Barack Obama plans intervention in Britain's EU referendum
71 replies, posted
Someone remind me of what the Tories stand to gain from us leaving the EU. Fucking newspapers have been poisoning the public against the EU for too long.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;49739311]Someone remind me of what the Tories stand to gain from us leaving the EU. Fucking newspapers have been poisoning the public against the EU for too long.[/QUOTE]
Fuck all. They don't want us to leave, he's only doing it because it's become either that or give the whole Eurosceptic (After the Paris attacks the number has obviously increased) vote to UKIP -he's trying to keep everybody.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49739301]In which case why are we not sending David Cameron to convince your country not to vote for Trump?[/QUOTE]
we haven't directly done anything but we [I]did[/I] hold a referendum on a ban we knew wouldn't pass just to show our MPs calling Trump a retard on national television
i imagine Obama plans to do much the same
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49739301]In which case why are we not sending David Cameron to convince your country not to vote for Trump?
Usually when you stage an intervention it's to bring them back to some sort of normality. In case you haven't noticed over there but the EU is pretty fucked for a lot of countries right now and has led to this whole migrant crisis.
\/ with this guy's chancellor on the throne[/QUOTE]
Well, I was grateful that parliament had a hearing on whether to ban Trump from entering the country or not. It's not the same thing as David campaigning against him personally, but it's still a good gesture on behalf of parliament and the people who signed the petition.
Also leaving the EU wouldn't help the UK with these crises. If I recall correctly the UK is outside of the Schengen zone and has its own currency. The only suffering that comes from membership may be higher labor standards and better access to the European market.
[QUOTE=person11;49739281] He's tried to convince other European leaders to act differently, like when he told Merkel to cut Greece a bit of slack a year ago.
"[/QUOTE]
Convincing a nation to act differently toward another nation isn't the same as convincing a nation to change their internal affairs.
Sometimes a country's internal affairs will make a significant difference to the rest of the world, say... the second largest economy in Europe leaving the EU.
Won't change my vote anyway.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49739409]Convincing a nation to act differently toward another nation isn't the same as convincing a nation to change their internal affairs.[/QUOTE]
it's a political-economical union, it's not internal affairs, it's international, what the hell
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49739409]Convincing a nation to act differently toward another nation isn't the same as convincing a nation to change their internal affairs.[/QUOTE]
How would this ever be considered an internal affair? It is a completely international affair.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49738983]Fuck off, this is England's choice. Our president doesn't have any business with their internal affairs.[/QUOTE]
Honestly its not because the EU and the US are just as connected, besides the president is from outside the EU where as everybody else that's spoken against a brexit has been from the eu
[QUOTE]His “reach out” is likely to focus on the need for the EU to stick together to combat the migration crisis and the growing threat of Russian aggression in the Baltics, Ukraine and Middle East.[/QUOTE]
What a completely disingenuous thing to say. Limiting Russian aggression is literally the point of NATO, if Russia is being aggressive, it's not because the EU is weak, it's because the US isn't doing enough to support NATO. The EU has also done [I]so[/I] much to help the migrant crisis, essentially allowing millions of people in and proliferate throughout Europe without running any checks on who they are or where they've come from.
The reason the US wants Britain is because it suits [B]their[/B] interest, not ours.
[QUOTE=The mouse;49739827]What a completely disingenuous thing to say. Limiting Russian aggression is literally the point of NATO, if Russia is being aggressive, it's not because the EU is weak, it's because the US isn't doing enough to support NATO.[/QUOTE]
What? NATO would be a shadow of it's current self without the US. If NATO is weak, it isn't because the US isn't pulling it's weight.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49740184]What? NATO would be a shadow of it's current self without the US. If NATO is weak, it isn't because the US isn't pulling it's weight.[/QUOTE]
That's my point. If Russia is being threatening, it's the US' fault for not supporting NATO. Not the fault of the EU for being weak because that isn't the EU's job. So therefore the US is reflecting it's own weakness on to the EU.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49738983]Fuck off, this is England's choice. Our president doesn't have any business with their internal affairs.[/QUOTE]
the same way it was Scotland's choice to leave the UK
[QUOTE=The mouse;49739827]What a completely disingenuous thing to say. Limiting Russian aggression is literally the point of NATO, if Russia is being aggressive, it's not because the EU is weak, it's because the US isn't doing enough to support NATO. The EU has also done [I]so[/I] much to help the migrant crisis, essentially allowing millions of people in and proliferate throughout Europe without running any checks on who they are or where they've come from.
