Interesting stuff on remainvoter.com

[Bougie]

My DD told me about this site, (Remainvoter.com) it's non party political and is run and funded by volunteers. Anyone else seen it? Most interesting thing is a blog post about changing politics rather than blaming politicians who are caught up in the present system. I agree since I am just fed up to the back teeth with the whole thing and hardly know who to vote for to get any common sense or decent behaviour anymore.

@LouiseCollins28

PESCO is not an EU army.

Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty sets out the process: it’s set up by willing Member States only. Any unwilling Member States can simply choose not to take part.

That’s very different from an EU army which can only be created by a unanimous decision of the European Council.

I didn't say it was, I said PESCO was continuing to advance.

Greater permanent co-operation between EU member states on defence being a clearly necessary precursor to any proposal for an EU armed force.

Agree that Article 46, at least to begin with, represents a "coalition of the willing" to coin a phrase.

this is troubling (for me) from Article 42

Article 42[edit]

(ex Article 17 TEU)

42/1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union/Title_V:_General_Provisions_on_the_Union%27s_External_Action_Service_and_Specific_Provisions_on_the_Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy#Article_46

{I didn't say it was, I said PESCO was continuing to advance. }

So it will be broadly similar to existing arrangements but a bit more organised. Sounds OK to me.

Fair enough, that's your view, it isn't mine.

Britain properly belongs in 1 supranational military alliance, NATO End of argument for me.

LouiseCollins28
Guess what, you have no say in it whatsoever, that's democracy for you.

I never understand why people are perfectly happy with a supranational military alliance, which we have no democratic input into whatever, but get upset at the idea of an EU army where we would be one of the decision makers and probably a major one at that.

Unless I am mistaken and missed the elections for NATO reps.

@LouiseCollins28

And membership of PESCO is entirely voluntary - member states can opt in and opt out at any time. And defence co-operation makes sense in terms of procurement and foreign policy co-operation.

Agree that Article 46, at least to begin with, represents a "coalition of the willing" to coin a phrase.

Article 46 is quite clear all the way through:

1. Those Member States which wish to participate in the permanent structured cooperation ...

3. Any Member State which, at a later stage, wishes to participate in the permanent structured cooperation ...

5. Any participating Member State which wishes to withdraw from permanent structured cooperation shall notify its intention to the Council, which shall take note that the Member State in question has ceased to participate.

The EU army is Article 42 (2) and it is also unambiguous:

This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

And the UK’s “constitutional requirement” would be a referendum (as would Ireland’s).

And the UK’s “constitutional requirement” would be a referendum (as would Ireland’s).

Ireland's might be. Would the UK's? So far all the Referendums have been one offs, with the rules rewritten each time. I would imagine the Constitutional Requirement of the UK was that Parliament ratified the agreement.

Peregrina yes to both - the EU Act 2011 would have required an Act of Parliament and a referendum (although it’s a moot point for the UK now as the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 repealed the EU Act 2011) and Ireland because it would require the Constitution to be amended, which can only be done by referendum.

Defence cooperation does make sense, that’s why we are in the alliance we need to be in NATO

Art 42.1 appears to me to allow the EU to make use of member state’s “civillian and military” assets for their own purposes

42,1 “The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.”

LouiseCollins28
You and too many others seem to forget that we ARE the EU, it is not 'US against 'Them'.
Having argumentative twats like Farage as an MEP doesn't help of course.
Having UK MEPs that do a lousy job is a significant part of the problem.
There are of course some excellent MEPs who put the UK's interests forward but the tabloids like to report discord as it sells more papers.

We have voted to leave.

Having U.K. armed forces being given to the EU to “use” as a “capability” provided by “a member state” is not a scenario I would accept IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Sorry for shouting but there isn’t another way to readily express how strongly I would oppose this position.

And what will you do about it, if YOU DON'T ACCEPT IT?

{Having U.K. armed forces being given to the EU to “use” as a “capability” provided by “a member state” is not a scenario I would accept }

Which part can't you understand? The UK is a member of the EU, 'We' are 'them' and 'They' are us.

Where I live the village was 'rescued' from the Germans by a Scottish regiment. In neighbouring areas there were soldiers from all across the world all fighting in the common cause. Do you think it would have been acceptable for one group to simply say I don't want to fight for freedom of out friends and allies?
The cemetery up the road has 705 who fell in WW2 from all parts of the UK, Australia and Canada. They didn't just say they don't want to fight.

The U.K. has voted to leave, so hopefully the point is moot Perigrina.

That being said, not even sure what your last post means? Do I have to be able to “do something” to prevent anything I might strongly oppose, according to you?

If you are shouting about not accepting something, it implies that you want or need to do something about it!

I was sick and tired of the nonsense I was getting from my MP, and wasn't willing to accept it. So I went out and got active in a political party with a view to doing my level best to get her voted out. Others must have thought the same, because we succeeded.

On what basis are you claiming I “don’t understand?”
Again, the U.K. has voted to leave so hopefully the point is moot anyhow.

My position is pretty simple to be fair.
I see no reason whatever for an organisation comitted to peaceful cooperation in Europe to require armed forces.

I don’t think is it acceptable for the EU to be making use of member state’s armed forces for its own purposes.

I do think it is acceptable for U.K. personnel to be comitted to a war in defence of Britain, her dependencies or in defence of another NATO member under “collective defence”

I don’t think it is acceptable for them to be ordered to fight for any other purpose.

In what way was the Iraq War defending Britain? Or threatening other NATO members? Threatening US oil interests yes.

You may be suprised to learn I was against Britain fighting in the Iraq war.

Lots of blah blah about Leaver feelings and still no practical suggestions as to how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland to protect GFA. That is the only reason we haven't left yet and Leavers are still trying to divert discussion from it because it's too hard to solve.

I went out and got active in a political party with a view to doing my level best to get her voted out. Others must have thought the same, because we succeeded
Some might say, that their inability to win HOC seats, after over 40 years of bellyeaching about the EU, says something about their actual popularity.

'bellyaching'

Bellyaching, however our phones what us to spell it , is the right word @woman19 .

I don’t think is it acceptable for the EU to be making use of member state’s armed forces for its own purposes.

And the UK had always said it would not be a part of EU defence co-operation, either by not joining PESCO or by using its veto if a common defence force was being considered.