I haven't been following this, this thread is the first I heard of it.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I haven't been following this, this thread is the first I heard of it.
Can you tell me what the neutrality means for Ireland? PESCO as it has been presented will have at the very least the same type of missions as the Blue Helmets and can do what NATO does, now the way the EU is built it could become more than that.
I'm no expert on the subject but I don't think it's too complicated, we (in theory) don't get involved in others' conflicts in any military sense, any involvement is confined to peace-keepers no efforts via the UN. Hence we're not in NATO.
Honestly I can't tell, because at the moment there isn't any projects that would go against it.
- European Medical Command;
- European Secure Software defined Radio (ESSOR);
- Network of logistic Hubs in Europe and support to Operations
- Military Mobility;
- European Union Training Mission Competence Centre (EU TMCC);
- European Training Certification Centre for European Armies;
- Energy Operational Function (EOF);
- Deployable Military Disaster Relief Capability Package;
- Maritime (semi-) Autonomous Systems for Mine Countermeasures (MAS MCM);
- Harbour & Maritime Surveillance and Protection (HARMSPRO);
- Upgrade of Maritime Surveillance;
- Cyber Threats and Incident Response Information Sharing Platform;
- Cyber Rapid Response Teams and Mutual Assistance in Cyber Security;
- Strategic Command and Control (C2) System for CSDP Missions and Operations;
- Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle / Amphibious Assault Vehicle / Light Armoured Vehicle;
- Indirect Fire Support (EuroArtillery);
- EUFOR Crisis Response Operation Core (EUFOR CROC).
- European Secure Software defined Radio (ESSOR);
- Network of logistic Hubs in Europe and support to Operations
- Military Mobility;
- European Union Training Mission Competence Centre (EU TMCC);
- European Training Certification Centre for European Armies;
- Energy Operational Function (EOF);
- Deployable Military Disaster Relief Capability Package;
- Maritime (semi-) Autonomous Systems for Mine Countermeasures (MAS MCM);
- Harbour & Maritime Surveillance and Protection (HARMSPRO);
- Upgrade of Maritime Surveillance;
- Cyber Threats and Incident Response Information Sharing Platform;
- Cyber Rapid Response Teams and Mutual Assistance in Cyber Security;
- Strategic Command and Control (C2) System for CSDP Missions and Operations;
- Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle / Amphibious Assault Vehicle / Light Armoured Vehicle;
- Indirect Fire Support (EuroArtillery);
- EUFOR Crisis Response Operation Core (EUFOR CROC).
Re Army isn’t this para I saw earlier the crux of the concern:
“The EU Army will be even more dysfunctional than the eurozone. European national publics will hate their national troops being deployed by the EU for causes with which they do not agree or don't care enough about.”
“The EU Army will be even more dysfunctional than the eurozone. European national publics will hate their national troops being deployed by the EU for causes with which they do not agree or don't care enough about.”
Presumably it would include some sort of mutual defence agreement though no? So in the event of, say, another Greece-Turkey war, Irish troops could be called on to defend Athens? I don't see that prospect going down too well over here in the current climate.
Its not an odd position at all and its not even the position I hold. My own view in shorthand goes something like this. I believe that in the long term Britain is far better in than out of Europe. I also believe that my country cannot be half in a club and half out of it which is where we always historically have been. If we are in we had better be in wholeheartedly. This current position is neither use or ornament nor sustainable. If we do overturn Brexit then on what basis. Surely not to keep being further marginalised within Europe as most march in one direction whilst we keep marking time. For example the Euro zone will grow and we will steadfastly stick with the pound. We will exercise our veto on the Euro Army but others will find a way around that and we will be on the outside looking in once more. Under those circumstances better out than in IMHO. What really irritates me however is those in favour of remain who argue (and the majority sure do) that we can stay in Europe and still have a significant voice in the future without agreeing to further integration. Its a pipe dream.
The members are committed to make troops available for the EU Battlegroup like with the CSDP. But you weren't members of the latter, so yeah things are going to change, I'm surprised that Portugal and Ireland joined at the last minute.
