• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The Brexit Thread

Sauron97 said:
I was never saying that we'd be forced in to it, as that is impossible given the EU constitution. The point is that regardless of what we do an EU army is going to form
Click to expand...
So what am I missing?

On the assumption we don't want to join...
  • Stay in the EU and don't join the EU army
  • Leave the EU and don't join the EU army
So why is the EU army a reason for leaving the European Union?
 
To paraphrase a well worn saying...
I defend absolutely your right to say what you have to say,
But it comes across as a complete load of old balls, especially when you rely on dodgy unsourced videos on YouTube, or quotes from the bible.
I dropped this thread, and the election thread, as they both degenerated to the two sides calling names and getting moody.
Brexit is now happening, accept the change, and move on.
It is sad that we had to end up with a whopping Tory majority for five years to get there.
 
For me personally, its because the EU doesnt want us to leave.
If they get an EU army and we are still in, I don't see why they wouldn't use that army to essentially colonize us.

I cant remember where I saw it but some of the EU bigwigs (junker Macron and Merkel ect) were referring to the EU, as an "empire of the good"...
I find that very disturbing as it seems to suggest that they view the EU as some form of greater good and as far as I see, once someone has a greater good, then anything is justified!

I admit, that is quite hyperbolic but that's my main personal reasoning...
My other reason, is that it would doubtless be quite provocative to the likes of Russia and China and if we are a part of the EU then, that surely implicates us (in their mind)
 
But if we're not in the EU and they get an EU Army what's stopping them colonising us anyway? I find it very disturbing that people will believe any old tosh they read without fact checking.
 
Britford said:
What would you accept as a citation?
Click to expand...

Generally the understanding is that a document (or in this case a video) can be proved to be well founded if there are links to where that person did their research. However citations also vary in quality (sometimes even reputable news sources, even scientific journals get things wrong). This only makes citations harder.

So what to look out for?

Data! Numbers are the best at proving things by far. They are easy to compare and judge. For example:

"The Trussell Trust’s food bank network provided 823,145 emergency food parcels to people in crisis between April and September 2019, a 23% increase on the same period in 2018."

However, before we draw any conclusion there are things to check still

1) is the data public, or from a reputable source. In this case it's a charity whose accounts will be made public and is generally trusted as the best in the area.

2) is it a trend? In this case, one single year is compared. It could be argued that this is within standard deviation, or just not significant enough to really matter.

3) The number doesn't prove the cause, in fact these things are usually simplified. Back up with more data. How many more people are there, if there are 23% more people YoY (year on year) then perhaps that's why. What is the average household income, is poverty rising.

4) Fact check your source. Can the same data be found elsewhere saying the same thing. Perhaps trussel trust is just becoming more popular, with other smaller local food banks actually giving out less now.

Is there some evidence that this data might be pulled from thin air all together. Fact checking services might have double checked this (https://fullfact.org/economy/how-many-people-use-food-banks/) they are very useful for doing the leg work for you, and generally are good at citing their sources.

5) watch out for creative statistics. An example here might be "A majority of people want Brexit done" however there is little evidence to support this. Even in the referendum only a majority of voters wanted brexit, if including non-voters with remain (as they might be). Whereas in the election the most votes were cast against the conservatives, rather than for them. However they still have a majority. There are many examples of creative statistics and they are very hard to spot.

6) Sample size is everything. 9 out of 10 people support remain. Oh I just asked some friends at lunch, all but one wanted to remain. Small samples, and samples which do not cover a wide enough variety of demographics aren't good statistics.

So for example, I could say, Investment in the European Defence Fund has not significantly increased over the last ten years. (€225 billion in 2007 compared to €223.4 billion in 2018, equal to 1.4 percent of GDP and 3.1 percent of total government expenditure.) Therefore the EU are not working to build a stronger army, only maintaining the ones the member states have.

Some things are unfortunately unquantifiable, and therefore much harder to prove. Things like a shift in ideology, the lawmaking process, the internal structure and workings of the EU are all examples over the last page.

In this case the best things to look out for are

Reputable news sources. Is this being reported on by anyone, and if so is that being fact checked.

Scientific Journals are fantastic citations more often than not. To pass peer review and be published in a journal is a mark that there is something useful in the paper. It's important which journal too. Try Google scholar. The bonus is that to be published the researcher will absolutely be required to cite their sources. Steal those! If someone else makes a good point, don't just repeat it, pass on the evidence that they backed up their point with.

