Brexit discussion thread II

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh dear god. Post imperial funk blah blah blah.

When has the UK sabotaged any eu foreign of defence policy?



really?



hang on, did the Conservatives lose the general election?

no, they didn't, which means you don't know what your talking about.

Thought so




and you know that how, exactly?



Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.....

Look Fred, it's OK. The UK has seriously harmed itself. But its not going to collapse. You don't need to take criticism of Brexit as a personal attack.

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

Look Fred, it's OK. The UK has seriously harmed itself. But its not going to collapse. You don't need to take criticism of Brexit as a personal attack.

so can you respond to any of these questions?

When has the UK sabotaged any EU foreign or Defence policy?

Who won the last election in the UK?

Do you know what you're talking about?

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

That just means she is less principled than David Cameron.

Good job too, as the alternative was either Boris, Davis or Fox.

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good job too, as the alternative was either Boris, Davis or Fox.

I refer you to my point on Brexit being the exclamation point to 30-40 years of British political failure.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good job too, as the alternative was either Boris, Davis or Fox.

Who she let negotiate the future of the UK....

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so can you respond to any of these questions?

When has the UK sabotaged any EU foreign or Defence policy?

Who won the last election in the UK?

Do you know what you're talking about?

Ah Fred. If you think May is on a victory lap having won the last election, and that the UK isn't so hostile to EU foreign/defence policy that it confirmed as recently as September its intent to veto any joint EU defence capability to its last breath, then...okay. Its okay.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

What do you mean by "A lot in common"? they are in two seperate european parties.

Well yes, they are in two different countries. That doesn't stop them having similar nationalistic views and a shared dislike of immigrants and foreigners in general.

Every country has a political outlet to cater for its worst tendencies.

An Ciarraioch

The most surprising stat from the CSO's tourism report is that this is the first-ever quarter we've had more European than UK visitors - even allowing for family connections with Britain, the four most populous markets in the Rest of Europe are all within two to three hours by plane.

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

Ah Fred. If you think May is on a victory lap having won the last election, and that the UK isn't so hostile to EU foreign/defence policy that it confirmed as recently as September its intent to veto any joint EU defence capability to its last breath, then...okay. Its okay.

seriously, you need to step away from the keyboard.

That is a defence union, not defence policy. There is already a defence union in europe, its called NATO.

defence policy is based on the European Security and Defence Policy, which the UK contributes to significantly. It is also the second largest contributor to the European Defence Agency.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

seriously, you need to step away from the keyboard.

That is a defence union, not defence policy. There is already a defence union in europe, its called NATO.

defence policy is based on the European Security and Defence Policy, which the UK contributes to significantly. It is also the second largest contributor to the European Defence Agency.

So why exactly did the UK block a European defence policy? NATO isn't sufficient for European interests.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

So why exactly did the UK block a European defence policy? NATO isn't sufficient for European interests.

They haven't blocked a european defence policy, they are blocking a european army.

The UK already supports the defence policy and as such offered France any support it needed when it became the first country to invoke the mutual defence clause.

IIRC, Ireland was the only country to potentially block the common defence policy after it rejected the first Lisbon referendum. Remember the debates about abortion, euthanasia and forced conscription to an eu army?

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They haven't blocked a european defence policy, they are blocking a european army.

The UK already supports the defence policy and as such offered France any support it needed when it became the first country to invoke the mutual defence clause.

In other words the UK wants to control defence. It's the only theory that makes sense. Why exactly would they want to block an EU army? What harm would a shared defence do? It would certainly relieve the load on the UK.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

Yes, of course you did.

Correct.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They haven't blocked a european defence policy, they are blocking a european army.

The UK already supports the defence policy and as such offered France any support it needed when it became the first country to invoke the mutual defence clause.

IIRC, Ireland was the only country to potentially block the common defence policy after it rejected the first Lisbon referendum. Remember the debates about abortion, euthanasia and forced conscription to an eu army?

Yep and that was stupid. Just like the UK blocking a EU army.

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

seriously, you need to step away from the keyboard.

Fred, you take any criticism of Brexit as if its a personal attack on you. You tend to then return fire. You need to take your own advice and establish some emotional distance from the topic.

