It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Brexit' could trigger World War Three, warns David Cameron

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
What an utter goon. The UK can and will have plenty of security if it left the EU.

HE signed the Lancaster house treaty.
Lancaster House Treaties


Might require a little effort but I can almost guarantee that any and all European nations would jump at a military based treaty with the UK. Our arms market speaks for itself.

David Cameron you sir are a mud peddler.




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Nope nothing about WW3 per say but fear-mongering I'd say most certainly.

The UK has military security already with European mainland and Scandinavian countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the entity that is the EU. It does make sense using the EU for security, though the security of the UK being a strong excuse to stay in the EU is clutching straws at best.

We have one of the best militaries in the world and state-of-the-art equiptment with an excellent industrial base. Nations would leap to co-operate militarily... Just like nations leaped at the opportunity to work with the F35 program.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

Exactly.

We already have a mountain of separate defence treaty’s including NATO.

Plus the UK hasn’t been the war starter anyway in Europe in recent history. The War starters are normally Germany or France.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
More control over our laws.


We already have control of our laws.
The laws you imagine have been "imposed" on us by the "evil EU" were either already laws in the UK or have simply been supported throughout the EU to improve quality of life and increase standards.

What laws have been imposed on us that have turned out to be negative in any respect?


originally posted by: crazyewok
Less bureaucracy


No, not really. We still deal with our government, we still work under the same system of laws and the EU doesn't have an involvement in the daily administration of our government.


originally posted by: crazyewok
One less layer of government.


I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.
In what way is our involvement in the EU an "inconvenient" layer of government?
It facilitates common laws and standards across the European Union which in-turn facilitates a large amount of business between our nations.
Would you consider street sweepers to be a "layer of government"?


originally posted by: crazyewok
Smaller decentralised government


How?
Our government will not shrink just because we stop dealing with the EU.
How on Earth do you imagine leaving the EU would magically shrink our own government?


originally posted by: crazyewok
Protection of UK sovereignty.


The UK is and always will be a sovereign nation.
Involvement in the EU has not changed this and to claim it somehow has is a ridiculous suggestion often repeated by the fanatics.


originally posted by: crazyewok
More separation from the disastrous currency that is the Euro.


So you want total and complete separation of us from the Euro?
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
We do NOT HAVE THE EURO and there is no plan for us to adopt it.
You're basically suggesting that simply dealing with another currency is somehow dangerous to our country, but would you feel the same about the USD?

Everything you've listed here is basically nothing more than the usual nonsense, the same vague and reactionary simple-minded nationalism we've come to expect from the Brexit bunch.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
The UK is and always will be a sovereign nation.
Involvement in the EU has not changed this and to claim it somehow has is a ridiculous suggestion often repeated by the fanatics.

Ok fine then.

Surely then the UK going to trade only argument doesnt matter then?
If we can set our own laws and we are truely soverign then surely it would matter not one jot if we withdraw politically?




originally posted by: Rocker2013


I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.
In what way is our involvement in the EU an "inconvenient" layer of government?

Expenese and money to upkeep brussels.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
It facilitates common laws and standards across the European Union which in-turn facilitates a large amount of business between our nations.

Ok cool

We have that.

We dont need any more.

Europe is VASTLY diffrent in culture and politcs from country to country.

UK has always been center right with small swings left of center.

Other EU countrys have been more firmly left of center or moderate left.

Forceing us all into one big (un)happy union means countrys will have politcaly ideologys thrust on them they dont want,



originally posted by: Rocker2013



How?
Our government will not shrink just because we stop dealing with the EU.
How on Earth do you imagine leaving the EU would magically shrink our own government?

No but we dont want or need to pay for the upkeep of ANOTHER goverment layer above westminster,

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Everything you've listed here is basically nothing more than the usual nonsense, the same vague and reactionary simple-minded nationalism we've come to expect from the Brexit bunch.

Calling people with a diffrent view point to yours "simple minded" is childish and quite frankly just hardens us even more to vote out.
edit on 9-5-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: RAY1990

Exactly.

We already have a mountain of separate defence treaty’s including NATO.

Plus the UK hasn’t been the war starter anyway in Europe in recent history. The War starters are normally Germany or France.

Britain declared War on Germany..Twice.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Only after Germany went off on a massive spree of invading countrys.

The UK didnt get involved for the "LOLZ"
edit on 9-5-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Only after Germany went off on a massive spree of invading countrys.

