Juncker proposes EU military headquarters

[topsy777]

Juncker proposes EU military headquarters

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196

Smallfox - just wondering your "I knew what I was doing" have foreseen this?

The funny thing about ever closer union is that sovereignty is always brought up, yet its funny that our sovereign parliament is not being allowed to vote on brexit and that we have a government that has no electoral mandate implementing it.

Undemocratic and not sovereign, but its suits the brexiteers purpose, win once and then they don't have to ask again, its why referendums are banned in Germany, they aren't actually good democracy.

smallfox

The point is that all these integrations are not lego brick integrations - they are super glued blocks. The process is asymmetric - every 'yes' ( repeated, sneaky or by other means) moves the integration forward. EU has no qualm by doing 'whatever it takes' to achieve that.

When people changed their mind as in Brexit, the reversal becomes very complex. Better now than later.

And exemption from what? Some day some pro EU politicians eyeing for a good EU job after leaving post is going to sign over more competencies to the EU. That jet setting ambassador of the world exPM will not the last one. Further, half in half out ,1 against 27 is the worst position one can ever be in.

I don't have an issue if the the parliament wants to vote on A50. About 2/3 of the constituencies (actually local authority area, but more or less) had brexit majority, they vote against the will of the majority of the people at their own perils.

No they don't vote against the "will of the people" this narrative is bankrupt, 49 vs 52 does not give a "will of the people" and the constant use of it is disingenuous. Especially as the will of the leave vote is so fragmented, some voted to get rid of Cameron, some voted to stop immigration, some voted because they want to go back to pounds and ounces, some voted because they thought that £350 million was going to be spent on the NHS. Only one of these things has happened so far, and the liklihood of the rest of them is low.

Ignoring the will of the brexit camp could be done quite easily, because elected representatives could legitimately claim that the leave vote deliberately misled the electorate, and have back tracked since.

We were very rarely in a one against 27 vote, in fact, the % of times we voted against the EU increased quite a lot under the Cameron administration, many of the things that we voted against were reforms to the finance sector and bankers bonuses. If you look at the outcomes, the UK gets policy from the EU that is in line with pre stated national policies on about 95% percent of occasions.

You have some weird idea that the EU is some dark and scary SPECTRE type organisation, you don't seem to get that national governments agree for the EU to have the right to regulate in the areas that it does.

We have exemption from ever closer union, protected by international law

Smallfox

"will of the people" - those are your word. I said "will of the majority of the people". In a Democracy, you have to take the vote at face value - all political leaders accepted the vote at face value. Some voted for the Tory because they don't like Labour, or they just put a cross randomly. Some too voted "in" because of fear, or being told by friends, or just randomly. It is impossible to probe the minds of the voters.

"national governments agree for the EU to have the right to regulate"

Well, that is what the small baby steps treaty and disguised treaty changes are about. However, you cannot deny that EU today involves in so much more areas than EEC. You somehow think this will stop (or perhaps you want it go expand further), I don't think it will.

Joint up foreign policy looks like is likely to be the next step. ( I just conveniently call this EU foreign office).

"Protected by international law" - well, it is a addendum to the treaty and it can be changed. UK rebate was also 'protected' under the treaty and hence international law and then a exPM signed it over too. Again, once it moves forward it is superglued to the new state. This is not a lego construction block.

This is pointless, you're such a conspiracy theorist, just because you "think" something doesn't make it so.

Of course the EU has changed since the 70s, but it was all agreed by elected governments.

You realise what is going to happen in all this?

It will turn out that the best agreement we could have with the EU was the one we had prior to June 23rd.

smallfox2002

Sorry... but in business, politics or life we have to make plans based on what we believe is likely to happen after considering the track records and evidence. That is not conspiracy.

" best (trade?) agreement we could have with the EU "

I actually agree. Fortunately (for me), EU ex UK is only 15% of the world economy (and shrinking) and life is more than just trade.

Peregrina the actual military plans as opposed to all the hot air and speculation, compliments NATO in the sense that it will be able to coordinate a more rapid response within the EU whilst NATO and / or the UN determine the longer term response in consultation with the wider world. It also provides a complimentary coordinating resource. The other NATO members including the US (as in the existing establishment, assuming the loony Trump faction do not prevail) would welcome an EU that is more committed militarily, they see the EU as a weak link in terms of the ability to rise to potential threats.

There are already soldiers deployed from EU counties cooperating on EU missions eg Bosnia since 2004

Yeah, it's called NATO you silly person.

other NATO members including the US (as in the existing establishment, assuming the loony Trump faction do not prevail) would welcome an EU that is more committed militarily

Do you have anything to back that up or is it pure supposition on your part? Do you have close links to the higher echelons on the US military?

Do I have close links to the higher echelons of the US military? No. Do I have close links to the high echelons of NATO? Yes. I will admit I knew little about this until I wanted to get to the truth behind the recent Telegraph article. So I have read around and had a long conversation on the subject.

The US has long been a vocal critic of European defence cuts. It is even one of the factors underlying Trumps stance on NATO. This is the article that most puts the positives for an EU army just to balance all the alarmist spin www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-european-army-is-exactly-what-the-eu-and-uk-needs-a7050571.html

You see, the problem is that this will be part of the EU super structure and comes with all the 4 freedoms etc and it will grow.

