UK & EU Politics Thread

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.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

How many times do I need to reiterate this?

NATO and the EU are NOT equiavlent. One is purely a military alliance. Another is a political union.

I'm not bothered in the slightest about the former. I am however bothered about combining a military alliance with a political union, because that is state building as Ketara puts it.

**AlmightyWalrus**

War is the continuation of politics by other means, remember? A military alliance is inescapably a political alliance; war is inherently political.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
War is the continuation of politics by other means, remember? A military alliance is inescapably a political alliance; war is inherently political.

Please point out to me where NATO's Parliament is located, what economic, financial and social Laws and regulations NATO is enacting, what public elections it holds.

Your argument is descending into farce.

Just be honest with us and admit that you want a European Nation State with its own Military. We'll respect you more for it.

**Ketara**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
War is the continuation of politics by other means, remember? A military alliance is inescapably a political alliance; war is inherently political.

That depends entirely on how you define 'war' and 'politics' respectively. Pithy quotes about the nature of war don't really stand up to much academic scrutiny. There's been several very authoritative tomes written on the subject, from Quincy Wright onwards. Thoroughly yawn-inducing, and virtually postmodernist at times, but the subject is a little more complex than you're making out.

**Future War Cultist**

It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
War is the continuation of politics by other means, remember? A military alliance is inescapably a political alliance; war is inherently political.

Please point out to me where NATO's Parliament is located, what economic, financial and social Laws and regulations NATO is enacting, what public elections it holds.

Your argument is descending into farce.

Just be honest with us and admit that you want a European Nation State with its own Military. We'll respect you more for it.

You're defining "politics" narrowly to suit your own argument. The NATO intervention in Iraq, for instance, was very much a political project. Changes to Iraq's constitution afterwards would certainly qualify as "economic, financial and social laws and regulations", and the elections organized there was under NATO's auspices.

Ketara wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
War is the continuation of politics by other means, remember? A military alliance is inescapably a political alliance; war is inherently political.

That depends entirely on how you define 'war' and 'politics' respectively. Pithy quotes about the nature of war don't really stand up to much academic scrutiny. There's been several very authoritative tomes written on the subject, from Quincy Wright onwards. Thoroughly yawn-inducing, and virtually postmodernist at times, but the subject is a little more complex than you're making out.

I know it's a yawn-inducingly long-winded subject, and I know I might have been a bit sloppy in quoting von Clausewitz, but the fact remains that the organization of the armed forces of a nation inherently is political. Whether we consider politics the doman of state actors or of individual actors is beside the point; the organization of armed forces is done for a political end; they are not in and of themselves an end, unless you're a Khorne Berzerker.

Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.

There's a reason why the "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.

They're establishing all the necessary infrastructure for a European Military without actually calling it that. Then all it'll require is another treaty or amendment to the EU Constitution and hey presto, we've got ourselves a European Military. If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

You know how we proved this was a lie, or at least not true, last time it was claimed in this thread? Yeah, that. Could you not bring up stuff we've been through and debunked already without actually making an argument as to why this is the case?

**Future War Cultist**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.

They're establishing all the necessary infrastructure for a European Military without actually calling it that. Then all it'll require is another treaty or amendment to the EU Constitution and hey presto, we've got ourselves a European Military. If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

Yes, this. Absolutely this.

**Ketara**

Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.

It doesn't have to necessarily, any more than NATO has done. The problem for me lies in the fact that there really is absolutely no good argument for it.

Arguments that it makes our militaries more efficient is ludicrous purely on the grounds that it excludes the largest military. They're further illustrated as daft by the obvious followup question of 'Why don't we just do whatever would supposedly make our militaries more efficient whilst retaining NATO?' Arguing for a slightly different approach to military structing/funding and arguing for an EU army are just completely different concepts. You can quite easily do the former whilst never touching the latter.

With the military argument thoroughly trashed, it becomes obvious that the reasons have to be political. The commonly espoused one is that NATO is America's sock puppet. But this terrible attempt to stoke hatred against the 'outsider' as a justification for a vast organisational shift is rendered pretty obvious by the contention of 'Sorry, can you show me where in recent history NATO nations have been dragged into wars that don't involve them against their will by America using NATO as a medium?' To which the answer is; there haven't been any. If anything, it's totally the other way around. America has no real stake in Europe, yet they ended up funding and manning the Yugoslavian conflict.

