EU referendum/Brexit discussion - Part 2

[@Lee]

1 minute ago, CWARD said:

 

You are being stupid then as currently only one standard. With an EU Army wanting to use just EU developed equipment and technologies what will their standard be? Will it be compatible with NATO equipment too?

What EU army? There is no EU army.
At least it'll have the CE mark.
Will it be compatible? I don't know. Do you know?
Why do you think it wouldn't be?
Why would they have an EU army consisting of NATO members that had two sets of kit? One NATO standard and the other EU standard?
****s sake, man.
Go and post some more Lisbon Treaty bull**** and take a calmative please.
 

[CWARD]

10 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

I seem to recall our ammunition in the 60s was 7.62 mm NATO compliant.

 

Changed in the 80’s to 5.56. Used both but preferred the 7.62 but it was heavy compared to its successor. hence the change of standard. 

The 5.56 was developed by the Belgium’s same as the L1A1 had. The 5.56 beat the Remington design to become the standard. NATO a truly cooperative organisation using standards developed by many of the members 

[Ryeman]

1 minute ago, CWARD said:

 

Changed in the 80’s to 5.56. Used both but preferred the 7.62 but it was heavy compared to its successor. hence the change of standard. 

The 5.56 was developed by the Belgium’s same as the L1A1 had. The 5.56 beat the Remington design to become the standard. NATO a truly cooperative organisation using standards developed by many of the members 

A higher muzzle velocity and much higher rate of fire I seem to recall.

[@Lee]

2 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

NATO a truly cooperative organisation using standards developed by many of the members 

The European Union, a truly cooperative organisation using standards developed by many of the members 

[CWARD]

3 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

A higher muzzle velocity and much higher rate of fire I seem to recall.

 

I think the criteria was for faster rates of fire and ability to carry more ammunition to feed the higher rate of fire so your probably right

[Ryeman]

Melbourne is the perfect model for an EU/Middle East/Asian community........in spite of the neo-cons and their desire for division.

World’s best for food and coffee too.

C’mon in!

[CWARD]

2 minutes ago, Lee01 said:

The European Union, a truly cooperative organisation using standards developed by many of the members 

 

Don’t have any argument over the EU standards, never have so don’t get your point. 

 

Still don’t know why you need an army separate of NATO. When will you answer?

[Ryeman]

2 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

I think the criteria was for faster rates of fire and ability to carry more ammunition to feed the higher rate of fire so your probably right

Yeah, weight would have been a significant factor......if you weren’t trigger happy.

[Ryeman]

2 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

Don’t have any argument over the EU standards, never have so don’t get your point. 

 

Still don’t know why you need an army separate of NATO. When will you answer?

Where did this non-NATO compliant story come from?.

[Ryeman]

Keep it in the back of your mind at all times when reading ‘articles’ on the internet -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency

[trundlenut]

1 hour ago, CWARD said:

 

I’m beginning to think this is some kind of wind up now, you can’t really be this ignorant. 

You post unreferenced bits of texts copied off the Internet, often deliberately chosen to support your viewpoint by taking them out of context. Or you make assertions that aren't backed up by the links you post and then start suggesting I'm stupid or ill. No Buttercup it's not a wind up, I'm not ignorant, you need to actually stand up, stop being disingenuous and provide a reasoned argument backed up by actual facts not distortions, whataboutery and insults

[CWARD]

You have links galore  obtaining E.U. legislation behind the comments but you choose to ignore because it doesn’t meet your argument. 

[@Lee]

2 minutes ago, CWARD said:

You have links galore  obtaining E.U. legislation behind the comments but you choose to ignore because it doesn’t meet your argument. 

To be fair your arguments have, in some cases, consisted of links to Breitbart which is hardly a credible source, is it?
 

Quote

Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a far-right^[6] syndicated American news, opinion and commentary^[7][8] website founded in mid-2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as "the Huffington Post of the right."^[4][9][10] Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike.^[11] The site has published a number of lies, conspiracy theories,^{[12][13][14][15][16]} and intentionally misleading stories.^[17][18]

Are you still a delivery boy or did you change direction when you left the army?

[CWARD]

20 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

Where did this non-NATO compliant story come from?.

 

It was comments from German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz in s Reuter’s article about merging defence industries, which Germany was against blocking many British and French mergers previously.  He went in to discuss the EU becoming a global power in arms supply, whilst been less dependent on US equipment and standards. As previously stated the standards are NATO not US. 

