The EU debate - Part III

Ok cheers stan, I'll try again.

 

Why should we have to enter into agreements with EU countries after we leave the EU if we have reached agreement within the terms of article 50?

 

please log in to view this image

 

so you don't think you need building insurance and then your house burns down
ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons and then were invaded by russia? do you think russia would have invaded ukraine if they had nuclear weapons?

 

I'm joking Pete.

 

Here you go Two Kitchens Pete - you shouldn't have so many people on ignore (Below is Tobes Quote)


"Someone tell him that he's wrong again.

However, if the final agreement cuts across policy areas within the preserve of the member states, such as certain elements of services, transport and investment protection – as many recent EU FTAs have done (for example with Peru and with Columbia) – it will be classed as a ‘mixed agreement’ and require additional ratification by every national parliament in the EU. The EU Treaties would also need to be amended to reflect the UK’s departure. In effect, this means that the final deal at the end of a negotiated UK exit from the EU would need to be ratified by EU leaders via a qualified majority vote, a majority in the European Parliament and by the remaining 27 national parliaments across the EU."

 

Bluey, you'll realise soon enough that the dim-witted old twat has absolutely no sense of humour.

 

I know I was just directing it to explain the anti nuclear brigade because they seem to say that a lot

 

If EU play hard ball, I cant see May keep trying to negotiate, I can see here being a stubborn woman and say arse to the EU we will have a hard Brexit.

 

I asked you why the majority of countries (every country in the world except 9) didn't need nuclear weapons, so if they don't why do we and your response was that they were protected by NATO and then you started going on about house insurance????

If Germany is safe enough without nuclear weapons either because it's not a deterrent or if what you say is true it's because their NATO allies will protect them, then why do we need nuclear weapons when we are also in NATO, aren't likely to be attacked and have NATO allies?

 

Hmmm.

 

Which will lead to a slump in the economy which will actually bring Labour back into contention.

She's not that stupid.

 

Sorry, I just thought that it was an obvious joke. Oh well.

 

if everybody in NATO got rid of their nuclear weapons then what protection does anybody in NATO have?
If you dont understand the connection between house insurance and nuclear weapons then it's not really worth continuing the discussion.

 

I guess the majority of governments in the world are insane then, which is very, very worrying - in fact one of the only 9 sane governments in the world elected George W Bush into power not so long ago and may elect Trump into power, and one of the other nine has Putin! What does that say about sanity!!!

 

Also, the USA are the only country to have actually used them.

 

Whose talking about everyone else? I asked you why we need ours - especially if the majority of countries in the world, such as countries similar to us like Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia ect and rising powers like Brazil, and the huge majority of countries haven't got them yet haven't been attacked - so proves it isn't a deterrent. then why do we, just us as the UK need them?

 

Very true - it's the one reason to keep the 'special relationship' as you don't want to be on the wrong side of those nutcases lol

 

You seem to have a very limited view of possible reasons. Some countries can't afford nuclear weapons. Any attempt to produce them would cost a large part of their GDP. Other countries wouldn't get aid if they produced nuclear weapons. It's not simply a question of whether they think they need them.