The historical argument failing, the argument then revolves purely upon a scare tactic, the 'Ah, but what if the big baddie Donald Trump, or some other American like him does it in the future? What if an evil warmongering American President drags us peace loving folks into a war?' To which again, the question is , 'Why would this new EU organisation be impervious to gits being elected over here and doing the exact same thing?'. Judging by the fact that the Spanish Government committed violence against its own population more recently, and the sorts of people sitting over in the Austrian and Polish government, it's pretty clear that mindless brutality is far from the sole preserve of the American people.

Which leaves....no real argument for an EU army at all. To which the question must be raised, 'If there's no real apparent need for it, why do you want it so badly?'

The answer is of course, to help solidify the bulwark of a future European superpower.

**nfe**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?

**jouso**

Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:

You mean just like do not take my sovereignty away unless it's uncle sam calling?

I don't understand this comment. Could you explain what you're saying (or joking/implying) in detail for me?

There IS a pressing political need to have a plan B from Washington. It's called Donald Trump and it may or may not leave in 3 years, but it's changed the political landscape for good.

So....the argument that we need to reform a defence alliance that's been in existence for 50 years, worked really very well, and institute a different one at greater financial cost which excludes the most militarily powerful member....is that a member got someone elected you don't like? Despite the fact that nothing bad has actually happened through NATO as a result?

God forbid, what do you do when someone gets elected in charge of the EU you don't like??? Do you set up another defence alliance which blockades Brussels? Or do you think that the European nations are so much more advanced and special than America that it could never happen over here?

Not to mention, isn't the whole idea against the principles of the EU? Isn't dialogue and co-operation the entire sodding point of multinational projects? As opposed to immediately breaking them in two because someone not on your political side of the spectrum got involved? And Trump, of all people, is the tipping point? I mean, you've got Erdogan enacting reforms in Turkey that would make Ceausescu break into a jig, but it's Donald Trump, the man who can't even get am immigration reform through without being struck down, that motivates you to break up NATO? Jesus Christ.

Break up NATO? No way.

NATO has been calling for European countries to bulk up militarily for the last 30 years. Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes. European countries have generally dragged their feed mostly on the account that Uncle Sam would be there when needed, and it turns out that he might not. It's not as much Donald Trump as the forces set in motion time ago that have finally put him there. Remember when he threatened to cancel NATO because according to him everyone was getting a free ride?

NATO will benefit from having a more operative European military, able to project itself when needed so that the USA can look at the Pacific. And that can be done without increasing (or only marginally increasing) military expenditure. And the EU already has a voice

It's win-win on both sides. It's not a case of don't fix what isn't broken, European military expenditure is clearly broken: 15% efficiency for 50% of the cost.

In any case, the USA will welcome post-Brexit UK with open arms..... as long as you toe the line. That's what the US requires from post-Brexit UK:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/25/europes-loss-is-natos-gain/

A third benefit for NATO will be a reduction in the quiet, but real, battlefield competition between NATO and the EU. Consider the respective anti-piracy military missions conducted off the coast of Africa for the past several years by the EU and NATO. Each has had different strategic priorities, with the EU working the “soft power” side of the equation more diligently than NATO. This competition has also manifested in Afghanistan and the Balkans, where both organizations over time have had different missions and priorities. Since the UK will no longer be obligated to support EU missions, its military will be able to focus solely on their work within the NATO alliance. And, given that European military efforts will be greatly diminished by the loss of British military muscle, the EU can be expected to defer to NATO more frequently.

Finally, a new British government will presumably be a very motivated NATO partner. Now that it has chosen to become a relatively marginal economic player on the international stage, it will have to look for new ways to demonstrate value in its partnership with the United States if it hopes to maintain anything like the “special relationship” it has become accustomed to (and dependent on). Britain will no doubt calculate that continuing or improving its good work in NATO – where it has always been strong to begin with – will be an important show of good faith.