That is a defence union, not defence policy. There is already a defence union in europe, its called NATO.

defence policy is based on the European Security and Defence Policy, which the UK contributes to significantly. It is also the second largest contributor to the European Defence Agency.

If the UK's view on EU defence policy was even close to being realistic, then it wouldn't have to threaten to veto the planned intentions of the other members. Rightly or wrongly, the UK opinion on the necessity of joint EU defence measures are not going to matter after Brexit. It's removed itself from the discussion, much to the relief of everyone else. Which goes back to the original point of why the EU would want the UK involved in any measure to EU joint foreign or defence policy when the UK is so hostile to the topic.

Fratton Fred

Sand, you and eddy misunderstand the difference between a common security and defence policy, where member states pool knowledge and experience and assist each other, with a common army.

The UK is a very active member of the common security and defence policy, but it doesn't want is a common defence force. It hasn't blocked any eu policy on this, because none has been proposed.

So, again, when has the UK blocked eu foreign or defence policy?

Jaggo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When has the UK sabotaged any EU foreign or Defence policy?

Well, probably not sabotage but the UK actively campaigned to have the EU expand into Eastern European to weaken the "ever closer union" and limit the power of France and Germany. And this was a time when the EU was thinking of slowing the acceptence of new member countries.

I think having observer status is quite a good idea. Always gives the chance of cooperation on different projects, esp. stuff in developing countries etc.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sand, you and eddy misunderstand the difference between a common security and defence policy, where member states pool knowledge and experience and assist each other, with a common army.

The UK is a very active member of the common security and defence policy, but it doesn't want is a common defence force. It hasn't blocked any eu policy on this, because none has been proposed.

So, again, when has the UK blocked eu foreign or defence policy?

Why would they block a common army? Does it have to replace a nation's army?

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why would they block a common army? Does it have to replace a nation's army?

Because it would be a direct competitor to NATO.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because it would be a direct competitor to NATO.

That's ridiculous.

Fratton Fred

Jaggo wrote: »

Well, probably not sabotage but the UK actively campaigned to have the EU expand into Eastern European to weaken the "ever closer union" and limit the power of France and Germany. And this was a time when the EU was thinking of slowing the acceptence of new member countries.

What on earth has that got to do with foreign policy?

Surely the objective of any free trade area should be to constantly grow?

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

Less of the nonsense please.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

Great post, thanks for that educated and insightful post.

A common eu defence union would mean each contributor would have two allegiances and would potentially have two chains of command.

If someone invaded Poland, who conducts the defence, the eu or NATO? You can't have soldiers going in to battle with two generals giving the orders.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's complete stupidity to say May is anything but a Brexiter.

She is anti ECJ

This not only means hard Brexit.

It also means no Euratom

And leaving the European Aviation Safety Agency

Leaving the ECJ means in many cases replicating the functions of the agencies that the ECJ is the arbitrator for. The new UK agencies would have to be done to an EU standard , otherwise they'd need to pay the EU to recertify stuff they want interaction with.

It also means they'd loose the automatic certification status with any countries the EU has reciprocal arrangements with. It's a lot of replication and negotiation.

And a lot of hostages to fortune it the third parties need bargaining chips.


No ECJ means no ..

European Central Bank
European Investment Bank (UK has assets here to offset the divorce bill)
European Investment Fund (poorer areas of the UK)


Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)
Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)
Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA)
European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX)
European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA)

European Asylum Support Office (EASO)
European Banking Authority (EBA)
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
European Environment Agency (EEA)
European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA)
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)
European GNSS Agency (GSA)
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
European Medicines Agency (EMA)
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)
European Police Office (Europol) But UK still in in Interpol
European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)
European Training Foundation (ETF)
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL)
European Union Agency for Railways (ERA)
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Single Resolution Board (SRB)
The European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit (EUROJUST)


European Defence Agency (EDA)
European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)
European Satellite Centre (Satcen)
EURATOM agencies and bodies
EURATOM Supply Agency (ESA)
European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Fusion for Energy)
Executive agencies
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea)
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
European Research Council Executive Agency (ERC Executive Agency)
Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized enterprises (EASME)
Innovation & Networks Executive Agency (INEA)
Research Executive Agency (REA)


European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT)
European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB)

Brexit also means a diminished role in ESA as 20% of funds come from the EU, up to 70% for some projects.