Quotes, of law, draft law, policies, political statements and leaders can all be cited when there isn't another credible source. One thing to remember though is that while someone might be in the EU they might not represent it. For example, Nigel Farage might be an MEP but if I was to quote him talking about Brexit, it does not mean the EU want brexit. Same with a French minister talking about a European Army, his opinion alone does not mean that the whole EU is aiming to create a European Army.

This leaves us with bottom grade sources. Places where people can post whatever the want without review. Websites, Wikipedia, blogs, YouTube ect. These things can still be good sources, however they have to back up their claims with other evidence or at least research. Look at who the creator is, and what else they've made. look at why they might be posting this (propaganda or conspiracy are not worth citing at all).

Whenever you assert a fact that isn't widely known it's important to look for some source of your reasoning. After that look at their sources.

Finally, it is hugely important to differentiate fact and opinion. Everyone has an opinion, and generally they aren't worth much. Sometimes they can be disguised as facts, so it's important to double check where possible.

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/

https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/using-sources

https://www.utep.edu/extendeduniver...rentiate-a-good-source-from-a-bad-source.html

https://sites.umgc.edu/library/libhow/credibility.cfm

https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/writing/evaluate

https://www.datapine.com/blog/misleading-statistics-and-data/

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GtSV7rG6Iu4C&redir_esc=y

https://fullfact.org/
 
Last edited:
The European Commission is appointed by the elected governments of each member state - the idea that it is some sort of hereditary autocracy with unlimited tenure and power is wrong. They can also do nothing without the agreement of the leaders of the members states, and the 100% proportionally democratically elected (take note Brexiteers) European Parliament.

We are leaving - but we should leave with people's heads purged of Daily Express and Nigel Farage codswallop.
 
I was never trying to assert the videos as fact, I simply think that with all information available, it seems more likely than not (in my opinion) that they are planning an EU army/EU country, ect for after brexit.

There seems to be big, pro imperial sentiment among the EU ruling class and what with the general secrecy at which it opperates (with multiple, seemingly unconnected sources speaking of a secret room for MEPs to view proposed legislation only, under strict supervision)
And with fact checks only (rightfully) pointing out that there is currently no public proposals for a joint army, I think that a planned EU army seems like a logical theory...that's all.
 
As soon as Brexit is done they'll go full Bates Motel and make it that nobody else will be able to leave, just like they changed their IAT rules after Greenland voted to leave, I suspect after that the process was made so difficult that they never expected a full member state to even attempt to leave, let alone actually promise the electorate they'd get the choice.
 
MPs debate the Brexit bill
“Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would oppose the bill, and that there was "a better and fairer way" to leave the EU.”

Good luck with that

Good lord will he just not go end up in a ditch :rolleyes:
The sour face puss
 
bluesonichd said:
MPs debate the Brexit bill
“Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would oppose the bill, and that there was "a better and fairer way" to leave the EU.”

Good luck with that
Click to expand...
It obviously won't make a difference and the vote will get through due to the Conservatives majority, but why do you expect anything else? Labour have said all along that this withdrawal agreement is not good for the country, and all they are doing is sticking with that. Would you vote for something that you disagreed with?

The great thing is the Tories totally own this now. When the whole thing turns into a shower it will be 100% on them.

GaryH said:
No, quite right, he should be at least 6ft under, along with all his terrorist mates
Click to expand...
*cough* DUP *cough*
 
Woah woah woah..... I'm no fan of Komrade Korbyn, but of all the politicians over the years who deserve a gristley death, he's pretty far down the list. He seems like a nice guy to have a pint with..... just not a leader.

... Bit like Boris really, though for very differrent reasons.

It just comes down to a personal choice on who you believe is the lesser of two evils. There are plenty of politicians who DO deserve to be stood blindfolded in front of a ditch... But he's not one of them. And I say that as someone who has only voted red once in my life.... and still feel dirty about it two elections later.
 
MPs have now approved the Brexit bill , including 6 labour MPs who also voted for it. Thank god at last things are moving!!!
 
speedy said:
things are moving all right. Businesses and talented people moving away from the UK. Scotland moving towards independence.
Click to expand...
why are they moving away, Labour didnt get in. they are all safe :D

and if the Scots want to leave, as they are trying to beak up the UK, shouldn't everyone in the UK get a vote on wether they should leave
 
bluesonichd said:
why are they moving away, Labour didnt get in. they are all safe :D

and if the Scots want to leave, as they are trying to beak up the UK, shouldn't everyone in the UK get a vote on wether they should leave
Click to expand...
Immigrants who've actually lived here decades didn't get a say in the EU referendum, why should those who don't even stay here get a say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top