FULL EU MEMBERSHIP - now?

[Blazingatrail]

Reflecting on the last 24 hours, we now need to consider that leaving with or without a deal is looking increasingly inevitable.

With this in mind, and with a general election looming immediately after brexit. Is it now time for the lib Dems to be campaigning for full EU membership? The referendum was to leave, but that does not mean the UK can not apply to rejoin as a full member of the EU in the future.

Surely it is better to now put some energy into the future, to deciding how to proceed after brexit.

Do we think that is the way forward now? If the Lib Dems win they can immediately vote to reapply to rejoin as a full member, possibly with the euro etc etc.

So leave the EU and vote in a useless party so we can rejoin, no doubt with even worse terms?

Brilliant plan.

The trouble with saying we ought to have remained and changed the EU from within is that it was very resistant to change. And in truth successive UK govts have had little incentive to really change it since it a) was a nice gravy train for retired failed UK politicians and b) the EU served as a convenient source of blame for things which the UK govt was responsible but didn't want to cop the blame for!

Leaving means no more hiding. The govt will have to stand or fall on its own actions. And both Labour and the Conservatives have been responsible for Brexit in their utter failure to listen to the legitimate concerns of the population and in being so determined to cling on to power at all costs that they forgot their job is to represent us.

A European army scares the shit out of me. No way would I want my kids serving in something unanswerable to any one nation.

Given that our armed forces are many thousands under strength now, thanks to Cameron and Osbourne, a European army is one of the few aspects of full membership I’d be happy with. If we were to be invaded now, we’re fucked.

I never understood why people were so opposed to a European army. Putting NATO aside, what is so inherently problematic with a European army?

Why does a trading bloc need an army?

Who would control and direct this army? Would all member states have to unanimously agree to action before any were taken? By the time they agreed to do anything we'd be well and truly fucked if we were invaded Alsohuman. What about all the differing ideals within the EU regarding defence, will those who pay the most into the EU have a bigger say, what about the Countries who are not contributors to the EU just beneficiaries? It's a ludicrous idea.

The USA has moaned about NATO members, some of which are in the EU, not funding NATO as they are required to do so what hope is there for a European Army, it would be an utter shambles.

Just like the shambles we’ve got now?

Bronwen Why does a trading bloc need an army?

I agree there are problems, but its because the EU increasingly operates in a supra-national sphere and has voted itself powers to enable that.

Most amusing thread on here for a while

I think it would be worse Alsohuman.

The group hug that is the UN has failed spectacularly several times in the recent past, why do we need yet another institution doomed to fail when the shit hits the fan?

I agree there are problems, but its because the EU increasingly operates in a supra-national sphere and has voted itself powers to enable that.

That I think is the crux of the problem for people who dislike, distrust and want a separation from the EU institution.

"Given that our armed forces are many thousands under strength now, thanks to Cameron and Osbourne, a European army is one of the few aspects of full membership I’d be happy with. If we were to be invaded now, we’re fucked."

I could not disagree more.

We are a P5, nuclear NATO member.
Euro Army is an irrelevancy compared to that

You can disagree all you like @mpsw. The army alone is 10,000 under strength, before you even look at the Air Force and navy. The most senior officers in all three are hugely concerned about their ability to get enough boots on the ground for anything except the smallest conflict.

This is not a party political forum.

I know.

And yes there are a number of concerns about numbers, kit supply and interoperability, and many of the other facets of operational readiness, with acuteness of the concerns changing over time, and rarely vanishing totally.

But we rely on NATO, not EU. Next to no operational planning is based on anything other than in concert with NATO. So we shall not be stuffed if invaded, because an attack on one is an attack on all (one of the core tenets of NATO).

NATO protection is vastly superior to anything planned by EU (and of course the overlap of membership is extensive).

I can say that I am huge fan of Europe, and have spent the best part of twenty five years living here on and off.

