Discussion
esxste said:
I don't understand.
Leavers got their way; the country voted to leave the EU, and Prime Minister May is all signed up to cutting every tie we have with the EU unless the EU bows down to British demands.
You wanted out of the EU because you didn't want a say in what the EU does.
Why the hell are you now all complaining that the EU is getting on with plans that were being delayed by the British?
I'm not complaining about them. I'm countering a view that suggests those plans you speak of were dead and buried ages ago by more than just the UK's actions and hence should never have been a concern (prompting and winning a referendum).Leavers got their way; the country voted to leave the EU, and Prime Minister May is all signed up to cutting every tie we have with the EU unless the EU bows down to British demands.
You wanted out of the EU because you didn't want a say in what the EU does.
Why the hell are you now all complaining that the EU is getting on with plans that were being delayed by the British?
The EU are free to do what they wish without our consideration (or will be in a couple of years). Genuine good luck to them with it.
btw, nobody is nor ever has said that a vote to Leave means cutting all ties with the EU. Another thing not being understood.
Murph7355 said:
I know one should always be careful with Wiki, but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Counci...
The table here notes what shifted from unanimity being required to qualified majority. Yes, there are some hefty items where unanimity is still currently required. But surely you have to admit that there are some big ticket items in here?
And this is just the change from the last treaty to its predecessor. It doesn't map the changes before that which, to my way of thinking, constitute the inexorable creep. And everything since 1975 in this country has been done without much in the way of clarity to the electorate here in the UK, let alone consultation. 6x accession treaties and at least 4 or 5 major changes.
Maybe these were all clearly signposted and advertised to the nation. For some I was too young to have cared. For others maybe I just didn't pay attention. But without seismic shifts (such as Brexit) I don't see any reason to believe that the EU would have carried on as usual. A 40yr track record is hard to ignore.
Look at the list of items that require unanimity. The make the rest look like chicken feed. And you say "currently" as if the scope of QMV might be extended without our agreement; it couldn't be because that's exactly the type of change that needs unanimity. And in any case, QMV or unanimous, you are quite rightly looking at how the Council makes decisions because that's the body with real authority ... and it is made up entirely of ministers from the member countries' governments representing their national governmenys, not EU politicians, not EU bureaucrats.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Counci...
The table here notes what shifted from unanimity being required to qualified majority. Yes, there are some hefty items where unanimity is still currently required. But surely you have to admit that there are some big ticket items in here?
And this is just the change from the last treaty to its predecessor. It doesn't map the changes before that which, to my way of thinking, constitute the inexorable creep. And everything since 1975 in this country has been done without much in the way of clarity to the electorate here in the UK, let alone consultation. 6x accession treaties and at least 4 or 5 major changes.
Maybe these were all clearly signposted and advertised to the nation. For some I was too young to have cared. For others maybe I just didn't pay attention. But without seismic shifts (such as Brexit) I don't see any reason to believe that the EU would have carried on as usual. A 40yr track record is hard to ignore.
You say we can't ignore the EU's track record over the last 40 years, but that presupposes that there is a Big Plan and some body pushing an agenda. That's just not the way it operates. It no more had a coherent long term plan and trajectory than the UK did over the same 40 years. Of course there were plenty of people like Jacques Delors who liked to think that it did, but they were self-deluded. And history shows this. They could no more predict the collapse of the Soviet bloc than anyone else. If you'd told them in 1985 that in a few years time the EU would be heading towards 30 members, they'd have thought you were on crack. Every major change to the EU has been the outcome of a chaotic negotiation process ending in brinkmanship and fudged words. No one can predict the outcome until the final communique is released at 3 in the morning several days after the deadline. And even then the wording is deliberately ambiguous. So there is no 40 year old arc that can be smoothly extrapolated to tell us where the EU is headed. It's far better to look at the current constitutional arrangements, the problems facing the EU members and their mood. The constitutional arrangements make further integration damn nearly impossible even if a significant majority were in favour, and in reality very few are anyway.