The reason the US wants Britain is because it suits [B]their[/B] interest, not ours.[/QUOTE]
I'm not picking a side, I'll just say that we've come to the point where "their" interests and "our" interest have become inseparable.
[QUOTE=The mouse;49739827]What a completely disingenuous thing to say. Limiting Russian aggression is literally the point of NATO, if Russia is being aggressive, it's not because the EU is weak, it's because the US isn't doing enough to support NATO. [/QUOTE]
um maybe if most of the nato countries contributed the amount of forces they're required to by treaty, then the little guys like poland wouldn't be threatened by russian "intervention", the US already spends enourmous amonts of resources in europe and the rest of the world, many of the NATO countries wanted the US forces to move out until recently, like we have no active tank units in germany anymore because they wanted us to move out.
If he's doing this, it's only fair that he also speaks up about problems here at home, such as the blatantly corrupting influence of money within the Democratic Party.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;49739007]people think of the wrong choices sometimes and need someone to persuade them[/QUOTE]
Wrong is a subjective ass term. Hell, most of the time you just have to travel a few miles and "wrong" means an entirely different thing. Everything you do is going to be wrong by someone.
[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;49740648]the same way it was Scotland's choice not to leave the UK[/QUOTE]
Fixed that for you.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49739021]Some people have no right to do that?
Nobody sees David Cameron giving a "BIG SHOUT OUT" against Donald Trump, the likes of which would be worse for the international community than Britain leaving the damn EU. It's to leave the EU, not Europe...[/QUOTE]
But people were all for banning Trump from the UK specifically because it would hurt his chances
So basically its okay for the UK to interfere, but not vice versa?
[QUOTE=The mouse;49740323]That's my point. If Russia is being threatening, it's the US' fault for not supporting NATO. Not the fault of the EU for being weak because that isn't the EU's job. So therefore the US is reflecting it's own weakness on to the EU.[/QUOTE]
Our country has to pick up the slack because you guys don't want to build up your military?
oh hell no.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49742453]But people were all for banning Trump from the UK specifically because it would hurt his chances
So basically its okay for the UK to interfere, but not vice versa?[/QUOTE]
The debate was held because there is a mechanism where an issue has to be debated if there are enough signatures to a petition.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49742494]Our country has to pick up the slack because you guys don't want to build up your military?
oh hell no.[/QUOTE]
No point directing that The Mouse, or any other Brit. We actually live up to our commitments of spending 2% of GDP on defence.
The point we're making is that we can spend all the money in the world but NATO won't mean jack without the USA directing it properly.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49739301][b]In which case why are we not sending David Cameron to convince your country not to vote for Trump?[/b]
Usually when you stage an intervention it's to bring them back to some sort of normality. In case you haven't noticed over there but the EU is pretty fucked for a lot of countries right now and has led to this whole migrant crisis.
\/ with this guy's chancellor on the throne[/QUOTE]
Because doing that would fuck up transatlantic relations on the off-chance that Trump was elected.
[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;49742833]Because doing that would fuck up transatlantic relations on the off-chance that Trump was elected.[/QUOTE]
True.
I'm not saying they will be, but what if, come what may, UKIP were elected?
There is a large amount of people in the UK that feel the extortionate EU fees for what we get in return, especially since we saw the whole of Europe become compromised on the behalf of a single world leader, could be better spent on the people of our own country. It would also substantially help recover the NHS by reducing welfare to non-UK EU citizens.
It definitely is an internal affair, but also an international one. A referendom might not be the perfect solution for us as I'm not sure the general public would fully understand the geopolitical ramifactions of an exit vote, but it's what's going to happen and I hope every possible option is weighed up before a decision is made.
I know I'm for leaving the EU but even I know the decision shouldn't be left up to me, I don't know shit compared to the politicians and economists etc who do.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49742453]But people were all for banning Trump from the UK specifically because it would hurt his chances
So basically its okay for the UK to interfere, but not vice versa?[/QUOTE]
All that happened was that the UK population petitioned to ban trump from the country, and therefore the UK Parliament was obliged to debate it. Petitioning/debating the notion of barring someone from entering one's country is not the equivalent to a countries president directly involving himself in a entirely foreign matter.
What's that Obama? You seem to have confused us for ONE OF YOUR FUCKING STATES.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;49739007]people think of the wrong choices sometimes and need someone to persuade them[/QUOTE]
Why do you have to make yourself sound like a spook when saying this.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49738983]Fuck off, this is England's choice. Our president doesn't have any business with their internal affairs.[/QUOTE]
He can make a statement and say his opinion if he wants. The voters of the UK don't have to listen to him, but there's nothing wrong with him putting a video on youtube, stating his thoughts on the matter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.