Is this democracy??

**said** · 20/11/2018 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Hamble

There is no magic involved.
Hard work business acumen Capitalism and not spending the profits elsewhere.

Ha!Ha! You think?

**Normal** · 21/11/2018 06:55 AM

Thank God the Poles were there at the Battle of Britain

**silver fox** · 22/11/2018 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by said

Not only would different nationals in the UK have different loyalties to the UK - but does not the idea that the EU want to create an international army look like a threat to the world in general. If a country is a peace loving country - why would they want to create a much larger army in the first place? Switzerland is a neutral country, they have no need to have a show of strength although they do have army personnel and none take part in conflict abroad - however, should anyone attempt to invade Switzerland they would be in for a surprise as it is well fortified.
No matter how large an army Europe creates, it would be pathetic with either the Russian or Chinese armies. The weapons would need several years to develop and even then would not keep pace with the Russian weapons.
So what would be the purpose? Would it be to contain internal protestors?

Just for laughs did a little check on the state of play with the "SUPERB" Russian military, sure in terms of size a large force, however had a quick at actual inventory, Russian navy huge, but very few new or modern ships, in fact most date back to the 1980s/90s.

Aircraft many elderly air frames have been pushed back into service in recent years, they have currently one tasty multi-role attack aircraft in service this is the latest development of the SU 27, designated SU 35, capable none stealthy but to be reckoned with, a new stealthy multi- role aircraft is in development the SU 57, it is felt that this aircraft along with it's latest technology could be an excellent machine, however not in full service as yet, does also have an extremely long range air to air missile system, but it's radar system is reckoned to be easily detected and blocked by the latest Western ECMs.

Army, large some good equipment, but not generally as well trained or technologically advanced as Western forces.

If it came to conflict in Europe, higher levels of manpower and equipment would clearly have a bearing, but just to remind you of one small factor, even during Cold Wars days USSR strategists did not want to overrun Europe with ease, because they felt that doing so may drive Nato countries to release nuclear weapons, even without the USA they certainly didn't want the nuclear weapons of Britain and France down on their heads. In fact at that time tried to make a deal with France (who aren't party to NATO) to stay out of it in the event of a European war, France of course thinking that if nuclear weapons came into play they were involved like it or not and declined the offer.

Currently Putin is the one pursuing a militaristic stance but even he would not launch full scale war against Nato or indeed a European army, we do seem to drifting back to the policy of MAD, I HOPE NOT.

**said** · 23/11/2018 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by silver fox

Just for laughs did a little check on the state of play with the "SUPERB" Russian military, sure in terms of size a large force, however had a quick at actual inventory, Russian navy huge, but very few new or modern ships, in fact most date back to the 1980s/90s.

Aircraft many elderly air frames have been pushed back into service in recent years, they have currently one tasty multi-role attack aircraft in service this is the latest development of the SU 27, designated SU 35, capable none stealthy but to be reckoned with, a new stealthy multi- role aircraft is in development the SU 57, it is felt that this aircraft along with it's latest technology could be an excellent machine, however not in full service as yet, does also have an extremely long range air to air missile system, but it's radar system is reckoned to be easily detected and blocked by the latest Western ECMs.

Army, large some good equipment, but not generally as well trained or technologically advanced as Western forces.

If it came to conflict in Europe, higher levels of manpower and equipment would clearly have a bearing, but just to remind you of one small factor, even during Cold Wars days USSR strategists did not want to overrun Europe with ease, because they felt that doing so may drive Nato countries to release nuclear weapons, even without the USA they certainly didn't want the nuclear weapons of Britain and France down on their heads. In fact at that time tried to make a deal with France (who aren't party to NATO) to stay out of it in the event of a European war, France of course thinking that if nuclear weapons came into play they were involved like it or not and declined the offer.

Currently Putin is the one pursuing a militaristic stance but even he would not launch full scale war against Nato or indeed a European army, we do seem to drifting back to the policy of MAD, I HOPE NOT.

I bet a pound to a penny you got your information from American based sources. They are paranoid about their security forces. American weapons have more to do with how they look than how they work. Failure of American weapons are well known.