PS: I didn't realize that Ireland were neutral.
Ah no its Irish for junior
Is there any good reason for Ireland not to play a part in mutual defense though?
Principal. We've always maintained neutrality on almost the same level as the Swiss. Hence why we're not a part of NATO.
Just noticed that I Believe's demise has been confirmed in the list of perma-banned posters in the Caf awards voting thread in the gen.
I think if there was a reasoned debate and everyone was very logical about it then people would let it go
(I doubt any debate would be logical though)
I get why people are protective of it and I think the basic prinicpal is good
Its just not entirely compatible with the direction the EU is going in and kind of needs to go in.
If Sweden was attacked by ... whoever, i'd kind of want to lend them support.
And our own military is woefully under equipped to defend ourselves from any major attack.
We've taken advantage of the fact that you'd kind of expect the british to help us out if push came to shove
Not reciprocating just isn't a reasonable position to take imo
and with Britain leaving the EU ... that assumption needs to be challenged really
No loss. 10 page long circular arguments got tedious.
It had it's moments of being entertaining, but know what you mean. There were defo suspicions that he was a full-on racist at heart.
Next we have the special deal that May thinks she can negotiate yet throughout the Eu have been consistent in saying the four freedoms are inseparable and to have free movement of capital, services and goods you have to accept free movement of people
So i think by April we either accept that or we accept that we are not getting access to the market for our goods and services
Was I Believe banned for the conversation he had in this thread or something else?
UK 0 EU 1 (Davis own goal)
To be fair at one point they were talking about the divorce bill at 100bn
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...00bn-eu27-demands-contributions-a7714436.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...00bn-eu27-demands-contributions-a7714436.html
Divorce Bill was and is a stupid newspaper term. It's no more than the continuation of agreed payments until those agreements have run out. Any alleged savings wouldn't start until after that point.
Please note alleged, I'm not claiming there actually will be any savings myself.
I like the fact the EU are showing up Davis for the idiot that he is. You cannot just go off spouting like that when the situation is so finely poised.
I find it rather ironic how British people think the whole world should speak English but don't realise that also means nothing you say goes unnoticed abroad.
Davis would have been sacked in any other job by now or in any other UK parliament.
I find it rather ironic how British people think the whole world should speak English but don't realise that also means nothing you say goes unnoticed abroad.
Davis would have been sacked in any other job by now or in any other UK parliament.
It didn't stop the leavers categorically stating we wouldn't pay anything and could just walk away.
I had a friendly bet with someone in this thread, I called the 100Bn rumor stupid and my number was between 40Bn€ and 50Bn€.
Last edited:
Did you mean, billion? Because 40 million euros is as stupid as the 100bn that was originally touted.
Oh I know that was just the EU setting their stall out. I had expected about 60bn tbh, not that I have any real knowledge of how they would work it out practically.
True, although only some of the leavers to be fair. If you believed them however you have a right to feel miffed, one way or another.
They are the same thing aren't they? Or rather, the €100bn figure was really a €60bn with assets and rebates
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a
The EU dropped a few costs, including the cost of relocating UK-based EU agencies, and something else that I am forgetting.
The UK is going to change the way that the EU pensions are being calculated, or something.
The majority of the bill will be paid over the transitional period to make it seem like we're getting something for something.
Did you mean, billion? Because 40 million euros is as stupid as the 100bn that was originally touted.
Goodness me, yes billion.
Did you mean, billion? Because 40 million euros is as stupid as the 100bn that was originally touted.
The payment of that £40 Billion is net, the gross is about £93 Billion.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2200.html
According to the American Rand Corporation the UK have about a 1 in 8 chance of being better off after Brexit whichever scenario happens.
According to the American Rand Corporation the UK have about a 1 in 8 chance of being better off after Brexit whichever scenario happens.
Dog ?
Let sleeping dogs lie.
What did the thick feck Davis actually think was going to happen? Did he expect the EU to turn around and just go 'Ooohh, he was sneaky, he got us good there!'.