If they want to do a European Defence Treaty Organisation - they could have one for that purpose. There is no need to superglue that into the super structure.

NATO does not start to print money, regulating fisheries, agriculture, the internet (the EU latest pass time) etc and EU should not try to continue to expand the list of 'competencies' and 'share competencies' unless that is its end game after all.

topsy I assume you chose your username because of your love of spinning. More conspiracy theory. All that is actually happening is some sensible cost effective coordinating and procurement activities, so sensible the UK did not veto them. Even if there are good arguments for an actual army, as opposed to it being all part of a conspiracy to create a superstate, any proposals will fall at the hurdle of the 27 countries all having a different idea of what it will be and what it will do. Hungary want it for border controls but Germany would never agree to that. The U.K. were always going to veto any moves in that direction had we remained anyway.

Any move to create a European superstate will fall at the same hurdle.

However if you wish to spin stories about the big bad wolf of Europe and little Brittannia skipping through the woods funded by all those nice Chinese schoolchildren and crooked millionaires then spin away, and throw in a few unicorns too, they are just fairy stories.

The internet grew out of an American Defence project called ARPANET, with the WWW being developed at CERN.

Neither of these are part of the EU.

wwrondo

OK.. simple question - why does the list of exclusive competencies and shared competencies keep expanding? It was meant to be a trade block, the currency union is more or less done, fiscal union is well under way.

Of course the members need to agree (sometimes on majority, sometimes unanimous) but these agreement are one way. If say EU28 agree to this HQ, Hungary cannot come around the next day saying we will withdraw from this initiative. Again unanimity is needed to shut down the project.

Which part of the above is conspiracy ?

Do you deny that?

Peregrina

You misunderstood.

It is called the EU Single Digital Market initiative.

Perhaps that's because you didn't explain very well topsy.

All of it. The common currency may be almost done but not in the way you mean, which is why we were not in it!

"All of it", "conspiracy", "spinning"

Details - none and even deny that the areas of competencies today is far far longer than it was in 1973.

I would try very hard not to resort to that even if I am losing an argument.

Peregrina
Perhaps I could explain better.

Of course it is more than just a common market. It is a political and economic alliance that comes together in areas where there is common advantage and where the sum of the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. The common currency wasn't one of them so we did not take part. One of those areas was the influence we have in the world, as a group of countries that have common political values we have intervened for good in world affairs as the Independent highlights. I am very proud of the role I have seen EU peacekeepers and agencies are playing in other parts of the world where there has been conflict. Perhaps an EU army was a good idea if it meant we could mobilise to that role more quickly and effectively but it wasn't going to happen anyway as discussed. I am sure that under NATO, assuming it survives whatever regime is in power in the US we will be still playing pretty much that role anyway (and may well end up part of the EU military plan since our military capability is probably just about the only area where it needs us more than we need it )

And I am certainly Not proud of the role a little England is going to play in the world according to Pritti Patel and her "conservative" values, which are definitely not the liberal values I was proud we shared with our European neighbours

It is not unique either you know. ASEAN very explicitly wants to follow the EU model for their political and economic alliance. It really is seen by the rest of the world as a good thing, and that is why they all told the UK it was a good thing

whatwouldrondo

I am not advocating we should behave like the little England (or the ex Great British Empire) but neither do we have to get glue into a all or nothing structure. We want military cooperation, academic cooperation but not total free movement and perhaps out of the certain 'common' but of course there is no such thing as à la carte with the EU. It is mostly all or nothing.

ASEAN is focusing on trade and has been sold since 1967. They have various political cooperations but strictly stay out of member states internal affairs (competences). The list of competences are more or less the same since 1967. ASEAN has a budget of $17m (src : FT) not enough perhaps to fund an hour of EU operation (EU budget = Eur 142bn and was 100million just a few years ago).

ASEAN 'follow EU'? There are certainly good bits of the EU such as the single market but I don't think ASEAN (or anyone) would want to copy all of the EU. Freedom of movement into Singapore?

NAFTA again is on trade and again operate with small or no budget.

MERCOSUR doesn't even have a budget.

The NZ-Aus CER is the closest to the EU but then it is an organisation with a member of 2 which are at the same stage of development. Even that it only covers about the same area of competences as when it was founded in 1983.

Topsy.. in which year just a few years ago was the EU budget 100m, also the EU budget is very small in comparison to national spending.

Topsy I was at a meeting with the brother of the Malaysian Prime Minster who expressed exactly that aim of greater integration. The lesson they take from Brexit is the need to ensure people understand the benefits. Intrinsic to what he was saying was the belief that the current level of EU integration was beneficial and that the problem was that those benefits were not sold to the British people enough. I agree. Over many years the EU has been made into a bogeyman and scapegoat by the press and politicians which has encouraged people like you to weave conspiracies about lost sovreignty and super states that just are not based in the reality of European politics. I repeat the rest of the world thinks it is a good thing.

smallfox2002

Apologise for the typo. It was e100 bn

whatwouldrondo
I suppose you meant the CIMB chairperson?

He is of course right that EU has many benefits and I agree with that. However, I cannot take his words seriously I am afraid. Indonesia has 250 million people, Malaysia 30m (richer), Singapore 4.5m (far richer).

I wonder what his brother would think if they brought in the EU standard of AMR

Sorrr.. AML (not AMR)