Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Regarding the CAP, if we're going to keep subsidizing European farmers so we don't starve if something happens to the food markets, I'd much rather we rotted the surplus and turned it into biofuels than the current "solution" of dumping it on Africa, fething farmers there over. It'd give African farmers a chance to make money without being crushed by our surplus and would reduce European dependency on Russia and Saudi Arabia.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But if it turns out that Remain had no plan for EU reform, after having spent 2 years criticising Leave for having no Brexit plan...

Well, that makes Remain look just as bad...

Why? The choice was leave or stay. Only leave needed a plan. Stay could be retain the status quo. It was not "Do this or that" it was "do this or nothing". Yes, we could stay and reform, but it did not require a plan. Leaving 100% did always require a plan, and remain said that there was none, and that was true. Some people said that we should stay and reform from the inside, but not the vast majority of remain supporters. Leave however always required a plan, and the vast majority seem to have gone with, I don't like where we are, so lets change it, but how we do it is someone else's problem.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the CAP, if we're going to keep subsidizing European farmers so we don't starve if something happens to the food markets, I'd much rather we rotted the surplus and turned it into biofuels than the current "solution" of dumping it on Africa, fething farmers there over. It'd give African farmers a chance to make money without being crushed by our surplus and would reduce European dependency on Russia and Saudi Arabia.

That does require a change in our approach to waste though. Even in this circumstance it costs more to produce biofuels in this way because of both infrastructure and legislative reasons. It is simply more cost effective to dump surplus on other markets at mark down costs then it is to dispose of it. In particular the UK has more stringent rules on food waste than the EU because of the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001. Hence all food waste has to treated in sealed containers and must reach minimum temperatures over a certain number of days to kill any bugs. In the UK if an apple drops of a tree you can put it in the composting bin as if it was green waste. If you take it into your kitchen and then dispose of it, it has to be treated as food waste. This is UK specific legislation.

In any case the EU is more open with every passing year.

Most of Africa trades under preferential deals for all agricultural goods, the new trade deal with Mercosur Will make it even easier for Chilean, Peruvian, Brazilian, etc. Fruit to get here.

Dairy and meat is where stuff gets iffy, mostly because it's a very powerful lobby in Northern and Central countries like France, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, etc.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

Why?

Because it will be run by Germany? The last time you had an army for the "Greater Europe" there was an awful lot of goose stepping.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

Why?

Because it will be run by Germany? The last time you had an army for the "Greater Europe" there was an awful lot of goose stepping.

Because modern Germany has so much in common with Nazi Germany, might as well worry about France deciding to invade everywhere and redcoats on the shores of the US

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

Why?

Because it will be run by Germany? The last time you had an army for the "Greater Europe" there was an awful lot of goose stepping.

So you are saying because of their history it is inevitable that they are trying to repeat that with other armies. Both the UK and France have stronger militaries (6th/5th respectively). Do you think they would willingly join forces if Germany was trying to recreate a Nazi state? I'd argue that Germany is that last country that will likely tread that path because it is so very aware of the history of the last 100 years.

Frazzled is just having a laugh.

To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

Why?

Because it will be run by Germany? The last time you had an army for the "Greater Europe" there was an awful lot of goose stepping.

I'll be honest, the way things are with the US at the minute, Europe needs it's own defence capability separate from NATO. With the cycle of republican destructiveness and an unreliable and unstable POTUS, even after Trump, the US is less able, or willing to count itself as an ally.

I've served with US Marines, soldiers and airmen and they are superb examples of professionalism, loyalty and honour, their politicians however.....

 Whirlwind wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the CAP, if we're going to keep subsidizing European farmers so we don't starve if something happens to the food markets, I'd much rather we rotted the surplus and turned it into biofuels than the current "solution" of dumping it on Africa, fething farmers there over. It'd give African farmers a chance to make money without being crushed by our surplus and would reduce European dependency on Russia and Saudi Arabia.

