Long overdue.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Long overdue.
And probably total balderdash. Reckon many a decade will pass (if ever) before Europe is in a position to do without American support. Also takes away one of my claims with Brexiters that fears of a European Army is unfounded.
Why are they so scared about an European Army?
With the UK included the EU has the second highest military spending after the US. Even without the UK only China moves ahead. A combined EU military makes absolute sense in the face of the threats we face. Given their apparent inability to understand basic economics and the law of obvious consequences, I'm really not particularly concerned with what Brexiteers might think, fear or desire.
And it's not an army, unless they consider the likes of NATO like a world army or Europol a european police.
Davies has only implied that the divorce settlement won't be paid if trade talks are unfavourable which is a fair negotiating stand point. The EU are the ones who've demanded 'no parallel talks'. But in reality our bargaining chip has always been our divorce settlement payment and any further payments to ensure a free trade agreement.
So if the free trade agreement exludes financial services then there's nothing to be gained from paying our tax money to Brussels when they are offering nothing of worth in return.
If the EU don't give us a free trade deal on financial service sector then there's the possibility that no deal would be a better deal. IE no divorce payment, no payments to the EU, WTO tarrifs but we're in a position where we have a trade deficit so the exchequer wins out on import taxes and in turn we can offer tax haven incentives to the finance sector because of savings from the EU.
I'm a Remainer but from a negotiating stand point you have to play the cards how they're dealt.
My point is we're only paying the divorce settlement to enable a free trade deal. May's initial point was 'there is no legal obligation to pay a divorce settlement'. There isn't, it's one that should grant us access to a free trade agreement and without that we should completely withhold any payments to the EU.
He's really concerning yes, he's a loon in the eu with a voice.
Yet. It should be though.
This is not true. The 'divorce bill' has absolutely nothing to do with future trade agreements, its solely the UK taking responsibility for its obligations. You might be able to say 'no legal obligation' (although it would almost certainly end up in an international court of arbritration at some stage) but we most certainly have a moral obligation and we absolutely will face serious economic hurt if we try and dodge our obligations.
The DUP and in particular Ian Og Paisley are trying the old this is actually great for us (DUP) and a disaster for the ROI ruse but nobody is buying it.
well that was Winston Churchill.
Why folks should be scared about a European army is neither here nor there. The important point is that the Remain camp were strong in rebuffing the Brexiters claim that there would be a Euro army. Now that repudiation looks like quite a sizeable porky. As regards it not being an army then what might I ask will be the use of it? A defence force for Europe that cannot defend Europe now thats a novel way to spend money.
That's an other debate. Mutualizing hardware research and having a joint military command makes sense but if we were to create an actual EU army before a EU police and in particular a border police then I have to question the motivations behind it.
As said, I think that the EU had placed the UK in the bag with this. By agreeing with it, the UK has committed, in writing, what it owns the EU. Sure in practice it can bail out. There again the EU will then have carte blanche to go tough on the UK without coming out as the villain.
What I think will happen at that point is that an independent arbitrary will take place which will take ages to settle things up (these are complicated matters). Till then the EU will drag its feet on any deal with the UK. Flights will be suspended, UK companies will find it very hard to sell products/bring parts to/from the EU
PESCO is basically two things, Eurofighter but bigger and NATO but European. The UK are members of both.
You're missing the wood for the trees. The reason it was never an issue was because the UK were in permanent opposition to it, and would have simply used our veto. The only reason its being discussed now is because now the UK is leaving.
Why? The EU countries are (or certainly could be) perfectly capable of taking care of their own policing and borders, although obviously things like Europol are hugely beneficial. When it comes to national defense though, none of them are capable of providing complete national security to their people alone. Only France and the UK can even claim it thanks to their nuclear arsenals, but conventionally none is a match for the increasingly aggressive Russians not far to the east.
Mutualizing hardware research and having a joint military command is a nice start, but if you want a military that works as effectively as possible (which you do when you're talking about national security) then seperation is going to decrease their effectiveness. A better question would be what exactly is the reason for not doing it as long as every country retains a veto over any external action?