The UK didnt get involved for the "LOLZ"

Germany was taking back land it lost (stolen) after WW1..ie. West Prussia, The Rhineland, Alsace Lorraine, Silesia, Schleswig and Danzig. Ok they went a bit mental with Czecheslovakia More strategic than anything else.

I was pointing out a fact. Britain Declared War on Germany in Both wars.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok






Plus the UK hasn’t been the war starter anyway in Europe in recent history. The War starters are normally Germany or France.


Well that's debatable In the 19th century Britain had a huge hand in coalitions, rebellions and major European wars. A messy time in history, in short it lead to WW1 with the naval build-up of Germany and Britain... Europe hosting another nasty war. WW2 was began by the UK in retaliation of German re-unifying past lands in the most part. It is documented the citizens of these lands were welcoming of re-unification.

Guess what I'm trying to say is, the UK has, is and will always play a major role in European politics.

In all honesty I'm more in favour of the EU than not, I just think it needs a overhaul and a major one at that. The big 3 in Europe can and will work together. England, Germany and France do thrive when working together and financial crisis of 2008 aside, the majority of other European nations thrive when their economies are more aligned.

After all, the Euro is doing fine despite the difficulties of aligning diverse economies. Mr Cameron should stick to economic reasoning to sway the public vote though rather than fear-mongering over non-existent security issues. Most of that is done through NATO... Non-NATO members exist in Europe and enjoy excellent cooperation, it's a bit of a silly point to make.
edit on 9-5-2016 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThePeaceMaker
Hell the vote is a sham anyway, I can already see the result. It's in the governments best interest to stay in the EU, therefore WE WILL BE STAYING in the EU.


You are so right. It was in the government's best interest for Scotland to remain a part of the UK. We all know how that vote turned out. It did most likely not match what the Scottish people voted for.

I take with a pinch of salt what comes from the official campaigns on both sides of the fence. They are all as bad as each other with their fear mongering, their propaganda, their outright lies. The vast majority of them don't even live in the real world, they don't understand what life is like for the majority of people.

I am voting to leave the EU. I know that democracy doesn't truly exist, which is why I am voting to leave. I do not at all like the fact we are dictated to by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I am not going to vote to perpetuate this system, and with a bit of luck it will domino and free all of Europe from their grasp.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
After several months of research, I believe the EU to be illiberal and undemocratic. This is the only issue (and the most important issue in my opinion) that will determine the way I vote. Unlike some, I will not state my opinion as fact or demean someone else's view. There is too much of this from both camps. The negative campaigning (speculation,fear, hate, hyperbole) is becoming very tiring and distracting. As I mentioned in another thread, if you only see the bs from the opposing camp then that in itself is very telling.

This is quite an interesting take on the European Court of Justice from Oxford Royale Academy (2013)



There are other additional features of the EU governance system which support this tendency towards authoritarian and expansive political power being exercised by those with only tenuous democratic connections. Foremost amongst these is the power of judges.

This power derives chiefly from the difficulties inherent in crafting treaties which must be acceded to by 27 separate nation states. Precise language is more likely to increase the number of potential points of dispute, whereas a vague text encourages member states to either push back their concerns to a later date or to rely on the clause being interpreted in line with their own wishes when it finally appears before either a national court or the European Court of Justice.

In a system where treaties are constructed with deliberate ambiguity, the task of deciding what lawmakers meant falls to the ECJ. When considering the court, it should first be recognised that the European legal tradition is dissimilar to the British tradition. It is also, thanks to recent interpretation, superior to it. As is the case with the national justice systems of the continental countries, the ECJ is a civil law court, interpreting a civil code as each case arises, rather than being constrained by the consideration of precedent in past cases.

As there is little new under the sun, a system based on precedent will, of nature, move slowly and act against judicial radicalism as judges will be constrained by the actions of more conservative predecessors. In a civil law system, judges can shift the accepted interpretation of a statute, often very radically, in one sitting. This has the effect of creating a more activist judiciary and bringing about a further de facto ability to make political weather to another non-elected actor.


The article is well worth a read if you have the time.

The European Union is Inherently Undemocratic. This is Because it Aims at Peace Rather than Representation

ETA. Sorry, in relation to the OP, Cameron seriously needs to revisit 20th century history.

edit on 9-5-2016 by Morrad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Only after Germany went off on a massive spree of invading countrys.