This piece was written right after the Brexit vote by a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and perfectly sums up the US vision of NATO. It's the US and a bunch of junior partners who can't be trusted to do serious things.

**Ketara**

Before I get into your other stuff, can you explain what you meant by that earlier comment for me? I did ask, but you seem to have skipped it. I'd appreciate it if you could break it down for me.

jouso wrote:

Break up NATO? No way.

NATO has been calling for European countries to bulk up militarily for the last 30 years. Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes. European countries have generally dragged their feed mostly on the account that Uncle Sam would be there when needed, and it turns out that he might not. It's not as much Donald Trump as the forces set in motion time ago that have finally put him there. Remember when he threatened to cancel NATO because according to him everyone was getting a free ride?

NATO will benefit from having a more operative European military, able to project itself when needed so that the USA can look at the Pacific. And that can be done without increasing (or only marginally increasing) military expenditure. And the EU already has a voice

You seem to be arguing for increased military expenditure. This is a very different thing to an EU Army.

It's win-win on both sides. It's not a case of don't fix what isn't broken, European military expenditure is clearly broken: 15% efficiency for 50% of the cost.

And Brexit is 350 million extra for the NHS. Throwing a stat around doesn't give any form of context.

In any case, the USA will welcome post-Brexit UK with open arms..... as long as you toe the line. That's what the US requires from post-Brexit UK:

I don't understand why you keep trying to rope Britain (a nation that is leaving the EU) into an argument for an EU military. The two are unrelated.

Finally, a new British government will presumably be a very motivated NATO partner. Now that it has chosen to become a relatively marginal economic player on the international stage,

As marginal as Japan? You have a very strange perception of the world, where anyone who isn't America, China, or the EU conglomerate is 'marginal'.

it will have to look for new ways to demonstrate value in its partnership with the United States if it hopes to maintain anything like the “special relationship” it has become accustomed to (and dependent on). Britain will no doubt calculate that continuing or improving its good work in NATO – where it has always been strong to begin with – will be an important show of good faith.

This piece was written right after the Brexit vote by a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and perfectly sums up the US vision of NATO. It's the US and a bunch of junior partners who can't be trusted to do serious things.

.....what on earth does this future British defence policy have to do with an EU army? If the EU increases their funding into NATO, they'll get more of a say in setting the mission priorities, no doubt. There's still no pressing need for a separate organisation here, beyond the EU's desire to move into a sphere controlled by another international entity.

**Antario**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.

They're establishing all the necessary infrastructure for a European Military without actually calling it that. Then all it'll require is another treaty or amendment to the EU Constitution and hey presto, we've got ourselves a European Military. If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

Except the EU as a singular entity is rather powerless, it's still mostly a political platform governed by the individual interests of the participation nation states . It's when the interests of the major nations or a majority of nations align that the thumbscrews are used to force opponents to submit. Stronger EU institutions as a counterweight to Franco-German ambitions was for a long time a reason for smaller nations to support more federalism. Now the UK is in the process of leaving, the interests of the remaining nations create a different consensus then the current one.

**Mr Morden**

nfe wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe = French and Holland are "allowed" to vote and vote against it, all other nations retreat from allowing citizens to vote on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Mr Morden wrote:
nfe wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe = French and Holland are "allowed" to vote and vote against it, all other nations retreat from allowing citizens to vote on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.

We've been over this once already in this thread. Suffice to say you're wrong.

Besides, how is it the EU:s fault if the national governments exercise their sovereignty and doesn't let its electorate vote?

**nfe**

Mr Morden wrote:
nfe wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe = French and Holland are "allowed" to vote and vote against it, all other nations retreat from allowing citizens to vote on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.

If you go back a few pages this was dealt with previously in the conversation I was alluding to.

**jouso**

Ketara wrote:
Before I get into your other stuff, can you explain what you meant by that earlier comment for me? I did ask, but you seem to have skipped it. I'd appreciate it if you could break it down for me.

jouso wrote:

Break up NATO? No way.

NATO has been calling for European countries to bulk up militarily for the last 30 years. Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes. European countries have generally dragged their feed mostly on the account that Uncle Sam would be there when needed, and it turns out that he might not. It's not as much Donald Trump as the forces set in motion time ago that have finally put him there. Remember when he threatened to cancel NATO because according to him everyone was getting a free ride?