Because you don't start a federation with an army because let's be honest if you create an actual army, you see yourself as a definitive entity. In my opinion, if we were to go down that road, homeland and things like fiscal-social unity would be way above an army.
Kentonio is right.
There is no question that some in the EU wanted a cohesive defense policy of their own. However, while we were members it was never, ever going to happen, simply because we would veto it.
Therefore, the idea of a EU army was a fallacy, because we had complete control over whether it happened or not. Brexit removed that power.
Missing the wood for the trees am I? Well you two cannot even see the trees. The one thing I am sure must happen in the future is for the ability of an individual country to veto a proposal has to be removed. Without the power of veto going the EU cannot seriously develop. If any remainer thinks otherwise then respectfully contend that they are bigger fools or charlatans than any Brexiter. Quite frankly we have had enough of the Ted Heath politics of 'Lets join the EEC but it will always be merely a Common Market' whilst knowing that position was as far away from the truth as could be envisaged.
And according to Junckers statement PESCO is only the foundation of a European Defence force.
To me that's just a hangover from traditional nationalistic viewpoints though. We think of an army as something that defines the whole because armies have traditionally been a major force for maintaining sovereignty. Once we step away (which in Europe I believe we already have) from the idea of an army playing any part in internal political discourse, and if we take the deliberate positive step of eschewing unilateral adventurism, then I can see very little reason why an army would be such a core identifier of where political power lies.
Then again I want a federalized European superstate anyway, so maybe I'm just an agent provocateur.
You do understand that getting rid of the veto would require a major treaty change which would require all members to approve it right? So your argument appears to come down to 'well we'll surely voluntarily give up our right to veto eventually, so what's the point in having a veto?' which seems a rather odd position.
To me that's just a hangover from traditional nationalistic viewpoints though. We think of an army as something that defines the whole because armies have traditionally been a major force for maintaining sovereignty. Once we step away (which in Europe I believe we already have) from the idea of an army playing any part in internal political discourse, and if we take the deliberate positive step of eschewing unilateral adventurism, then I can see very little reason why an army would be such a core identifier of where political power lies.
Then again I want a federalized European superstate anyway, so maybe I'm just an agent provocateur.
You can't go around a pretend that an army doesn't define a state and a specific set of citizens because its role is to protect the geographical integrity and safety of defined borders and citizens. Let's not play that game, if you create an army, a police or just even an actual custom administration then you definitely create a state. It's even more evident for the EU who legally already have all the attributes of a country within Schengen with a population, a territory and a sovereignty.
I'm perfectly comfortable with it being myself a federalist.
By what is going on in the HoC, apparently Davis was just following instructions, May's instructions, they believed our lies once, they'll believe them again.
I don’t really get your point. As I laid out, it’s already been happening anyway. Are Germany or the Netherlands any less a state just because we share capabilities and integrate our forces? Isn’t it better for countries which pretty much share the same foreign policy anyways to share the costs for it as well? Realistically, what would a single tank brigade help the Netherlands? What does it help us to have marines when we don’t have ships for them? Now we both have a bigger combined tank force, our marines have ships and the Dutch have something to use their ships for. Win win.
Only reason I‘m glad about Brexit. Long overdue and would never have happened with Britain as part of the EU.
I'm not judging the merits of a cooperation. And Careful there, the Royal Netherlands Army and the German Army aren't one, they have a deep cooperation but they are both under the sovereign powers of two different countries.
A question on foreign policy in a future potential scenario for the EU without Britain.
If the EU decides to support Ukraine regain it's former borders and orders all states to send armies and tanks to the East for a showdown with Russia what checks would be in place to stop this?
If the EU decides to support Ukraine regain it's former borders and orders all states to send armies and tanks to the East for a showdown with Russia what checks would be in place to stop this?
No need for checks, they have no power to do that.
If conjecture is to be believed it is pretty great for the DUP as they got want they wanted and got to look important, it's just also great for ROI as I think a hard border would be as disastrous for them.
The OG Ian Paisley died a while ago, not getting that reference, unless your implying he's some sort of ogre or idiot, which I won't contest.
Good post. Just a quick question, it's honest, not a trick, how do France's standing African 'adventures' fit in with a Federal European Army? I'm thinking if other nations in the federation totally disagree with them then what happens? I assume the French army can be either European or French at any given time, according to the situation, but it's something I can't get my head round.