It is not true in my experience that we are being laughed at, no this is not my experience at all. People tend to fall into two categories when the subject arises, those that are genuinely interested in Brexit, and those that feel genuinely worried by Brexit ( the impact for Europe not for the UK may I add)

I am thinking about the next stage, and considering the chances of a return to the EU fold at some point. It appears that most are extremely pessimistic about our chances, and see little or no chance, and we are trying to get to the bottom of why that is, because surely with the will it could be done.

😂 the Lib Dem’s would never win an election (unless they fixed it)

NATO is very powerful and stretches around the world. An EU army could not compare, not in resources or operationally at any point in the future. I am not sure why we need an EU army, we have a sound defence and a deterrent already with NATO.

We trotted into war after the US twice.I’d rather move towards the EU when making military decisions particularly with Trump at the helm. Aside from NATO the US had its own strong force, what have we got? A dwindling military.An EU army was something I found quite reassuring as an idea.

Me too @Moo5elle55. And I know too much to share mpsw’s touching faith. If the military two and three stars are tearing their hair out, it’s not without good cause.

moo let’s be realistic for a minute. An EU army will cost trillions, and will take a decade or two to be fully operational. Most, if not all counties could continue payments to NATO AND an EU army. So it would in fact render Europe defenceless for the period of time of ten years! So how would that work?!
We would be sitting ducks for Putin in the interim, not to mention what it would do to relations with the US whom after all are the worlds largest military super power.
It’s a non starter if you look at the numbers, even with political will, but may still happen anyway who knows!

I had understood that the plan for the EU army was that each country would still have their own army but there would be an EU structure over that so if the armies went to war together they would have central command so better co-ordination. The armies do training exercises together already so I don't see as much of seem issue with that.

I have no issues with close EU ties.

To rejoin, Schengen won't get passed the leavers. So much has been made of border control. One of the problems is that a number of leavers did not understand that stopping free movement from the EU had nothing to do with getting rid of the type of immigrants they did not like.

The major issue is the Euro. It doesn't truly work as the economy in each country is so different. When you had an economically buoyant Germany set to the same currency as a sinking Greece for example there were always going to be issues.

That was my understanding too @Cornidhmaid1.

What would an EU command structure offer that NATO does not already do?

Would an EU military order an EU army to defend the German/Russian oil pipe line against the US? What side is the EU on?

The EU Army would have to do whatever the EU member states' governments agreed it should. And presumably there would be a mechanism for mustering force contributions (which one hopes would be more effective than UN, but realistically won't be standing readiness that would be deployed to NATO)

So if European governments decided to attack the US, then US can call on all fellow NATO members to defend it from attack.

So that scenario is a nonsense - EU cannot attack a NATO member state, as nearly every member is a member of both. The only EU states which are not NATO members are Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden. But they could not act for EU without full EU authorisation. And a NATO member government cannot, even through a different alliance, attack a NATO member

And it's the same reason US won't attack Germany.

And I doubt very much there is appetite for war with Russia. Why would US be attacking the pipeline?

(This thread has diverted a long way, sorry for continuing that diversion, but I'm wondering about that point)

Germany does not have an army to speak of (they used broomsticks instead of guns in the last NATO training session) most European countries do not have huge armies, nor invest heavily in their military intelligence. They largely depend entirely on NATO for an serious conflict, so putting together a co-ordinated EU army will be an enormous investment. The infrastructure simply is not there. France is the only serious country with real military clout after the UK.

Indeed the cost, the political capital required to even get the idea lifted from the drawing board is huge, given Germany's deep reservations, and those of Poland, Hungary, Italy etc.

An EU army should not be needed if you consider the EU to be a collection of nations working together and can defend themselves individually or through alliances, however you may feel differently if you see the EU as becoming a supranational state.

These decisions will be made in the coming months by the EU president, and although this thread is about the UK rejoining the EU, I guess it would be something for the UK to weigh up carefully given France's enthusiasm for the army and fiscal union (maybe the latter is a bigger problem for the UK no?)