NATO will benefit from having a more operative European military, able to project itself when needed so that the USA can look at the Pacific. And that can be done without increasing (or only marginally increasing) military expenditure. And the EU already has a voice

You seem to be arguing for increased military expenditure. This is a very different thing to an EU Army.

No such thing as en EU army. I am arguing for increased operational availability for the same expenditure.

It's win-win on both sides. It's not a case of don't fix what isn't broken, European military expenditure is clearly broken: 15% efficiency for 50% of the cost.

And Brexit is 350 million extra for the NHS. Throwing a stat around doesn't give any form of context.

The numbers are easy to check. Add up all the european military budgets together and you get half the US spending. Yet there is a single nuclear aircraft carrier (the CdG which is small, by US standards), a tiny fraction of the air and sea transport capability, fighter jets, drones...... in everything except body count the US much more than doubles all of Europe put together.

In any case, the USA will welcome post-Brexit UK with open arms..... as long as you toe the line. That's what the US requires from post-Brexit UK:

I don't understand why you keep trying to rope Britain (a nation that is leaving the EU) into an argument for an EU military. The two are unrelated.

Finally, a new British government will presumably be a very motivated NATO partner. Now that it has chosen to become a relatively marginal economic player on the international stage,

As marginal as Japan? You have a very strange perception of the world, where anyone who isn't America, China, or the EU conglomerate is 'marginal'.

I'm just quoting the words of a former NATO SAC. That's how the US sees his NATO partners (including the UK). You challenged my "toe the line" comment, here's how the US military brass definitely sees everyone in NATO as junior partners at the very best.

**Mr Morden**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
nfe wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe = French and Holland are "allowed" to vote and vote against it, all other nations retreat from allowing citizens to vote on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.

We've been over this once already in this thread. Suffice to say you're wrong.

Besides, how is it the EU:s fault if the national governments exercise their sovereignty and doesn't let its electorate vote?

Gone back over 10 pages and could not find a reference to either of these treaties.

Because they are acting on behalf of the EU that does not want anyone to vote on such matters other than the chosen few who subscribe to their vision of the future, its how it works - they either ignore voters or make them vote again until they receive the answer they want.

No such thing as en EU army. I am arguing for increased operational availability for the same expenditure.

Which is already done through NATO - why do we need yet more money funnelled into black holes in the EU administration? In addition this admin charge will probably be seen by certain countries as a way to avoid actually spending money on defence tech or going abroad.

Add up all the european military budgets together and you get half the US spending. Yet there is a single nuclear aircraft carrier (the CdG which is small, by US standards), a tiny fraction of the air and sea transport capability, fighter jets, drones...... in everything except body count the US much more than doubles all of Europe put together.

How is this going to be better by having another expensive organisation draining money and competing for attention but without the US doing all the heavy lifting. No wonder the US is so annoyed when its treaty partners fail to live up to their obligations - oddly different to how they expect us to live up to ours.

**nfe**

There's a search function, man... Copying links is a nuisance on a phone but you'll find the discussion in two seconds.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'll tread carefully here, because we don't want to turn this into an American politics thread, but the rational from the EU seems to be that because the USA elected one bad POTUS, then they'll keep electing more bad POTUS' in the future, so we can't rely on the US for defence, despite the evidence to the contrary i.e more American troops and equipment heading back to Europe.

Trump threatened to ignore NATO assistance unless the other members paid the US the 2% they owed. We all know that's not how it works, but it's cast enough doubt about the US's involvement in NATO. Since you can't trust the US to be involved, NATO becomes almost a waste of time.

That 2% spending (when met) doesn't result in much military of use, when taking in isolation across EU27 - there's either going to be a lot of duplication or a lack of coordination. This "EU Army" is the logical answer to both - an ending of the US reliance from NATO, and a co-ordination of resources with some kind of top level planning structure. The forces are still under control of the host nation, but working with the rest, like NATO. This will both give us a better, more stable military, but it'll also save us a lot of money.