Russia now has more warships than America. The U.S. Navy has 283 active vessels, and Russia had 280 warships. Many warships in several countries date to about the same period. Russian Warships outclass those of the States. Russia’s nuclear powered battle-cruisers of the Kirov Class are anything but defensive in purpose. Built and commissioned between the late 1970s and 1990s, there were only four vessels of this class built as it is estimated each ship cost well over the present-day equivalent of $2 billion. Currently, one is fully operational while the other three are going through a modernization before being returned to service. The Kirovs are truly impressive in terms of weaponry. They carry supersonic anti-ship missiles with a range of 500km, hundreds of surface-to-air missiles to shoot down enemy missiles and planes, as well as an assortment of anti-submarine weaponry. The size of these vessels shocked Western observers and military planners to point where the United States re-activated and modernized its four World-War Two era Iowa class battleships.

The Russian Blackjack (Tu-160M) is three times faster than the previous Bear and can fly four times further than the fighters that make up Britain’s Quick Reaction Alert (QRA). The huge list of Russian aircraft in the Air force can be seen on Wikipedia:List of active Russian military aircraft. Churchill employed Russian Pilots during WW2.

The UK did not have a nuclear bomb in 1945 - that was bluff. The American s used an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but luckily only 1.7% of the content material actually detonated - the Americans killed 250,000 people, 8% of which were military, the rest were civilians. To put that in perspective - 300,000 Jewish people were said to have died in the German War camps. However, a couple of years later - Russia tested a similar bomb, which scared the Americans as they thought they were the only country to have the weapon.

Putin, as all Russian leaders, is ex-military personnel as are many of his ministers. Russia has been involved in far more wars than many countries, and has won most of them. Even during the last war with Georgia, armed personnel faults were recognised, even though they were pretty good - and the troops have been undergoing a massive training programme since. Should there be a future conflict - it is dubious that it would be committed with weapons, since by taking out communication would bring a westernised country to its knees?? But if there was an armed conflict, then China would side with Russia, and China has the greater manpower by far.

Personally - I think I would defect!

**seivad** · 23/11/2018 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by said

The UK did not have a nuclear bomb in 1945 - that was bluff. The American s used an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but luckily only 1.7% of the content material actually detonated - the Americans killed 250,000 people, 8% of which were military, the rest were civilians. To put that in perspective - 300,000 Jewish people were said to have died in the German War camps.

Good grief, man... where on earth do you get your facts from? Even without fact checking, how can you possibly be unaware that millions of Jews lost their lives in the camps? Around 1,000,000 Jewish people were killed in the Auschwitz complex alone. Out of the est. 6,000,000 Jewish lives lost in the Holocaust, I believe about 3,000,000 were in the camps.

**silver fox** · 23/11/2018 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by said

I bet a pound to a penny you got your information from American based sources. They are paranoid about their security forces. American weapons have more to do with how they look than how they work. Failure of American weapons are well known.

Russia now has more warships than America. The U.S. Navy has 283 active vessels, and Russia had 280 warships. Many warships in several countries date to about the same period. Russian Warships outclass those of the States. Russia’s nuclear powered battle-cruisers of the Kirov Class are anything but defensive in purpose. Built and commissioned between the late 1970s and 1990s, there were only four vessels of this class built as it is estimated each ship cost well over the present-day equivalent of $2 billion. Currently, one is fully operational while the other three are going through a modernization before being returned to service. The Kirovs are truly impressive in terms of weaponry. They carry supersonic anti-ship missiles with a range of 500km, hundreds of surface-to-air missiles to shoot down enemy missiles and planes, as well as an assortment of anti-submarine weaponry. The size of these vessels shocked Western observers and military planners to point where the United States re-activated and modernized its four World-War Two era Iowa class battleships.

The Russian Blackjack (Tu-160M) is three times faster than the previous Bear and can fly four times further than the fighters that make up Britain’s Quick Reaction Alert (QRA). The huge list of Russian aircraft in the Air force can be seen on Wikipedia:List of active Russian military aircraft. Churchill employed Russian Pilots during WW2.

The UK did not have a nuclear bomb in 1945 - that was bluff. The American s used an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but luckily only 1.7% of the content material actually detonated - the Americans killed 250,000 people, 8% of which were military, the rest were civilians. To put that in perspective - 300,000 Jewish people were said to have died in the German War camps. However, a couple of years later - Russia tested a similar bomb, which scared the Americans as they thought they were the only country to have the weapon.