And May supports things like the Snoopers Charter so another area the EU would prefer to be under the ECJ

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Great post, thanks for that educated and insightful post.

A common eu defence union would mean each contributor would have two allegiances and would potentially have two chains of command.

If someone invaded Poland, who conducts the defence, the eu or NATO? You can't have soldiers going in to battle with two generals giving the orders.

But it's ridiculous to say NATO will be competing. Any more than a nation's army competes with NATO's. NATO is extremely hesitant to call on troops in certain situations. Sanctions are preferred. An EU army would be a direct counter to any Russian aggression for example. NATO wouldn't be as effective as it relies on the Americans.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

But it's ridiculous to say NATO will be competing. Any more than a nation's army competes with NATO's. NATO is extremely hesitant to call on troops in certain situations. Sanctions are preferred. An EU army would be a direct counter to any Russian aggression for example. NATO wouldn't be as effective as it relies on the Americans.

It competes if countries are members of both and military wise, all the major European countries are.

The first rule of NATO is an attack on one us an attack on all. There is nothing an eu defence union can offer that NATO can't.

If Russia decided to invade Europe, then we'd all be ****ed without the US.

Junkyard Tom

Tweet by Ian Paisley Jnr:



How delusional is this guy and the DUP?

1. He's salivating at the thought of a 'very hard border' which will harm business in the north, particularly agribusiness, and threatens to unravel peace process.

2. He's calling for almost 90% of the Irish people who support being in the EU to 'wise up'.

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

But it's ridiculous to say NATO will be competing. Any more than a nation's army competes with NATO's. NATO is extremely hesitant to call on troops in certain situations. Sanctions are preferred. An EU army would be a direct counter to any Russian aggression for example. NATO wouldn't be as effective as it relies on the Americans.

It competes if countries are members of both and military wise, all the major European countries are.

The first rule of NATO is an attack on one us an attack on all. There is nothing an eu defence union can offer that NATO can't.

If Russia decided to invade Europe, then we'd all be ****ed without the US.

One of the key problems there, Fred, is that the EU recognises this and in light if Trump witterings about not complying with Article 5 of NATO a few NATO members are rather concerned about what happens if in fact, Russia does invade one of the Baltics. Admittedly Trump has rowed back on that but frankly I would take the view that the current US administration may not be totally reliable in terms of coherent and consistent policy.

Russia has also made some rather aggressive noises about what action they might take if Sweden joins NATO and there are some internal concerns in Finland too which is also not a member of NATO.

In that context, the EU is perfectly within its rights to widen its defence policy to include wider and better defined military cooperation and to find ways of reducing dependency on the US whose leader has a demonstrated lack of understanding how NATO financing operates, who is constantly making resentful noises about the cost to the US of defending Europe despite the US wasting massive amounts on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan driven by his own party at the outset. You tell us we are screwed without the US. The UK wrote an Article 50 letter which IIRC seemed to imply they would stop cooperating on security if the EU didnt do what the UK wanted. All this damages my view of how much NATO can be relied on and creates the need to look at options which the EU has some more modicum of control over.

This is not a question of competition - it isn't like the EU is desperate to invade anywhere. But they want to be able to defend themselves and the primary partner in NATO is currently unstable.

In all honesty what would you do? Hope for the best or start taking additional measures?

Enzokk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Tweet by Ian Paisley Jnr:



How delusional is this guy and the DUP?

1. He's salivating at the thought of a 'very hard border' which will harm business in the north, particularly agribusiness, and threatens to unravel peace process.

2. He's calling for almost 90% of the Irish people who support being in the EU to 'wise up'.

Not just that, he is still in support of a policy that the majority of the voters in NI voted against. He is on the wrong side of just about everything the majority in Ireland and NI wants, yet everyone but him must wise up.

murphaph

Agree entirely. It's actually high time we Europeans acted together in our own common defence. I would be more critical of Ireland in this respect than the UK however.

The United States has become an unreliable partner in NATO and I would actually much prefer if Europe could defend itself against military aggression by a third party.