It's not going to be an EU controlled army, or Junkers private police force, or any weird EU amalgamation. It's going to be complimentary units from different nations working together.

And as pointed out - We used to have a veto on this stuff.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Mr Morden wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
nfe wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If any member states protest, their arms will be twisted or they'll be made to vote again until they return the correct result, as is always the case with the EU when it doesn't get its own way the first time around.

The EU does not take No for an answer, but a Yes is final.

Has anyone ever presented some evidence for this? Or do we just always get to see that context-free list from Daniel Hannan's book that omits the wording of the questions and the treaty amendments between votes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe = French and Holland are "allowed" to vote and vote against it, all other nations retreat from allowing citizens to vote on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon : EU leaders formulate a new treaty - no referendums were allowed in case the citizen vote incorrectly except in Ireland where they rejected it, new referendum held to get the right answer.

We've been over this once already in this thread. Suffice to say you're wrong.

Besides, how is it the EU:s fault if the national governments exercise their sovereignty and doesn't let its electorate vote?

Gone back over 10 pages and could not find a reference to either of these treaties.

It's 20 pages back, on page 145.

**Whirlwind**

Despite all this discussion I still have yet to see a sound reason as to why an EU military force is a bad idea other than the emotional response that "we don't want other people to control our forces" and "it's just the EU wanting to become a superstate".

We already provide forces to the "EU army" and it is proposed that we continue to do so Wrexit or no Wrexit. It is written in the UK governments own proposals.

The argument that we have NATO is also rather perverse as the military aren't just employed as a defensive or aggressive force. The reality is that if a foreign state ever invades and NATO gets used in force then the EU will be called up anyway. Additionally the EU will be the least of our worries as we have enough military installations (not only as base for any counter attack, but also early warning systems and so on) that a large war in Europe we will be target number one whether we are in the EU or out of it. In the first couple of hours the UK will become a smoking ash strewn crater. Basically you want to find somewhere the south pacific to live if it ever looks like we are going in this direction.

On the other hand NATO role is to assure us all that mutually assured destruction is inevitable. Hence the 'EU army' is there for other reasons. Now the cynics are pointing out it's just federalisation but I disagree. The military will also get involved in disasters, helping stop smuggling on the Mediterranean, respond to a nuclear terrorist attack and so on. Having a joined command and control allows more efficient response to such issues. It also allows pooling of resources and specialist knowledge that some states may not have. Suppose there is an earthquake and Tsunami that subsequently devastated large swathes of the south Mediterranean coast. By each nation acting independently it results in a lack of co-ordinated action. Some areas might get lots of aid, some might get missed altogether as individual governments push to help the most populous areas. Alternatively you end up with all the aid in a few ports but no one is sorting out clearing roads to get it anywhere.

A co-ordinated command allows resources to be directed evenly and appropriately rather than different countries bump into each other and get in the way. This causes delays and will inevitably kill people. You can avoid more of this with a co-ordinated response by an EU army. Bad recent examples include the response to the hurricanes in the Caribbean. Pretty much every state sent their own ships, supplies etc (the UK was three days late to the party and sent Boris the Clown first instead of anything useful). There were people that were denied access to being taken off islands simply based on the fact that the *military* response was only to deal with their own citizens. Now envisage a different scenario where a combined command allowed all EU citizens to be evacuated by one country, whilst another sent soldiers to round up escaped convicts or provided emergency power.

The arguments has got to get away from 'but we have NATO' because NATO is not there to do everything a military would do.

In other news Theresa May has warned that Russia should stop meddling with elections. Despite the fact the evidence is pointing to Wrexit being meddled with. But I suppose she is only worried that they might be trying to help Corbyn...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-russia-fake-news_uk_5a0a208be4b00a6eece3b9ca?lx&utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

Creepily though Russia has responded about red wine.

And here is a Brexiter truly supporting the cause

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/john-redwood-brexit_uk_5a08cb50e4b0e37d2f3833c4

John Redwood has been caught telling people not to invest in the UK and to move money to the EU. Now this seems slightly odd considering he supports leaving. So it might be suggested that he only wants Brexit for his own personal gain rather than any ideology.

