Brexit Thread

[Greyblades]

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.

Yes, I have a nuke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eapons_sharing

You forget three things:

1) We also still have US bases, including a hospital, we may get the codes faster than you think...or the US will obliterate you afterwards.

2) IF Russia doesn't feel threatened once you launch something in the direction of Poland and obliterates you first...

3) Poland has a missile shield.

Wiki link:

However, since all U.S. nuclear weapons are protected with Permissive Action Links, the host states cannot arm the bombs without authorization codes from the U.S. Department of Defense

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.

A few problems with that:

- The UK is much more influential than you think in Europe, and often works together on issues with the Netherlands, the nordic countries, and assorted other countries depending on the subject.

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 parity you describe only applies to votes in the Council of ministers. And if it's an issue governed by qualified voting, it has to be 55% of the countries which represent at least 65% of the EU's population

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.

- there's only real parity between the UK and countries like Malta in cases where voting in the Council has to be unanimous. And small countries are very careful in using their veto powers when the numbers are stacked against them. Under your logic, Germany could never be as influential as it is often perceived to be.

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 13 largest overwhelm the 15 smallest by a titanic amount in everything from population to money to power.