ATG said:
Who is the "they" that are plotting this dastardly plot? Seriously ... there is no "they". All the old federalists of the 1980s are gone; retired and/or dead. The idea that there is some group who have been pushing an integrationist agenda for the last 50 years or whatever makes no sense. The only people in control of the EU's future are the current and future governments of the member states. There is no Illuminati in the background pulling strings. I would have thought it was pretty clear that far from having a long term, coherent strategy, the EU actually just lurches from one crisis to the next. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, there is no popular demand for greater integration, therefore it ain't going to happen. And the way the rules of the game have been set up, e.g. unanimous agreement required to change anything of note, you need a tremendous degree of consensus to allow anything major to change. The idea that we could see further integration without a huge degree of popular support makes no sense.
It's a decent enough argument as far as it goes, but what you claim is protection against further union simply isn't good enough to be convincing. Lack of planning and easily ignored public opinion are not safeguards enough. I also think you underestimate them on the long term planning front when it comes to further integration. EU leaders are quite open about how they lie to the public, how they do things bit-by-bit so that people don't notice, there's no need to invoke shadowy organisations or conspiracy. It's there in plain sight.
We have seen many times how governments and the EU as a whole will ignore public opinion, even public votes, and their own treaties and laws, when it suits them. Therefore I have no faith that public opinion or the rules will protect us.
eharding said:
amgmcqueen said:
Why does a trading block need a 'super army' when NATO exists? Why would the USA allow the formation of another military superpower?
Well, as it stands it appears Trump is set on withdrawing from NATO, and embarking on a US isolationist policy. If he's intent on letting Western Europe fend for itself, you can't complain when they set about doing so.amgmcqueen said:
Why is it needed?! The people of Europe do not want a f
king EU army!
Who exactly elected you as the arbiter of what the people of Europe want?king EU army! ATG said:
Who is the "they" that are plotting this dastardly plot? Seriously ... there is no "they". All the old federalists of the 1980s are gone; retired and/or dead.
If you say so. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/24/brexit-...s2art said:
Talksteer said:
It's still pretty big without the UK contribution, most of which is pretty poor for supporting the defence of western Europe anyway.
Errm, Trident? The rest of the RN? One of the best professional Armies in the world? God knows how many Eurofighters we could get operational if we had to. Lots of Helis. Pretty poor?Examples of capability gaps:
No carrier
No ASW aircraft
No anti radiation missile
No vehicle mounted ATGM
Seriously out of date MBT
All other fighting vehicles seriously out of date. (Okay the FRES is new but only a few delivered) The large numbers of MRAP are not fighting vehicles.
No active defence systems for ground vehicles.
It has some good kit but pretty low numbers of combat aircraft, artillery, fighting vehicles and absolute numbers of soldiers.
Most significant is however the years in Afghanistan has detrained the army from near peer combat, armoured forces were trained as MRAP crew, and drills centred around "aggressive peacekeeping". One of the points made by Ukrainian soldiers being trained by UK forces was that if they adopted British drills they'd be on the receiving end of cluster munitions as they stayed in one area too long.
ATG said:
Look at the list of items that require unanimity. The make the rest look like chicken feed. ..
If you put that list in front of most people I think they'd be surprised. Yes, there are bigger ticket items that still require unanimity, but that's not really the point.Did you know those items had changed to QMV? Do you think many/any of our electorate do?
ATG said:
... It's far better to look at the current constitutional arrangements, the problems facing the EU members and their mood. The constitutional arrangements make further integration damn nearly impossible even if a significant majority were in favour, and in reality very few are anyway.
Latterly I agree with you. But that, IMO, is the result of the tides changing. Events last year being the first major cracks after much rumbling. Key nation states in the EU also have a similar undercurrent now and the EU elite are certainly not stupid. If they can steady the ship (big "if") they'll wait.I by no means solely blame the "big bad EU" either. Our own politicians have been very disingenuous/complicit where the EU is concerned and what they are and are not prepared to cede. I'm reasonably convinced, for example, that Mr Blair wasn't that fussed as he firmly expected to be EU President at some point. Perhaps when even fuller powers were handed over. It may well have been totally innocent, but the sleight of hand between "Constitution" and "Treaty of Lisbon" feels wrong to me. No matter how watered down you think it might be. It wasn't the first time that had happened, and was unlikely to be the last.
