Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I have no idea RE Scottish MEPs, but 6 sounds plausible.

    So, it's estimated that as a net contributor, the UK contributes 13billion but gets 4.5billion back. Net contibution 8.5billion euros.

    Estimated 10% rise in GDP attributed to EU membership.

    Average seems about 9bn per year since 1973. So arguably £380 billion since 1973. So yes, in simplest terms, more expensive than Trident.

    That however doesn't factor in the GDP rise, job creation etc. Point is a totally separate issue from Trident. Also, incredibly speculatory as is the case for economic debates on the EU.
    Lol? Even the commission only claim 2.35%

    And trident doesn't factor in the GDP growth, or the indirect job creation, or any of that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Wow, wow, wow. That is a massive strawmen right there. I didn't say that we shouldn't have entered WWII nor did I say that one persons life is worth more than another's.

    In terms of WWI we entered it because Germany marched through Belgium. They didn't attack Belgium at all they just didn't like France so wanted to attack france which we would have been fine with. Which is why we should not have entered WWI.

    WWII was a good war to enter because Germany posed a real and present threat to us and our allies which should have been stopped. Different to them only attacking France.

    War should only be considered as a last resort. If a dictator is killing all of their citizens then yes that is tragic and should be condemned. But if we go in the changes are that we will make things a lot worse before they get better. So by applying soft power we are better equipped to try and change things instead of making things worse.
    So ion response to WWII you go to WWI and expect me to pay attention to whether it's I or II next to the WW?

    Should we have killed about a million people in WWII or should we have let europe be completely rid of Jews, homosexuals, communists, trade unionists, gypsies, or any of the other unpure people?It's a simple yes or no and you are going to say "no"
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Imagine we never went into Libya and Gadaffi slaughtered a million Libyans.. is that a cost you'd have payed to avoid war?
    And yet, historically, time and again Western intervention in the Middle East and Asia has only increased anti-Western hostility. Usually driven by material business interests.

    Installation of Batista in Cuba as a pro-US President saw a Cuban revolution with Castro instantly having anti-US sentiment.
    Installation of the Shah in Iran led to 26 years of absolute Monarchy where "Amnesty International reported that Iran had the “highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran." Until an anti-Western 1979 revolution overthrew him and created another anti-Western foe.

    Militarism is driven by interests, creating pro-Western puppets and opposing states right to govern creates hostility, standard response is to crush opponents, further hastening opposition and guerilla warfare.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So ion response to WWII you go to WWI and expect me to pay attention to whether it's I or II next to the WW?

    Should we have killed about a million people in WWII or should we have let europe be completely rid of Jews, homosexuals, communists, trade unionists, gypsies, or any of the other unpure people?It's a simple yes or no and you are going to say "no"
    Yes, because without WWI we wouldn't have had WWII and I have always stated my opposition to WWI.

    again no, you need to start reading what I'm saying instead of what you think I'm saying. We should definitely have gone into WWII because Nazi Germany posed a real and present threat to stability in Europe and the security of us and our allies.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Yes, because without WWI we wouldn't have had WWII and I have always stated my opposition to WWI.

    again no, you need to start reading what I'm saying instead of what you think I'm saying. We should definitely have gone into WWII because Nazi Germany posed a real and present threat to stability in Europe and the security of us and our allies.
    So why should we have gone to war in WWII for our allies, but no other time?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So why should we have gone to war in WWII for our allies, but no other time?
    Because we are stronger together when we defend eachother. But internal disputes always end badly when external hard power is applied.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Because we are stronger together when we defend eachother. But internal disputes always end badly when external hard power is applied.
    That does not answer the question. Why should we have defended our allies in WWII but not WWI? At the end of the day involvement in both wars was the exact same thing: because an alliance says so.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Many of you will not know me, as I have tended to keep myself to myself. I have served as an MP under 3 official speakers, one deputy speaker, two prime ministers and served in two successive parliaments. After all of that, I can safely say I have enjoyed every minute. I would like to thank Life_peer for giving me the opportunity to serve as an MP, I have enjoyed debating with all members of the house on a range of issues, something I would not have been able to do without the help of my honourable and right honourable friends within my party. When we secured the most seats within the General Election, I was extremely proud to call myself a Tory. A coalition is never an ideal situation, however our two parties have worked well together in governing this country. We have produced some effective statements and bills, all of which I have made me proud to walk down the aye lobby with my colleagues. However, recently I have begun to find myself disagreeing with the leadership of this party on a range of issues, the most prominent being the Gender, Sex, and Discrimination Bill 2016 (B1007), where I found myself openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister and many members of my party. In my opinion, the party has moved more significantly to the right than what it was when I first joined. It is now at a point where I feel that I can no longer serve in this party. Now I want to be clear, this is not an attack on the party, it is just that my ideology no longer fits that of the party. Haven spoken with all the relevant groups, I am hereby resigning as a Member of Parliament and will be going to the Liberal Party, as I now believe they best represent my views.

    It has been an honour so serve the country as a Member of Parliament, and I hope that in the future I can do so again. I wish the current Government the best of luck, and I know that it will continue to serve the country to the best of its abilities.

    A Tory-Liberal Government is the best thing for this country, although those on the opposite benches may disagree. I will be going inactive for a while due to real life commitments, but I will be back. I wish all MPs the best of luck in the house.

    Thank you.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That does not answer the question. Why should we have defended our allies in WWII but not WWI? At the end of the day involvement in both wars was the exact same thing: because an alliance says so.
    In WWI we weren't really defending our allies. At the time we were allies with Germany and Belgium but not France. Germany didn't not invade Belgium but instead simply marched through it on their way to invade France. Should they have gotten permission? Absolutely but going to war with them was an awful idea.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Tommy1boy


    Noble sentiments. Well done for standing up for what you believe in and good luck for the future.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Tommy1boy


    Noble sentiments. Well done for standing up for what you believe in and good luck for the future.
    Thank you
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    In WWI we weren't really defending our allies. At the time we were allies with Germany and Belgium but not France. Germany didn't not invade Belgium but instead simply marched through it on their way to invade France. Should they have gotten permission? Absolutely but going to war with them was an awful idea.
    Dear God, did you ever study any of this? Belgium wasn't simply marched through, they had told Germany they weren't being let through but Germany declared war and invaded regardless.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Dear God, did you ever study any of this? Belgium wasn't simply marched through, they had told Germany they weren't being let through but Germany declared war and invaded regardless.
    Yes, would seem I didn't have the greatest history teacher however... I still wouldn't have gotten involved but instead convinced Belgium to let Germany in because again, going to war for France, we all know that Germany didn't care about Belgium, was at the time not worth it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Yes, would seem I didn't have the greatest history teacher however... I still wouldn't have gotten involved but instead convinced Belgium to let Germany in because again, going to war for France, we all know that Germany didn't care about Belgium, was at the time not worth it.
    Germany signed the treaty protecting their neutrality. We did not go to war for France, we went to war because the ultimatum was issued to Germany that the Treaty of London (1839) should be honoured or else war would ensue
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Germany signed the treaty protecting their neutrality. We did not go to war for France, we went to war because the ultimatum was issued to Germany that the Treaty of London (1839) should be honoured or else war would ensue
    Citation? From what I've read and was told Germany belived that we would not go to war over Belgium.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Citation? From what I've read and was told Germany belived that we would not go to war over Belgium.
    Ummm, that is probably the reason they ignored the ultimatum.

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

    The ultimatum was made, Germany did not believe war would come about over a "scrap of paper"
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, that is probably the reason they ignored the ultimatum.

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

    The ultimatum was made, Germany did not believe war would come about over a "scrap of paper"
    The ultimatum was made by Germany to Belgium, not from us to Germany.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    The ultimatum was made by Germany to Belgium, not from us to Germany.
    Asquith gave an ultiamtum for Germany to leave before 2359 on the 3rd August, they didn't, we declared war on the 4th.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...ration-of-war/
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Asquith gave an ultiamtum for Germany to leave before 2359 on the 3rd August, they didn't, we declared war on the 4th.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...ration-of-war/
    He gave them 445 years?!
    And that wasn't in the page you had linked too...
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    He gave them 445 years?!
    And that wasn't in the page you had linked too...
    ummm, it was in the third sentence...
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.