[Ryeman]

5 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

It was comments from German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz in s Reuter’s article about merging defence industries, which Germany was against blocking many British and French mergers previously.  He went in to discuss the EU becoming a global power in arms supply, whilst been less dependent on US equipment and standards. As previously stated the standards are NATO not US. 

It sounds like a proposition and I’m not surprised German would love to have a non-auto based industry expansion.

Trump is a v real trade threat to their massive auto export industry.

 

I note most days the DAX trails the FTSE in performance..........that’s some achievement.

Edited 12 January, 2019 by Ryeman

[CWARD]

One link to Brietbart, which I didn’t realise was right wing either, out of many other links which I try to keep to main publications. 

You have linked to many more articles on random Wordpress websites merely expressing a persons point of view just like a twitter user. 

[@Lee]

1 minute ago, CWARD said:

 

It was comments from German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz in s Reuter’s article about merging defence industries, which Germany was against blocking many British and French mergers previously.  He went in to discuss the EU becoming a global power in arms supply, whilst been less dependent on US equipment and standards. As previously stated the standards are NATO not US. 

Surely given the climate being LESS dependent on US equipment and standards is a good thing, isn't it?
I mean, look at how the US completely shafted the UK over software rights for the Chinook for example.
US aircraft dependent on US software for UK carriers (eventually)
The UK is already one of the worlds major suppliers of death and destruction which causes untold misery to millions thus displacing them from their homes and creating migration and people seeking asylum  arms. Why not do that from within the EU?

[CWARD]

Lee learn to read. The standards are not US but NATO. I’d already given you an example of the 5.56 adopted from the Belgium’s 

[@Lee]

1 minute ago, CWARD said:

One link to Brietbart, which I didn’t realise was right wing either, 

If you didn't know Breitbart was right wing and a purveyor of fake news after all this time then you're an idiot. 

[@Lee]

6 minutes ago, CWARD said:

Lee learn to read. The standards are not US but NATO. I’d already given you an example of the 5.56 adopted from the Belgium’s 

As I said. Many EU member states are also members of NATO so WHY would they develop a second set of protocols for equipment etc?
They can use the SAME STANDARDS.

[trundlenut]

10 minutes ago, CWARD said:

You have links galore  obtaining E.U. legislation behind the comments but you choose to ignore because it doesn’t meet your argument. 

They 

Do

Not

Support 

Your

Argument! 

 

It is quite simple, make argument, then provide actual supporting evidence. 

 

What you have done is provide links to sites which don't, or copy and paste text, such as from the New European website, which appears to support your argument only because they are deliberately taken out of context or are incomplete. 

 

So we can now stop, take a breath and consider whether to continue on the same disingenuous merry go round or not. 

 

As things stand I see Brexit as something which will damage the country and massively disproportionately impact those who have the least in society.  It will not solve the issues that a lot of people were promised it would. We were sold a pack of lies by people who should put the country first, backed by a nasty bunch of people who saw a chance to profit and make life easier from themselves. 

 

There is no way we will get what was promised because it was never intended to be delivered and likely has been hijacked by someone who is incompetent or just hates foreigners. 

[Ryeman]

Just now, Lee01 said:

As I said. Many EU member states are also members of NATO so WHY would they develop a second set of protocols for equipment etc?
They can use the SAME STANDARDS.

I suspect that a German arms industry balloon went up looking for someone to salute it.

[Ryeman]

You have to take this seriously -

http://theconversation.com/countering-russian-disinformation-the-baltic-nations-way-109366

[CWARD]

6 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

You have to take this seriously -

http://theconversation.com/countering-russian-disinformation-the-baltic-nations-way-109366

 

Good article and confirms my view of NATO and the pointless duplication of the E.U. Army

 

Internationally, Estonia gained approval in 2008 to establish NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence in Tallinn. Its comprehensive research into global cyber activities helps identify best practices in cyber defense and training for NATO members. 

In 2014, Riga, the capital of neighboring Latvia, became home to another NATO organization combating Russian influence, the Strategic Communications Center of Excellence. It publishes reports on Russian disinformation activities, such as the May 2018 study of the “Virtual Russian World in the Baltics.” That report analyzes Russian social media activities targeting Baltic nations with a “toxic mix of disinformation and propaganda.” It also provides insight into identifying and detecting Russian disinformation campaigns.

[Ryeman]

I linked a report some time ago about Sweden activating it defence forces in anticipation of Russian efforts to destabilise.

It seemed nobody thought that somewhat alarming.