Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
Kind of like the spanish are doing under EU regulations? Coming into our sea, stealing our fish...

On a side note that this sort of thing happens is what I really like about british politics, it holds a sweetspot in political passion between the extremes of tukish punchups and the american snorefest.
If the Spanish are doing that, then I'm right and regulations should be tighter. Mandatory GPs modules that turn the boat around once it leaves the designated fishing zone, for example.

Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
Wiki link:

1) If it got to the point that nato fell to bits and britain went to war with germany those bases would be long gone, as would those nukes.

2) Russia would sit and laugh as we killed eachother.

3) Missile shield fired in poland has a longer way to go to reach western germany than a trident missile fired from the north sea. Plus the missile shield has a chance to fail; if the russians fired 50 missiles at western europe and NATO fired 50 back, russia would lose missiles in transit while all 50 USA missiles got through.

The russians would lose in a straight up fight but if NATO didnt fire back they would win because a percentage of thier missiles getting through would be all but ensured, and against someone who cannot fire back victory is assured. So if Britain fired all 220 of her nukes (or at least the 58 that are currently attached to missiles) straight at poland's shield it is guarenteed that some percentage gets through, and precident tells us that 2 strikes can be all it takes to kill a non nuclear nation's will to fight.

The potential power my friend, between us and everyone else save france, is overwhelmingly british. But of course I am not serious in desiring a voting weight of 50% in the EU comission. It's just semi plausable exaggeration to emphasise the disparity between the balances of voting power in the EU and practical power out of it.


Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
I didnt say we weren't influential I said we do not have the direct influence proporitional to our size, strength and power in the commission, which is the most important part of the EU government.

The issue is the commission has sole control over what gets voted upon. If Britain wants to put forward legislation and cannot gain majority in the commission it wont even be put forward for consideration by the EU parliament or anywhere else in the government.

The germans are very good at getting the other nations to agree with it, but it is still an absurdity that a joint bill from the 14 largest countries in the union can be kept from being voted on by the 15 smallest countries banding together, even though the 14 largest overwhelm the 15 smallest by a titanic amount in everything from population to money to power.
Well:

1) If the Green party wants to put forward legislation in Britain and it never passes, should the Green party leave Britain?

2) Is it not unfair that the Queen doesn't get a higher percentage of votes based on how much land she owns in Britain? And since she is ultimately the owner of all of Britain, could one not argue that she should get 100% of the votes? Or more generally, should rich people get more votes than the poor? And isn't population already a relatively big factor in how influential a country is in the EU? You keep giving hypothetic examples, but do you also have real ones that could be discussed or are you going to vote based on a fantasy theory?