The UK didnt get involved for the "LOLZ"

Germany was taking back land it lost (stolen) after WW1..ie. West Prussia, The Rhineland, Alsace Lorraine, Silesia, Schleswig and Danzig. Ok they went a bit mental with Czecheslovakia More strategic than anything else.

I was pointing out a fact. Britain Declared War on Germany in Both wars.


Wow. Sounds like Ken Livingstone hacked your account.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Quote from OP source: [Cameron] - ""No, I don't believe that leaving the EU would cause World War Three to break out on the European continent."" - it is burried in the bottom of the page though - what's called the inverted news pyramid so designed to be paced where readers wont see it as they're bored already (not wearing tin foil hate it,s in every academic journalism book

Picture of a news pyramid -www.komarketingassociates.com... as you can see Cameron's statement claming the complete oposite was added in a later update (something the OP probably wasn't provy to at the time as the retraction/upate wouldn't have been made then,


originally posted by: Astyanax
The article says absolutely nothing about any world war. This is about Britain having a say in European collective defence agreements and general policy. And the Prime Minister is absolutely right on that score.


Hear, hear - I absolutely despise the man and thnk he's a cretin but can't fathom him anything as stupid as WW3, that's his daftest claim ever - and even for somone as comemptful as him, I have more faith in him than to make such a stupid, overblown statement.

However I've been told by very reliable sources they saw the video clip of him saying it on the news but struggling to find myself - any help/links much apprectiated. (prefer raw footage to newspaper quotes, a lot of designed to be shock, scandawl, awe and exaggeration to acheve effect - but the tories have more papers on their side so puzzled by that one.

My journalist senses are tingling and saying this is all smoke and mirrors, politically timed, obvious over exaggeration to detract from the massive problems in the party and recently public bouts over who will be next party leader.

As for the EU, while it's in clear need of overhaul, my personal belief is we're far stronger on worker rights, basic human rights, trade, finance, travel and aid so the pluses outweigh the minuses.Though must admit wee but f bias as hoping to move over there to escape the current UK situation.
edit on 9-5-2016 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Twisted truth there bud... showing your own twisted hate for the
UK.. biggot muchly



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
Hear, hear - I absolutely despise the man and thnk he's a cretin but can't fathom him anything as stupid as WW3, that's his daftest claim ever - and even for somone as comemptful as him, I have more faith in him than to make such a stupid, overblown statement.

Cameron is worth more than $50M. I'd think the guy's willing to say anything to hold on to the power that comes with such wealth.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff


Go back in history, Crimea, Napoleon, WW1, WW 2, did Britain have defence agreements then? long before the thrice damned EU?

Yes. In every single case.

You are too ignorant of the necessary facts to participate in this discussion. Be silent and learn.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl



'Brexit' could trigger World War Three, warns David Cameron



Well, as the old saying goes:

"If you can't dazzle em with your brilliance, baffle em with your bull****."




The most hilarious part is that these idiots actually do believe their own BS.






edit on 9-5-2016 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Only after Germany went off on a massive spree of invading countrys.

The UK didnt get involved for the "LOLZ"

Germany was taking back land it lost (stolen) after WW1..ie. West Prussia, The Rhineland, Alsace Lorraine, Silesia, Schleswig and Danzig. Ok they went a bit mental with Czecheslovakia More strategic than anything else.

I was pointing out a fact. Britain Declared War on Germany in Both wars.


Wow. Sounds like Ken Livingstone hacked your account.

Like Ken Livingston...Prove me wrong.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Twisted truth there bud... showing your own twisted hate for the
UK.. biggot muchly

Truth nonetheless...



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Personally I don't see why any Brexit would necessarily exclude us from any European mutual defence policy or even free trade agreement.

The reason most of us who want out of the EU is that we oppose further loss of sovereignty to Brussels and have no desire for political union.
Simple as that.

Why would that increase the danger of a World War?
Why would it increase the risk of international terrorism?
Why would it cause an economic crisis?

Historically expansionism has been the cause of countless European wars.
Isn't the EU agenda all about expansionism?
The EU seeks to increase power and control of the centralised government and suppress the power of democratically elected national governments.
The globalist agenda of central government over increased devolved power to individual nations and regions will only result in confrontation and conflict due to the suppression of regional interests, wishes and customs.

Political union in the current manifestation of the EU will only lead to discontent and conflict.

Cameron and his cronies are using scaremongering tactics to further the globalist agenda.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join