Brexit -have you changed your mind??

[Leapfrog44]

I know Brexit has been done to death and I'm not asking for anyone's justification for wanting out or in.

I'm just really curious to know if any of the folks who voted leave have changed their minds (as is sometimes reported by the Guardian).

They ought to be jubilant - they have got their Brexit. Why aren't they happy?

Your govt gave away your fishing rights, not the EU.
Facts...annoying aren't they?

That's not the case. At midday on 20 June 1970, the applications to join the EEC came in from Norway, Denmark, Ireland and the UK. At 9am that day, the existing six members of the EEC agreed and signed the Common Fisheries Policy. They had realised that the four applicant countries happened to control the richest fishing grounds in the world. So it seemed a great idea to draw up a regulation to give equal access to all members to all fishing waters within the Common Market. Because it was signed before the accession states applied, the four applicants had to accept it.

But if ever the rest of the EU did decide they needed an army to protect themselves from threats from the East, I suspect we would ask to join.

Why? It's much more flexible if we collaborate on an "as and when" basis, on our own terms and keeping control of our own resources, funds, and decisions. That goes for other aspects of the EU too, such as trade, environmental issues, etc. It's a fallacy that you need any kind of political union, let alone a nationalistic superstate, to be able to work together. Alliances should exist on specific issues, only when needed or wanted. MEPs are grouped to represent parties within the EU rather than their own country, and likewise an EU army would not have the primary purpose of defending the UK.

They ought to be jubilant - they have got their Brexit.

Where? I haven't seen it yet. I've seen a remainer PM failing to implement it.

Jasjas EU defence force is needed because Trump can no longer be relied upon to help Europe, he has changed the US view on NATO for years to come, whoever is in power.

No, Trump said out loud and without finesse what previous administrations have been saying for decades. Obama said similar at the Wales summit; Robert Gates who was Sec State for Defense for both Bush and Obama said the following:

In a June 10, 2011 speech in Brussels, before NATO, Gates again stated that other NATO members must do more as the United States tackles its budget deficit. He said bluntly that

' In the past, I've worried openly about NATO turning into a two-tiered alliance: Between members who specialize in "soft" humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks, and those conducting the "hard" combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership—be they security guarantees or headquarters billets—but don't want to share the risks and the costs. This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. And it is unacceptable. The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets. Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders—those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me—may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost.'

What Trump said was nothing new, and only what has been being said quietly for a decade at least. The Europeans who have not met their NATO commitments are the ones to blame; not the US, who have shouldered the cost of European defence for decades now.

I would still vote remain. though with the downturn in Europe and the end of the rebates perhaps we are best out first

@Sadsiblingatsea

I think EDL, BNP, NF, UKIP, Britain First and all the other racist groups have no problem 'putting their heads over the parapet'. Leave voters have a reputation for racism for a reason, and I'm not for a second calling all Leave voters racist, I know some aren't. I would suggest you go have a look at Leave EU facebook pages and see the racism for yourself. Even after the Grenfell fire loads of posts saying how these people shouldn't be here in the first place, and getting hundreds and hundreds of likes. Brexit has really opened my eyes to how much racism there is, Britain First, for example, had two million followers on Facebook before they were banned, they were huge supporters of Brexit. Aligning myself with these people would be extremely unsettling for me.

It is bullshit to call leavers racist. It is insulting to millions of people who voted to leave for their own legitimate reasons. A minority may have voted for racist reasons but the rest, millions of voters voted because of their genuine concerns regarding the EU. You don't have to agree with people's reasons for wanting to leave but don't try and discredit all those people by labelling them racist. That is disgusting.

Exactly @scaryteacher. I'm just amazed that for the last 2 years, the prospect of an EU army was dismissed by remainers as Leave lies/scaremongering, yet now that Merkel herself has come out and confirmed that in fact it IS desirable, some remainers say "well in fairness we need it to protect against Trump". FFS Trump will be out in a few years at most, and the US is not an aggressor to Europe. If the EU truly wants stability it should be ensuring its members cough up their NATO contributions.

Remain, then and now.

But the interllectual capacity to understand facts and reasoning does seem to be lacking in some Leave voters hence Girls being unable to grasp what was written,

Delores.
Think.
Is it true.
Is it helpful.
Is it inspiring
Is it necessary
Is it kind.

Shirley Given that many of the European nations that are NATO allies won't cough up (Germany is the main culprit here), then I am unsure how the money will be forthcoming for an EU Army.

You then have the problems of where to base it (whose nose will be in the pork barrel for building barracks, logistics contracts, uniform suppliers etc) and how do you structure it? The EUMS (EU military staff) is presently modelled on NATO, although they like to give themselves different titles. In which language will it operate? French, German, Hungarian, Dutch? There needs to be a common language.

The unanswered question of course is what are they really doing? If the 'European Army' is just national forces cooperating as per NATO, then fine, it won't amount to much. If the Commission is proposing to actually stand up its own dedicated set of forces, then we are in a whole new ball park. Why would the EU need its own Army? Are they then planning to expand into Special forces, cyber defence, have a Navy and an Air Force, and their own nuclear deterrent? Why would the Commission want/need that? You only have to look at how it acted in respect of Catalonia to see where this is heading, or Greece, or perhaps Italy if it continues to defy the Commission on its budget.

Macron mentioned Empire last week; Barroso did so in 2007;:
Mr Barroso said "We are a very special construction unique in the history of mankind,"

"Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empire. We have the dimension of empire," he said.

As MN says, when someone tells you who they are, listen to them. The collective deafness of some on MN with regards to the EU and the direction of travel is astounding. It is not a benign organisation, and either are the nomenclature that run it.

Absolutely, Scary. It is unworkable, expensive, and totally unnecessary. Ultimately I suspect that a minority of member states would bear the cost burden, and an even smaller minority would control the direction of travel. No thanks.

The fact that not one leave campaigner stuck around long enough to negotiate the terms of brexit, leaving it to a staunch remainder, tells me everything I need to know about how they feel about the reality of brexit.

I wouldn't change my vote.

The Leave MPs should have got one of their own elected as PM then if they don't like what May has tried to negotiate. They have absolutely no excuse there. The favourite bottled it in favour of playing cricket, and Leasdom went and put her foot in it, with clumsy ill-judged personal remarks about May, although I suspect the men in suits had a quiet word with her.

EU army - it can only happen when the European Council (consisting of Member States’ presidents and prime ministers) ‘acting unanimously, so decides’. That decision then needs to be ratified by Member States ‘in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.' For the UK, that would have required a referendum, as set out in section 6(2) of the European Union Act 2011.

Of course, now that the UK (which always opposed an EU army and always stated it would veto) will no longer have a place on the European Council, it is now possibly a viable idea.

Buteo eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-Homepage/34226/permanent-structured-cooperation-pesco-factsheet_en PESCO may well supersede what you have written. Interesting that they have lifted the NATO Defence Planning Process for their document.

No, still leave

scary

The decision to participate was made voluntarily by each participating Member State, and decision-making will remain in the hands of the participating Member States in the Council.

TEU has a reference to using ‘multinational forces’ (Article 42(3)), but it’s clear that it’s optional both to set up such forces and to contribute them to support the EU defence policy.

The UK always stated that it would veto an EU army. TEU still requires the EU Council to be unanimous - it would need a treaty change to be otherwise.

Where? I haven't seen it yet. I've seen a remainer PM failing to implement it.

@itinerary, what kind of Brexit are you after?