Putin, as all Russian leaders, is ex-military personnel as are many of his ministers. Russia has been involved in far more wars than many countries, and has won most of them. Even during the last war with Georgia, armed personnel faults were recognised, even though they were pretty good - and the troops have been undergoing a massive training programme since. Should there be a future conflict - it is dubious that it would be committed with weapons, since by taking out communication would bring a westernised country to its knees?? But if there was an armed conflict, then China would side with Russia, and China has the greater manpower by far.

Personally - I think I would defect!

So sorry to P on your chips, but most of the info is of UK origin from sites which do not glorify war, not shouting who has the biggest stick, nor of the we won the war variety.

Russia may have more ships on register than the USA, but the operational list is somewhat different, the mighty Kirov class missile cruiser you speak so highly of, facts, 4 were built during late 1980s, one only has been kept operational, the remaining 3 have been tied up rusting gently, Pyotr Veliky has been in service throughout with only maintenance and minor upgrades, not quite the fearsome ship you talk of. In 1998 the Kirov cruiser Admiral Nakhimov sailed to a shipyard, was dry docked and modernisation started 1999, if/when this modernisation is complete it will then be a very capable missile ship, expected completion is now 2022, if/when this happens Pyotr Veliky will then undergo the same process, the remaining two Kirov class are very much in the future if ever.

The USAs Iowa class battleships are once again retired with no plans to resuscitate, as simply bringing them up to what is needed is simply too expensive.

Blackjack a very potent aircraft in it's day, it can't outrun present air to air missiles and most certainly has been easily intercepted by Typhoons when they intrude.

Who mentioned 1945? the Cold War is reckoned to have run from 1947 to 1991, was punctuated by a number of proxy conflicts but no major clashes between Nato and the USSR.

Probably the potentially most dangerous point was the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the USSR was busily installing nuclear missiles and IL-28 bombers on Cuba, at that time the UKs V bomber force totalled 50 Valiants, 39 Victors and 70 Vulcans, all nuclear capable with the Vulcans and Victors equipped with Blue Steel classed as a stand off bomb, in reality an intermediate air launched missile, not the most reliable of weapons but not to be ignored.

During the crisis the RAF maintained in excess of 100 bombers fuelled and armed on QRA, you think that was a bluff?

Sure in any major conflict taking out communications and electronic systems will probably be key, however do you imagine that any potential enemies systems are any less vulnerable, a very old adage "remember when the enemy comes in to range, so are you" this still applies.

**steve** · 23/11/2018 09:32 PM

jonboi - agree, good post and talks sense

This is a complete nonsense for the many, the few will be ok as per Tory policies

**bensherman** · 24/11/2018 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by jonboi

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m

ispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m

efJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> When the referendum was held is 2016 it was to a large degree a reaction against perceived excessive immigration, and perhaps a feeling of disenfranchisement by a population deeply hurt by the austerity measures over a very long period and a perception that politicians were just not recognising or ignoring public concerns.
The referendum was held, and a narrow majority, but a majority none-the-less voted to leave the EU. The unfortunate side effect of such a narrow margin is to have divided the country almost 50/50!
At the time of the referendum no ordinary mortal could have known what would be involved in leaving the EU, something with which we have been integral part of for 46 years, and we have in effect made an ill-informed decision.
However one may want to bang the drum of “will of the people” and “democracy” the simple fact is that a decision based on scant, incomplete or misleading information, particularly a life changing major decision like this, is not a basis for a truly democratic outcome, this only comes about and can only be supported when as much information as is humanly possible is available for people to consider to make an informed decision whether it be Brexit or any other issue.
Given the information that is increasingly becoming available to the general public, it is, I believe, essential that the final decision on any deal is passed on to the public. Yes, a people’s vote – a final and most importantly informed vote. And whichever way this goes: to still leave or to stay or any combination in between this would represent the true will of the people, and democracy in the truest meaning of the word.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m

ispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m

efJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

I turned up to the kick-off meeting of the Remain campaign, which was chaired by Mr Pugh. His line seemed to be that staying in was pretty much a foregone conclusion but we could campaign if we wanted. Complacency infected the whole Remain campaign, sadly.
The lack of real information undermined its value as a democratic action.
Leavers did not want too much information in play, as their campaign was aimed at emotion, not intelligence. Whenever Remain tried to offer some information, it was effectively shouted down as "Project Fear".
I understand those who feel another vote would betray democracy, but for me it was betrayed first time around. Reducing all the complexity to a binary vote was never wise. People now know far more. Surely another vote would be the truly democratic thing to do.