In case Germany and the Netherlands go to war, yes. Otherwise, the integration runs really deep already. And that is pretty much what is supposed to happen with an EU army as well: withdraw in case you really want to, share capabilities in every other case. Just logical.
Let's have a look at the current military capabilities of the EU (without the UK)
Navy: 1 Fleet carrier, 3 STOVL carriers, 3 helicopter carriers, 17 amphibious assault ships, 31 destroyers, 74 frigates, 35 corvettes, 4 nuclear missile submarines and 48 attack submarines (nuclear and diesel-electric).
Landforces: 7000 MBT's, 12.000 armoured fighting vehicles, 8700 artillery pieces, 620 attack helicopters.
Airforce: 1300 Generation 4+ Jet fighters, 300-500 Generation 3 fighters depending on how you count and availability. 20 air refuel tankers, 300-400 medium sized tactical transport aircraft.
Total expenditure: 160 billion €, third in the world, roughly 200% more than Russia.
Active personal: 1.3 million people.
So, what do we get for all that money?
Around as much as Russia, MUCH less than China. Yes, certain things, especially personal costs, are more expensive in Europe which explains some of the differences. But most of it can be explained by single countries not being able to maintain larger equipment at all or in sufficient numbers, resulting in them either not having said equipment, having outdated versions of it, or having insufficient numbers to use it properly (most prominently when it comes to aricraft carriers, as having only one means you won't have any half of the time). The EU completely lacks large scale tactical transport aircraft, the largest being the Hercules and some old Antonovs at this point. Smaller airforces either keep older aircrafts for too long or are buying inferior material like the Gripen because of a lack of money. We don't have sufficient aerial bombardment capabilities. We have far too many frigates, because these are the largest ships most countries can afford, while lacking air support in form of carriers and AEGIS-like destroyer capabilities. We support an absurd amount of artillery pieces without having any real use for them on that scale.
In an ideal world, we would cut down on the number of fighter aircraft overall, while improving their quality and developing some bombardment capabilities. We would increase our number of MBT's while cutting costs though homologation. We would invest in large scale tactical transport capabilities and a larger number of attack helicopters. Germany and France would both invest in a fleet carrier, so that one will always be available, while other countries may pay for the airwings used on them.
All of this would vastely increase our potential while probably even shrinking the costs. It's a good idea.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-eu-negotiations-11-december-2017
Extract:
And we will pay our fair share of the outstanding commitments and liabilities to which we committed during our membership.
Mr Speaker, these are the actions of a responsible nation honouring the commitments that it has made to its allies having gone through those commitments line by line as we said we would.
When responding to Corbyn:
She says a financial settlement has been agreed. The calculations put that at worth £35bn to £39bn, she says.
Extract:
And we will pay our fair share of the outstanding commitments and liabilities to which we committed during our membership.
Mr Speaker, these are the actions of a responsible nation honouring the commitments that it has made to its allies having gone through those commitments line by line as we said we would.
When responding to Corbyn:
She says a financial settlement has been agreed. The calculations put that at worth £35bn to £39bn, she says.
- May confirms Brexit deal will cost UK £35bn to £39bn.
That's the thing, if a federal Army was created, it wouldn't possible to do that without the approval of a federal executive and probably parliament. At the moment, PESCO is a cooperation, France has its own army and can provide a part of its personal to PESCO, NATO or the UN. The real trick here is that the funding is now more automatic and not voluntary, the members of PESCO agreed beforehand on the contributions that they will make towards it and from what I understand they can't back down.
Edit: We should maybe take that in the EU army thread.
So let's consider something recent,
EU Banks needed to guarantee the savings of their clients to a maximum amount of €100,000yet when recently a number of Italian banks were in trouble the ECB instructed those banks to lock in the deposits of their savers apparently over-riding previous assurances on the protected threshold of €100,000.
And the link with the Army, is?
You need banks to fund an army?
I'd be interested to hear how Irish neutrality fits into this as well.
That wasn't overriding. Also, what does it have to do with an EU army?
You joined 4 days ago, no one explained your position?