, Algeria, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, so don't expect a roll over.

Then we talk about command, so who would make the decision to commit a European army to war? If it’s the European Union, would it have to be a unanimous decision by all EU nations, as it is now to admit a new country to the bloc? Norway and Greece might have different ideas of what’s an issue worth fighting for, and a pan-European army would have numerous weak links, of which the political would be the biggest. Also if only 4 out of 29 NATO members met the NATO threshold of spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense (the U.S. accounts for 70 percent of NATO spending), then why would a pan-European force be any better funded? Europe has enough problems sustaining the military it has, such as most of Germany’s advanced Typhoon fighters being unfit to fly .

Charles de Gaulle famously asked about France: "How can anyone govern a nation that has 246 different kinds of cheese?"

"I would rather fight a coalition than be a part of one," said Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon knew that an alliance is only as strong as its weakest link.

However, it’s one thing to create a small EU brigade that could be used for small peacekeeping or humanitarian operations in the Balkans or North Africa, or maybe dispatching a couple of battalions to Eastern Europe as a diplomatic signal. But combat against a large, high-tech opponent like Russia, even in a limited conflict such as a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, would require divisions and brigades supported by all the specialized systems that a modern army needs: air cover, air transport, electronic warfare, reconnaissance systems, and more. Currently, many of those capabilities are provided by the United States: NATO’s 2011 military intervention in Libya was only made possible because the U.S. provided air tankers, smart bombs and reconnaissance planes.

Who ssaid owt about picking a fight with Russia? NATO is doing better in those stakes than the EU right now. I agree with Trump on one thing. The EU needs to be able to defend itself. Like I said, it'll take time.

As for the capability to attack other countries like Libya. Well that worked out well for us didn't it?