**Ketara**

Whirlwind wrote:
Despite all this discussion I still have yet to see a sound reason as to why an EU military force is a bad idea other than the emotional response that "we don't want other people to control our forces" and "it's just the EU wanting to become a superstate".

I think you have this the wrong way around. It's not people saying 'an EU army is a bad idea'. It's people saying, 'Why do we need it? What pressing need is there for the vast expenditure (and it will be) in setting up an alternate organisation to NATO? What will there be for it to do? What urgent necessity does it meet that NATO is incapable of being flexible enough to meet?'

And the answer is; there isn't one. Saying 'I don't think it's a bad idea, why not do it?' isn't really a good enough reason to waste a load of wonga, duplicate processes already performed elsewhere, and generally complicate matters. That's like saying 'Why not set up a Ministry to repair roads?' at the same time the local council does it. Sure, you can say, 'Ah, my new road-repairing Ministry will be able to respond to specific matters of repaving in a somewhat different way', but is it necessary to set up a whole new Ministry to do it? Can't we just adapt the procedures of the local Council as needed?

And come to think of it, why was your first thought to set up a whole new Ministry of Repaving to do it? Do you know how many other calls there are on our money? The roads are generally in perfectly tolerable condition, they've worked well enough for the last fifty years. In fact, why are we even discussing this? Do you have so little else to do that you're sitting around discussing new ways of spending money to extend bureaucracy for the hell of it? Couldn't you just submit a request to modify Council procedure using the standard form? etcetc

If people asking what the the point of your idea is makes you automatically recoil and go 'It's not a bad idea you guys!', it might not be a great idea.

And since I know you Whirlwind, and you're reaching for your keyboard right now to say, 'But hey, you didn't respond to the whole refugee rescue and disaster relief ideas I wrote!', I have. If you look above I specified 'Why not adapt what exists already?' Because that's the most logical, cost efficient thing to do. NATO already has an integrated command structure, it involves the USA (which is a damn big deal in terms of resources), and indeed, already engages in a lot of the stuff you've mentioned (whether you know it or not). If there are some specific thoughts or ideas that it could undertake one or two other things to meet the needs of its member states, those ideas could very easily be submitted and acted upon. And it would be infinitely, infinitely, cheaper and easier to do than establishing the European Union Army.

I mean seriously, nuts and sledgehammers mounted on industrial wrecking cranes here. And the reason that the sledgehammer is being targeted at the nut is not for the reasons given. Think it's a mere coincidence that those who are most in favour of a European superstate are the only ones pushing for this?

If somebody wants a European superstate, that's great and fine. Everyone has an opinion, and the idea is not intrinisically bad. I just don't get why we need the whole 'Erm, we could totally use a European army to...rescue some drowning refugees! Yeah! That's a legit reason to set up a international military org, right guys? Guys? Why are you all looking at me funny? ...I knew you were all anti-democratic EU hating pigs!' charade from those in Brussels advocating it. I just wish they'd be honest and say 'Bro. Superstate. Am I right or am I right?'.

**Whirlwind**

Ketara wrote:

I think you have this the wrong way around. It's not people saying 'an EU army is a bad idea'. It's people saying, 'Why do we need it? What pressing need is there for the vast expenditure (and it will be) in setting up an alternate organisation to NATO? What will there be for it to do? What urgent necessity does it meet that NATO is incapable of being flexible enough to meet?'

Most people arguing against it are fighting about that it means a federalisation of the EU rather any particular reason. I've already pointed out why there is a need, a bit of imagination can expand the concept without having to spell it out in exquisite detail. We might selfishly think we are OK, but Malta, Greece and a dozen other states simply won't have the resources. So it provides surety to those states that there is a useful support in such a crisis. An everyone puts in a bit to make the pain less when that crisis happens. Yes it might be 300 years before the UK has a problem, but then it might also be in 2 years. It's a case of mutual support and a co-ordinated response rather than a mess of a response that can occur. If they started using it to annex Morocco on behalf of one state then I would not agree to it, but that is hardly the plan.

That's like saying 'Why not set up a Ministry to repair roads?' at the same time the local council does it. Sure, you can say, 'Ah, my new road-repairing Ministry will be able to respond to specific matters of repaving in a somewhat different way', but is it necessary to set up a whole new Ministry to do it? Can't we just adapt the procedures of the local Council as needed?