That does require a change in our approach to waste though. Even in this circumstance it costs more to produce biofuels in this way because of both infrastructure and legislative reasons. It is simply more cost effective to dump surplus on other markets at mark down costs then it is to dispose of it. In particular the UK has more stringent rules on food waste than the EU because of the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001. Hence all food waste has to treated in sealed containers and must reach minimum temperatures over a certain number of days to kill any bugs. In the UK if an apple drops of a tree you can put it in the composting bin as if it was green waste. If you take it into your kitchen and then dispose of it, it has to be treated as food waste. This is UK specific legislation.

Yes it's more expensive, but then again so is subsidizing European farmers in the first place. The end result would be spending more money in order to reduce dependency on Russia and Saudi Arabia while giving African farmers some breathing room, while also helping to push research into more efficient renewable fuels.

Remain : "I'm not totally happy with these trousers. They're not quite the right size, the colour's not perfect and it's a little bit more expensive than I would prefer. Still generally alright, though, and the shop doesn't have any other types at the moment - I could start talking to the management about expanding their stock"

Leave : "You don't like those trousers. I HATE ALL TROUSERS. Something must be done! CUT OFF YOUR LEGS"

R: "I think that's a bit of an overreaction"

L: "Do you have a plan?"

R: "Well, no, it's not something I'm that worried about"

L: "But I do have a plan. We MUST follow that. LEG CUTTING TIME"

R: "Now wait a moment..."

<Sawing sounds. Screams>

I don't know if people have heard this news, but May has announced that al Brexit negotiations will be handled by the Cabinet office, with the Brexit department being downgraded.

Utter, utter, utter, utter, stupidity from May.

If you read grassroots Conservation forums, they are already convinced that May and Olly Robbins have been doing this deliberately for months anyway, and it's a red rag to a bull for them. They think May is orchestrating a Remain stich up.

She's only giving ammo to Bojo and Davis, and has just pulled the rug from underneath Raab's feet.

Conservative MPs are heading home this summer, and will be meeting with their local associations and the grassroots. There's mutiny in the air in the Tory shires, and those MPs will be getting it in the ear.

and May has just thrown fuel on the fire...

Our PM is utterly out of her depth...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled is just having a laugh.

To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.

To save time, this reply is to other Remain members as well as Kilkrazy.

I'm not against European co-operation in military matters. I support it because it's in our geostratgic interest.

But why duplicate exisiting military structures when we have NATO?

People will point to Trump, and I get that, but there's nothing in the NATO treaty that says the USA has to be involved in every NATO matter.

If Britain, France, and Germany got together for a big exercise with Poland, that's within the NATO rules.

If Iceland and Norway did Arctic training together, nobody would bat and eyelid.

No obviously, the USA is the most improtant member, but everybody else can still help each other. The USA wouldn't object to that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But if it turns out that Remain had no plan for EU reform, after having spent 2 years criticising Leave for having no Brexit plan...

Well, that makes Remain look just as bad...

Why? The choice was leave or stay. Only leave needed a plan. Stay could be retain the status quo. It was not "Do this or that" it was "do this or nothing". Yes, we could stay and reform, but it did not require a plan. Leaving 100% did always require a plan, and remain said that there was none, and that was true. Some people said that we should stay and reform from the inside, but not the vast majority of remain supporters. Leave however always required a plan, and the vast majority seem to have gone with, I don't like where we are, so lets change it, but how we do it is someone else's problem.

The problem with reform the EU is that it's a vague and undefined moving target. It's a political mirage wheeled out by EU supporters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
The Euro is flawed, but solving those flaws requires more european integration.

Too much of a hard sell.

Strangely, a two, or even 3 speed Europe, might have been the way forward.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm not against European co-operation in military matters. I support it because it's in our geostratgic interest.

But why duplicate exisiting military structures when we have NATO?

People will point to Trump, and I get that, but there's nothing in the NATO treaty that says the USA has to be involved in every NATO matter.

If Britain, France, and Germany got together for a big exercise with Poland, that's within the NATO rules.

If Iceland and Norway did Arctic training together, nobody would bat and eyelid.

No obviously, the USA is the most improtant member, but everybody else can still help each other. The USA wouldn't object to that.

It's not just Trump. NATO was built with one and only one objective in mind and that is to contain the USSR under American guidance.