**shippy** · 24/11/2018 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by steve

jonboi - agree, good post and talks sense

This is a complete nonsense for the many, the few will be ok as per Tory policies

Unfortunately Steve, the article was copied pasted and without jonboi writing his source below the article, it's called plagiarism...

Source:Oxford University

Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition. Plagiarism may be intentional or reckless, or unintentional...

**thediscovolante** · 24/11/2018 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Normal

Thank God the Poles were there at the Battle of Britain

yes their help was very good,,,but the main sacrifice was british,,for years on our own,,,,young british people sacrifised their lives and for what....we are now being invaded and controlled by many nations,,,

**Ceam** · 24/11/2018 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by thediscovolante

yes their help was very good,,,but the main sacrifice was british,,for years on our own,,,,young british people sacrifised their lives and for what....we are now being invaded and controlled by many nations,,,

Not true, and an insult to those that did die, Shame on you.

**seivad** · 24/11/2018 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by thediscovolante

yes their help was very good,,,but the main sacrifice was british,,for years on our own,,,,young british people sacrifised their lives and for what....we are now being invaded and controlled by many nations,,,

And yet from your own comments I see that your partner is not native to Britain. Hypocrite.

If my dad was alive, a man who served from 1939-1945, he would have a far better answer than I do... and you wouldn't like it. They fought to rid the world of fascism, not to introduce it to their own country.

**Ceam** · 24/11/2018 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by seivad

And yet from your own comments I see that your partner is not native to Britain. Hypocrite.

If my dad was alive, a man who served from 1939-1945, he would have a far better answer than I do... and you wouldn't like it. They fought to rid the world of fascism, not to introduce it to their own country.

God I wish I'd wrote that. Well put.

**said** · 24/11/2018 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Normal

Thank God the Poles were there at the Battle of Britain

They had no choice - Poland was taken by Germany. The Polish troops fought with and under the Russian army to regain Poland, then the exiled Polish government whose headquarters were in the UK, ordered that they joined with the British and other troops to fight the Germans.

**said** · 24/11/2018 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by bensherman

I turned up to the kick-off meeting of the Remain campaign, which was chaired by Mr Pugh. His line seemed to be that staying in was pretty much a foregone conclusion but we could campaign if we wanted. Complacency infected the whole Remain campaign, sadly.
The lack of real information undermined its value as a democratic action.
Leavers did not want too much information in play, as their campaign was aimed at emotion, not intelligence. Whenever Remain tried to offer some information, it was effectively shouted down as "Project Fear".
I understand those who feel another vote would betray democracy, but for me it was betrayed first time around. Reducing all the complexity to a binary vote was never wise. People now know far more. Surely another vote would be the truly democratic thing to do.

Why should another vote be called - the Remain supporters offered no realistic arguments for the referendum, and they are unable to do so now. You say that the Remain camp were complacent? That does not satisfy good reasoning. The majority of people in the UK had been becoming very wary of the EU for the past twenty or so years before the referendum and discussed the situation openly and in social media. Unless those who supported Remain live very secular lives they could not possibly have been able to ignore the growing unrest. Among those with whom I regularly socialise, the vote was a resounding Leave. As was the finding of top local business people, professionals and graduates having up to three degrees etc., people of very highly educated backgrounds - as opposed to those who have been marching for Remain in London, who could not give one reason as to why they wanted to Remain. Get the idea? People whose lives involve research and not taking facts as given made it their business to research every detail - I know that for a fact. Even now - the Remain supporters are believing everything they are told. The country is not in a mess. It would make very little difference if there was no Customs Union, and it would not be detrimental to the UK if there was a 'No deal'. Do you understand why? You claim to be a Remain supporter - well what are your reasons to stay within the EU?

Thread: Is this democracy??

Thread Tools

Latest UK News by Qlocal - Have Your Say

User Control Panel

Member Login

Not a Member? Sign Up!