And come to think of it, why was your first thought to set up a whole new Ministry of Repaving to do it? Do you know how many other calls there are on our money? The roads are generally in perfectly tolerable condition, they've worked well enough for the last fifty years. In fact, why are we even discussing this? Do you have so little else to do that you're sitting around discussing new ways of spending money to extend bureaucracy for the hell of it? Couldn't you just submit a request to modify Council procedure using the standard form? etcetc

That's a rather interesting and ironic example considering that there is a national agency for managing roads, the Highways Agency. Where the council is responsible for managing local roads the Highways Agency is responsible for managing major roads to avoid discontinuities at the boundaries. Imagine the chaos if road works on these roads were done at the Council level and the level of co-ordination needed just so that the one Council hadn't just resurfaced a lane of a motorway that led straight into a lane that was being dug up by another. There are always efficiencies of scale, the same principles goes for the military as well.

And since I know you Whirlwind, and you're reaching for your keyboard right now to say, 'But hey, you didn't respond to the whole refugee rescue and disaster relief ideas I wrote!', I have. If you look above I specified 'Why not adapt what exists already?' Because that's the most logical, cost efficient thing to do. NATO already has an integrated command structure, it involves the USA (which is a damn big deal in terms of resources), and indeed, already engages in a lot of the stuff you've mentioned (whether you know it or not). If there are some specific thoughts or ideas that it could undertake one or two other things to meet the needs of its member states, those ideas could very easily be submitted and acted upon. And it would be infinitely, infinitely, cheaper and easier to do than establishing the European Union Army.

Yes, sure NATO could do this. But it doesn't and there appears to be no movement for it to do so in the future. We could also make NATO resurface country's roads for us using their combined command structure as well. But I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. Your argument seems to revolve around someone else can do it so why do we need the 'EU army'? But it's a pointless argument if they aren't and are not going to do it (Unless of course you are secretly head of NATO and about to introduce it?). Most things can be done by someone else but it's hardly a rational argument for not doing it, if the organisation that you think should, isn't.

I mean seriously, nuts and sledgehammers mounted on industrial wrecking cranes here. And the reason that the sledgehammer is being targeted at the nut is not for the reasons given. Think it's a mere coincidence that those who are most in favour of a European superstate are the only ones pushing for this?

You mean like the UK is pushing for it too?

I just don't get why we need the whole 'Erm, we could totally use a European army to...rescue some drowning refugees! Yeah! That's a legit reason to set up a international military org, right guys? Guys? Why are you all looking at me funny?

That's just being facetious at other people's suffering. Some people might actually be a bit more humane than your cynicism and even if it did only save a few hundred of lives then many might consider this a worthwhile cause. Are you saying that if a coordinated 'EU military' did save more children's lives from a slow drowning death that this is a sacrifice we shouldn't make simply to avoid having a centralised command and control set up by the EU?

**reds8n**

Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s a slippery slope from ‘coordinating existing military structures’ to ‘building a single unified army of the EU’. This is how the eu works, piece by piece with lies and deceit.

Unlike the Brexit campaign eh ?

meanwhile ...

https://twitter.com/RobertsDan/status/930449800297897985

Honda UK telling MPs it imports 2 million components a day from Europe on 350 trucks and holds 1 hours worth of stock. It would take 18 months to put customs admin in place but every 15 minutes of delay would cost £850,000 a hour. That's not including WTO tariffs of 10% and 4.5%.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/honda-uk-warns-mps-of-consequences-of-leaving-eu-customs-union

The devastating impact of a hard Brexit on the UK car industry was laid bare on Tuesday to MPs, who were told every 15 minutes of customs delays would cost some manufacturers up to £850,000 a year.

Presenting the industry’s most detailed evidence yet to the business select committee, Honda UK said it relied on 350 trucks a day arriving from Europe to keep its giant Swindon factory operating, with just an hour’s worth of parts being held on the production line.