Everyone else is a junior partner.

The aim of the joint European military structure is not to be a vote in the American machine but to be its independently capable machine. Mostly by spending better rather than spending more as individual member state budgets cannot hope to achieve the same effective effect as a bigger one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled is just having a laugh.

To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.

Indeed, to be serious though, EU. Brigades would be run by Brussels right? Who's in charge? Why are you putting the risk of your nation going to war in the hands of Brussels?

I think it's just going to be done for manoeuvres and practicing to start with. No doubt part of this will be to work out the command structure that would be followed for actual military action.

No-one believes there is going to be a "real" war in Europe in the near future. The combined brigade would be used for things like intervening in a second Balkans civil war. You probably remember the EU took a lot of stick for doing so little when the real events happened.

In this kind of scenario, an EU parliament vote could be used to commit a brigade with a set of mission parameters. There would not need to be any close political oversight during the operation.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled is just having a laugh.

To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.

Indeed, to be serious though, EU. Brigades would be run by Brussels right? Who's in charge? Why are you putting the risk of your nation going to war in the hands of Brussels?

The principle from what I have read is that individual nations would still have control over their military. Instead there would be a kind of central command and control which allows them to direct operations. For example if their was a natural disaster that the EU militaries all turned up with bed rolls to help civilians, but no one brought anything to distribute them or get them off the ships/vehicles etc. Same goes for things like helping with illegal migration and different navy's falling over each other.

There is also the advantage of streamlining logistics. Basically that if the UK army was operating in Italy that the logistical support is effectively EU wide and hence there won't be any conflicts in how things are provided. For example imagine the US military moved across into a different state and found all the bullets stored were for different armaments than they had.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Strangely, a two, or even 3 speed Europe, might have been the way forward.

Which as it stands is as follows:-

The quickest way - the EU
The slow way - EFTA
The off the cliff way - the UK....

To understand the reasons why the EU might want to develop a military capability of some sort, and also why there are serious constraints on that possibility, it's worth remembering two things.

1) Not all EU members are members of NATO, i.e. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.
2) Some EU members are neutrals. They may be militarised neutrals with a keen interest in their own defence like Sweden, or they may teeter on the edge of pacifism like the Republic of Ireland but either way they have long-standing policies that reject membership in military alliances.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't know if people have heard this news, but May has announced that al Brexit negotiations will be handled by the Cabinet office, with the Brexit department being downgraded.

Utter, utter, utter, utter, stupidity from May.

Given how well she managed to answer a question about what she did in her spare time, I somehow doubt this will add much benefit. Got be sorry for, or laugh at Raab; I mean he had one meeting and he's been sidelined. What do you think he came back with - a brilliant option to rejoin the EU.

Apparently May wants to hear "No" in person!

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1021395103322173440

That was also a rather evil sounding laugh. Like Mr Burns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it's just going to be done for manoeuvres and practicing to start with. No doubt part of this will be to work out the command structure that would be followed for actual military action.

No-one believes there is going to be a "real" war in Europe in the near future. The combined brigade would be used for things like intervening in a second Balkans civil war. You probably remember the EU took a lot of stick for doing so little when the real events happened.

In this kind of scenario, an EU parliament vote could be used to commit a brigade with a set of mission parameters. There would not need to be any close political oversight during the operation.

And if that brigade gets surrounded and its troops executed on live TV? Now the UK is in a war because...reasons.
Many wars have started for less. The UK has been able to avoid many conflicts since WWII including hot wars related to the Cold War. Do you really want to screw that up?

 monarda wrote:
To understand the reasons why the EU might want to develop a military capability of some sort, and also why there are serious constraints on that possibility, it's worth remembering two things.

1) Not all EU members are members of NATO, i.e. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.
2) Some EU members are neutrals. They may be militarised neutrals with a keen interest in their own defence like Sweden, or they may teeter on the edge of pacifism like the Republic of Ireland but either way they have long-standing policies that reject membership in military alliances.

Ireland has been historically neutral and non-aligned and let's be honest, any attack on Ireland by a third party would automatically see the UK having to intervene for obvious reasons of close proximity.

Apologies to Republic of Ireland dakka members for saying this, and I hope I've not worded this poorly for obvious historical reasons, but Ireland by its very close location, is under 'UK protection.'

Is there not a secret protocol in place that sees the RAF intercept Russian military planes over Irish airspace?

If the Soviets had invaded Ireland, the UK would have to help Ireland. And for the record, thousands of Irish men from both sides of the border helped Britain defeat the Nazis. IMO, Britain would have a historic debt to help Dublin in the unlikely event of a 3rd party attacking the Republic.

Cyprus and Malta are Commonwealth members. I believe Britain would defend them anyway, NATO or not.

Nobody would invade Finland.

And again, I doubt if Germany would allow anybody to walk into Austria for obvious reasons of close proximity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't know if people have heard this news, but May has announced that al Brexit negotiations will be handled by the Cabinet office, with the Brexit department being downgraded.

Utter, utter, utter, utter, stupidity from May.

Given how well she managed to answer a question about what she did in her spare time, I somehow doubt this will add much benefit. Got be sorry for, or laugh at Raab; I mean he had one meeting and he's been sidelined. What do you think he came back with - a brilliant option to rejoin the EU.

Apparently May wants to hear "No" in person!

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1021395103322173440

That was also a rather evil sounding laugh. Like Mr Burns.

I see a summer of discontent, with mutiny simmering under the surface. Don't forget that Sir Graham Brady has an old fashioned post box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it's just going to be done for manoeuvres and practicing to start with. No doubt part of this will be to work out the command structure that would be followed for actual military action.

No-one believes there is going to be a "real" war in Europe in the near future. The combined brigade would be used for things like intervening in a second Balkans civil war. You probably remember the EU took a lot of stick for doing so little when the real events happened.

In this kind of scenario, an EU parliament vote could be used to commit a brigade with a set of mission parameters. There would not need to be any close political oversight during the operation.

Why the EU parliament though? You and other Remain supporters have long argued about the openness and democracy of the EU, everybody's equal etc etc


Surely this decision to intervene in the Balkans if the gak hit the fan, would be down to individual governments?


Some might object, and they might not agree to the EU parliament having the final say in the first place.


The question of who would make the final decision would be a difficult one to agree. Nobody likes to see another nation squander their troops.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled is just having a laugh.

To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.

To save time, this reply is to other Remain members as well as Kilkrazy.

I'm not against European co-operation in military matters. I support it because it's in our geostratgic interest.

But why duplicate exisiting military structures when we have NATO?

People will point to Trump, and I get that, but there's nothing in the NATO treaty that says the USA has to be involved in every NATO matter.

If Britain, France, and Germany got together for a big exercise with Poland, that's within the NATO rules.

If Iceland and Norway did Arctic training together, nobody would bat and eyelid.

No obviously, the USA is the most improtant member, but everybody else can still help each other. The USA wouldn't object to that.

Because NATO structures, treaties and rules are a relic of the Cold War and aren't very well suited to the modern world. And because they encourage over-reliance on the US, which may not always be the reliable partner and ally it has been in the past. The way NATO command structures are organised makes it hard to do much without the US. Not to mention NATO includes countries like Turkey which really do not belong there because they are not friends or allies at all, and some countries that are in the EU are not actually in NATO.
An EU military would basically be an updated, more reliable NATO, without the reliance on the US (who would remain allied to European countries through NATO or an updated north Atlantic alliance structure).

 monarda wrote:

1) Not all EU members are members of NATO, i.e. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.
2) Some EU members are neutrals. They may be militarised neutrals with a keen interest in their own defence like Sweden, or they may teeter on the edge of pacifism like the Republic of Ireland but either way they have long-standing policies that reject membership in military alliances.

And 3) The EU has a mutual defence clause that's stronger than the one in NATO (i.e. not geographically constrained and automatically triggered in case of an attack, no need for notification). For example, anything happening to French or Dutch possessions in the Caribbean or Pacific are outside the scope of NATO. Likewise, tensions between Greece and/or Cyprus and an increasingly unstable Turkey are also outside the scope of NATO since Turkey is a member.