Him, May and that crowd are all scared of the Hardliners and will say anything just to give a bit of breathing space. It's not only Davis, he was told to say this and fluffed his lines a bit. Hoped they'd at least get through Xmas without too much bother but they forget that the world is listening and even more so that the EU summit is this week, it's just desperation now.
This one lies enough already, whether asleep or not.
Michel Barnier speech:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-5249_en.htm
At press conference in reply to question whether it was possible to sign a trade deal on 30 March 2019 he replied:
Last part!!:
So we will need more time, and that’s where the transition period could come in useful, to begin and conclude a negotiation on a free trade agreement. But we will need more time.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-5249_en.htm
At press conference in reply to question whether it was possible to sign a trade deal on 30 March 2019 he replied:
David Davis, of course, has experience of European matters. We were ministers of European affairs at the same time ... he knows perfectly well what is possible and what is not possible. What we are dealing with in the negotiation is precisely the organisation of an orderly withdrawal, taking account of the future relationship.
In other words, by working seriously in a precise fashion without losing time, in October of next year, 2018, we can reach a treaty, a draft treaty which would then have to be ratified between October and March 2019, as at 29th March 2019, at midnight at 11pm UK time, the UK will become a third country. So we have less than a year to conclude an article 50 treaty. That will deal with the organisation of the orderly withdrawal, based henceforth on the joint report, an agreement on a possible transition period, and we will start negotiating the content of and framework for that as the council wishes as of February.
That will be the content of the treaty. I think that this treaty will be accompanied by a political declaration, and I dare say that is what David Davis is referring to, which will describe the framework for our future relationship. A political declaration. But it cannot be anything else. In technical, legal terms it simply is not possible to do anything else. And David Davis knows that full well.
So we will need more time, and that’s where the transition period could come in useful, to begin and conclude a negotiation on a free trade agreement. But we will need more time.
In other words, by working seriously in a precise fashion without losing time, in October of next year, 2018, we can reach a treaty, a draft treaty which would then have to be ratified between October and March 2019, as at 29th March 2019, at midnight at 11pm UK time, the UK will become a third country. So we have less than a year to conclude an article 50 treaty. That will deal with the organisation of the orderly withdrawal, based henceforth on the joint report, an agreement on a possible transition period, and we will start negotiating the content of and framework for that as the council wishes as of February.
That will be the content of the treaty. I think that this treaty will be accompanied by a political declaration, and I dare say that is what David Davis is referring to, which will describe the framework for our future relationship. A political declaration. But it cannot be anything else. In technical, legal terms it simply is not possible to do anything else. And David Davis knows that full well.
So we will need more time, and that’s where the transition period could come in useful, to begin and conclude a negotiation on a free trade agreement. But we will need more time.
Last part!!:
So we will need more time, and that’s where the transition period could come in useful, to begin and conclude a negotiation on a free trade agreement. But we will need more time.
Last edited:
The point is for me that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic as it pushes towards political union, a union that must replace national militaries and independent financial centres.
The EU military would also have freedom of movement to strike any uppity Scots or maybe Catalans for daring to say at a future date they wanted self determination.
The phase the EU is in now, it cannot openly say this but political union suggests a Central Empire but where will it's future democratic credentials lie?
Any project has a timeline when things are meant to happen, where is the EU's timeline?
I shouldn't even respond but:
- The EU isn't undemocratic and doesn't push for anything, the member states are the ones pushing for a deeper union.
- That one is actually stupid, why would the EU army, if it was ever created, would be a bigger threat to uppity Scots and Catalans when the British and Spanish armies aren't really a threat to current uppity Scots and Catalans? It also goes against international laws.
- It cannot predict what future member states leaders will do, one way or the other. The EU could disappear or deepen.
As for a timeline, you will have ask that question to the undemocratic EU council, that is made of elected heads of states, they do one every year.
Should the UK refuse to pay up, what could the EU do ? Presumably they would look for arbitration but could they impose a veto/boycott/ban on imports from the UK, which would I imagine lead to the danger of an all out trade war ?