The Japanese-owned company said it would take 18 months to set up new procedures and warehouses if Britain left the customs union but that, with 2m daily component movements, even minor delays at Dover and the Channel tunnel would force hundreds of its trucks to wait for the equivalent of 90 hours a day.

“Outside of the customs union, there is no such thing as a frictionless border,” said Honda’s government affairs manager, Patrick Keating.

“I wouldn’t say that the just-in-time manufacturing model wouldn’t work, but it would certainly be very challenging.”

Until now, many large multinationals have chosen to present such commercially-sensitive data to the government in private, but with MPs still struggling to force disclosure of 58 sectoral analysis reports produced by Whitehall officials, there is growing demand for the impact of leaving without a deal to be spelled out.

Witnesses said new tariffs would add an estimated £1,500 to the price of an imported car, and Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP and former Bank of England economist who led Tuesday’s hearing, encouraged the executives to outline how exporters might also face a possible £300 cost due to tariffs on their imported components.

If Britain leaves without a trade deal, ministers plan to apply World Trade Organization tariffs that stand at 10% for finished vehicles and about 4.5% for automotive components. More than a third of the 690 cars a day produced by Honda in Swindon are sold in Europe, which is also the source of 40% of the company’s parts.

Honda and other witnesses from Aston Martin and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) argued that customs and trade threats were only the start of their concerns.

Aston Martin also feared a “semi-catastrophic” end to EU recognition of UK regulatory approval, something Keating revealed Brussels was now threatening in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit.

Honda pointed to a recent study suggesting the cost of converting an EU car to match US standards is equivalent to another 26% tariff increase.

The industry also fears the impact of new immigration rules for EU nationals. Already 14% of Honda’s 3,500 to 4,000-strong Swindon workforce are from other EU countries, but this is growing fast: of the 600 extra workers hired to build new Civic model last year, 40% were EU workers, as are 30% of the staff at the company’s European HQ in Bracknell.

On Monday, European business leaders including Britain’s CBI warned that the government had just two weeks to make progress on a Brexit divorce agreement if they were to get the clarity they urgently need by the anniversary of article 50 being invoked in March.

“People are sitting on their hands waiting for more clarity about the likely trading relationship with our biggest partner,” Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the SMMT, told the business committee on Tuesday.

Though Honda declined to discuss its UK profitability in public, the SMMT said car manufacturing was a low-margin business, yielding an average 2-4% return on investment.

“You are pretty quickly getting into negative territory,” said Hawes when asked what this would mean in the event of a hard Brexit. “If we went on to WTO terms, it would be incredibly difficult.”

He predicted there may be a diminished choice of cars on sale for British consumers if there is divergence in regulatory standards as some niche importers would not bother to have additional testing just for the UK market.

“If there is any sort of divergence, manufacturers will have to decide whether they want type approval on that UK vehicle, so there might be a contraction in terms of choice,” explained the SMMT boss.

And the industry leaders dismissed arguments that mutual interest among European manufacturers would be enough to automatically force a solution.

While 56% of British car exports go to Europe, just 7% of EU exports go the UK. “The UK is an important market but what matters more is protecting the EU single market,” said Hawes.

Although 10% of the SMMT’s 800 members were revealed in a survey to have supported Brexit during the referendum, its chief executive said he had yet to meet a member who supported leaving now.

“This is a fiercely competitive industry, yet this is a subject that is pretty unifying across the industry,” he told MPs.

We didn't want any industries here anyway.

**Kilkrazy**

If there's going to be a future European super-power, I would rather the UK be a leading part of it than a small irrelevant island on the left edge.

**reds8n**

...

Spoiler:

... err.. who the feth is that and why does no one there seemed perturbed by her ?

.. Nosferatu in the HoP ?

**kronk**

reds8n wrote:
...

Spoiler:

... err.. who the feth is that and why does no one there seemed perturbed by her ?

.. Nosferatu in the HoP ?

Wasn't she on Showtime's Penny Dreadful?

**Kilkrazy**

Plus some weirdo cosplaying a Venice costumed ball guest, and a fun-loving MP who's a big fan of John Travolta.

Now we see why the subsidised bars are a bad idea.

Still, to get back on topic, it's great that we are returning sovereignty firmly to the hands of our elected representatives.