A joint reaction force is only part of the whole thing (EUFOR) which basically works very much like NATO with some units earmarked as under joint command in case something goes wrong, but ultimately under national authority. Most of the early work is to develop joint capabilities, joint purchasing and developing of systems, a "military schengen" to improve deployment times (mostly with an eye to the East, for the most part).

The underlying idea is that European defence forces can do much better without necessarily spending more. Just by letting economies of scale kick in.

Plus, NATO says they're totally cool with Europe being better at defending themselves.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_156263.htm

So DUP have had to suspend an MP for corruption(stop giggling at the back) and it may trigger a byelection do we get a refund on the bribe?

Some people seem to think not an issue as just drag another flat earther in but apparently there is some unhappiness with the DUP in the area.

If Paisley has to contest a by-election without DUP support (or even with it) he may have some troubles:

"@IRLPatricia
6 hours ago

Man in Ballymena coffee shop this morning reading about Ian Paisley. I asked him "what do you make of that?" His response: "His 2 holidays cost 3 times what I got in redundancy from Michelin. If he comes to my door lookin' my vote again I'll be like his Da - never, never, never!

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1021759942884249602

BREAKING: Raab promises government will "make sure there is adequate food" in Britain in the event of no Brexit deal. But says it is wrong to say government itself is stockpiling.

cause this is what people voted for yeah ?



and the plans have been so great so far too.

Fear not, reds8n, you should be happy.

May is now taking personal control of the Brexit negotiations.

This time next week, we'll be using the Euro.

There is not enough space in this box for me to squeeze in the O's I need for a giant

NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! x 1000 to the power 10 or something...

Everything she touches turns to dust.

This is why I have swung in behind the EFTA/EEA option, and this is why I urge everybody to do the same.

Also anyone watch Moggy spitting his dummy out at the brexit committee it was pretty funny.

You spend ages blackmailing the PM and subverting democracy to get your man as minister and May waits and circumvents him while he is in the meeting.

Moggy was spitting feathers.

 Frazzled wrote:


And if that brigade gets surrounded and its troops executed on live TV? Now the UK is in a war because...reasons.
Many wars have started for less. The UK has been able to avoid many conflicts since WWII including hot wars related to the Cold War. Do you really want to screw that up?

Right.... and how often does that happen in the world. The UK was also involved in other wars as well...that have nothing to do with the cold war. I think I'd prefer to know that there were 27 allies all coming to the rescue rather than try and sort it out on our own. The combined military expenditure of the EU easily outweighs Russia and if Trump got his way and every nation put 4% then probably would be comparable to the US's expenditure.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Cyprus and Malta are Commonwealth members. I believe Britain would defend them anyway, NATO or not.

Cyprus was invaded by Turkey in 1974. Grenada was invaded by the United States in 1983. Both countries were in the Commonwealth at the time. Neither was defended by the UK.

jouso wrote:And 3) The EU has a mutual defence clause that's stronger than the one in NATO (i.e. not geographically constrained and automatically triggered in case of an attack, no need for notification). For example, anything happening to French or Dutch possessions in the Caribbean or Pacific are outside the scope of NATO. Likewise, tensions between Greece and/or Cyprus and an increasingly unstable Turkey are also outside the scope of NATO since Turkey is a member.

This is not correct. As the European Parliament website explains when discussing the only time it has been invoked, following the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015:

European Parliament website wrote:The mutual defence clause was introduced in 2009 under Article 42 (7) of the Treaty of the European Union. It says that EU countries are obliged to assist a fellow member state that has become “a victim of armed aggression on its territory” and that this support should be consistent with potential NATO commitments.

No formal procedure has been set out and the article does not say that the assistance should be military in nature, so countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden that have a policy of neutrality, can still cooperate.

This is a considerably weaker commitment than Article 5 of the NATO treaty which commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all.

In secret supply depots all over the UK...



Still we are fairly obese nation going on a diet for 50 years might do us some good.

Arron Banks is looking increasing dodgy...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44939665

This "not bribery" stuff is on top of the "no collusion" series of meetings he had with the Russian Government and concealed.