As you may have noticed I have a hefty degree of cynicism where politicians are concerned. That situation is not solved by having further layers of them in control. That was one of my reasons for voting out - the answer to problems is not more politicians or more EU for that matter.
We live i n interesting times and I think Europe will look very different in 2-3yrs' time.
Talksteer said:
The UK military is still recovering from Afghanistan and has some pretty significant capability gaps and some low numbers of key kit.
Examples of capability gaps:
No carrier
No ASW aircraft
No anti radiation missile
No vehicle mounted ATGM
Seriously out of date MBT
All other fighting vehicles seriously out of date. (Okay the FRES is new but only a few delivered) The large numbers of MRAP are not fighting vehicles.
No active defence systems for ground vehicles.
It has some good kit but pretty low numbers of combat aircraft, artillery, fighting vehicles and absolute numbers of soldiers.
Most significant is however the years in Afghanistan has detrained the army from near peer combat, armoured forces were trained as MRAP crew, and drills centred around "aggressive peacekeeping". One of the points made by Ukrainian soldiers being trained by UK forces was that if they adopted British drills they'd be on the receiving end of cluster munitions as they stayed in one area too long.
Any chance you could dial back on the acronyms for the benefit of us laymen?Examples of capability gaps:
No carrier
No ASW aircraft
No anti radiation missile
No vehicle mounted ATGM
Seriously out of date MBT
All other fighting vehicles seriously out of date. (Okay the FRES is new but only a few delivered) The large numbers of MRAP are not fighting vehicles.
No active defence systems for ground vehicles.
It has some good kit but pretty low numbers of combat aircraft, artillery, fighting vehicles and absolute numbers of soldiers.
Most significant is however the years in Afghanistan has detrained the army from near peer combat, armoured forces were trained as MRAP crew, and drills centred around "aggressive peacekeeping". One of the points made by Ukrainian soldiers being trained by UK forces was that if they adopted British drills they'd be on the receiving end of cluster munitions as they stayed in one area too long.
Juncker: "by 2025 we will need a functioning European defence Union".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oke7se7VRus
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oke7se7VRus
BlackLabel said:
Juncker: "by 2025 we will need a functioning European defence Union".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oke7se7VRus
Could do with it now to defend against merkels imported isis army.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oke7se7VRus
A union of smaller european armies isn't the same thing as an EU army. If it could allow for smaller cheaper armies providing a better force than at present I fail to see any downsides for the countries remaining within the EU. We're leaving, so will still need our whopping great big military, whilst Germany and France etc will gain the benefits of downsizing whilst not losing much military might.
User33678888 said:
A union of smaller european armies isn't the same thing as an EU army. If it could allow for smaller cheaper armies providing a better force than at present I fail to see any downsides for the countries remaining within the EU. We're leaving, so will still need our whopping great big military, whilst Germany and France etc will gain the benefits of downsizing whilst not losing much military might.
What does NATO lack that an EU not-army would provide?amusingduck said:
User33678888 said:
A union of smaller european armies isn't the same thing as an EU army. If it could allow for smaller cheaper armies providing a better force than at present I fail to see any downsides for the countries remaining within the EU. We're leaving, so will still need our whopping great big military, whilst Germany and France etc will gain the benefits of downsizing whilst not losing much military might.
What does NATO lack that an EU not-army would provide?
John145 said:
amusingduck said:
User33678888 said:
A union of smaller european armies isn't the same thing as an EU army. If it could allow for smaller cheaper armies providing a better force than at present I fail to see any downsides for the countries remaining within the EU. We're leaving, so will still need our whopping great big military, whilst Germany and France etc will gain the benefits of downsizing whilst not losing much military might.
What does NATO lack that an EU not-army would provide?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff