Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[Barrington Womble]

Its ok Boris will be along

 

Fuck Toyota,we dont need Japanese cars,we will make British cars. British Cars for British people

You see you're taking the piss. There are people who actually believe this to be true. Some post on here, which is bad enough. More worryingly, some are in government.

Yeah but I live in Derby. It's not going to be very good sight, seeing lots of unemployed people. Brings down house values and all sorts of other negative consequences.

No, you don't realise, by then we'll be a tax haven and everybody will have a job cleaning the empty offices of companies who are here for nothing more than a tax break.

[njackets]

I know I shouldn't bite, but where are you going with this?

Maybe here...

 

Despite assurances, the UK Government has given way to a major defence power-grab by the EU

 

Two proposals from the European Commission and the EU’s External Action Service and a third, highly-controversial plan from the European Parliament set out the EU's long-term aspirations in defence. The UK Government approved the key parts of these plans during EU Council meetings in November and December.

 

The two main proposals are the Security and Defence Implementation Plan (SDIP) and the European Defence Action Plan (EDAP), which include: The first centralised EU defence budget supported by funding from the European Investment Bank (EIB), in which the UK is joint-largest shareholder. This will pay for the EU’s ‘defence capability’ projects and defence research. Members states will generate EU military units by triggering PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), a previously unused facility of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU declares itself a distinct military presence in its own right with “defence decision-making autonomy from NATO”. This is all the more incredible when you consider that the plans claim to tackle duplication, only to create it at the highest level. The creation of a defence single market, known as EDTIB. Defence procurement will be coordinated centrally by a greatly empowered European Defence Agency, with priorities being bartered between states. If the UK adheres to EDTIB post-Brexit, UK defence manufacturers production decisions would be subject to negotiation between member states. The UK will now submit ‘defence capability priorities’ towards a centralised EU priority plan and make proposals for UK intelligence services to feed into a central EU intelligence hub, the Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity (SIAC). An implementation group is being formed by the EU in the next few weeks, initial implementation will be in the Spring and the first progress report will be in June – the EU admits to moving with "unprecedented" speed.

 

It is clear that the UK should have vetoed the proposals. Unfortunately, no veto was used due to pressure from EU leaders and the still-prevalent assumption that a departing UK would not be involved.

 

Unfortunately, the UK has not merely given permission for the rest of the EU to proceed, it has agreed to become involved too; EU Council staff have confirmed that the UK has no exemptions and “full responsibilities”.  Two further years of defence integration will make extrication more difficult and lengthy following Brexit.

 

You used to get laughed at for the suggesting an EU Army was on the horizon.

[Jenson]

Maybe here...

 

Despite assurances, the UK Government has given way to a major defence power-grab by the EU

 

Two proposals from the European Commission and the EU’s External Action Service and a third, highly-controversial plan from the European Parliament set out the EU's long-term aspirations in defence. The UK Government approved the key parts of these plans during EU Council meetings in November and December.

 

The two main proposals are the Security and Defence Implementation Plan (SDIP) and the European Defence Action Plan (EDAP), which include: The first centralised EU defence budget supported by funding from the European Investment Bank (EIB), in which the UK is joint-largest shareholder. This will pay for the EU’s ‘defence capability’ projects and defence research. Members states will generate EU military units by triggering PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), a previously unused facility of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU declares itself a distinct military presence in its own right with “defence decision-making autonomy from NATO”. This is all the more incredible when you consider that the plans claim to tackle duplication, only to create it at the highest level. The creation of a defence single market, known as EDTIB. Defence procurement will be coordinated centrally by a greatly empowered European Defence Agency, with priorities being bartered between states. If the UK adheres to EDTIB post-Brexit, UK defence manufacturers production decisions would be subject to negotiation between member states. The UK will now submit ‘defence capability priorities’ towards a centralised EU priority plan and make proposals for UK intelligence services to feed into a central EU intelligence hub, the Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity (SIAC). An implementation group is being formed by the EU in the next few weeks, initial implementation will be in the Spring and the first progress report will be in June – the EU admits to moving with "unprecedented" speed.

 

It is clear that the UK should have vetoed the proposals. Unfortunately, no veto was used due to pressure from EU leaders and the still-prevalent assumption that a departing UK would not be involved.

 

Unfortunately, the UK has not merely given permission for the rest of the EU to proceed, it has agreed to become involved too; EU Council staff have confirmed that the UK has no exemptions and “full responsibilities”.  Two further years of defence integration will make extrication more difficult and lengthy following Brexit.

 

You used to get laughed at for the suggesting an EU Army was on the horizon.

 

Can someone tell me what exactly is the issue with this in principle?

[cloggypop]

I'm not even reading it without a source

[Anubis]

Judgement in the Brexit case will be handed down by the Supreme Court next Tuesday at 9.30am.

 

No march of the disgruntled, Nigel?

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/access-arrangements-for-24-january-article-50-brexit-judgment.html

 

 

Members of the public wishing to visit the building on the morning of Tuesday 24 January are advised that we are expecting a large number of visitors that morning, and those not specifically coming to observe the judgment in R (on the application of Miller & Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union are encouraged to choose other days to visit the building.

Those attending for purposes related to the UKSC and JCPC hearings later in the day are advised to postpone their arrival until 10.30am at the earliest.

The judgment hand down will last around five minutes and will take place in the largest courtroom, where a Justice will deliver a summary of the Court's decision. The Court has made arrangements for two 'overflow' courtrooms where a live video feed of the summary will be shown.

A queuing system will be put in place, with those arriving earliest being offered seats in the courtroom once public admission begins; once Court One is full, a further tranche of visitors will be allowed into the overflow rooms. The court building will open to the public at 9am and judgment will be given at 9.30am.

Please note that, in line with the Court's usual practice, items of clothing or other materials bearing messages that undermine the dignity of the court or which seek to interfere with the proper administration of justice will not be permitted into the building.

Please also be aware there are no cloakroom facilities at the Supreme Court and public are discouraged from bringing bulky items of luggage into the building. All visitors will be security scanned upon arrival and to speed this process up we ask that all visitors refrain from bringing sharp objects (such as nail scissors) with them to the court building.

Given the likely demand for places, we would stress that footage of the brief proceedings will also be streamed live via the Supreme Court website at https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html and the full judgment and a summary document will be made available on the Supreme Court website as soon as the judgment summary has been delivered.

In practice, given the limited capacity in Court One, we would encourage those keen to watch the judgment summary to do so remotely rather than travel to the Court and risk the disappointment of not getting a seat in court (the facility in the overflow courtrooms will simply be a relay of the web feed).

 

[cloggypop]

They will march across Twitter at 09:31

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Maybe here

What are your views on UK membership of NATO?

[njackets]

Can someone tell me what exactly is the issue with this in principle?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but how far would you be willing to go with an EU Army?

[Lee909]

Whats the issue with a EU army. Theres little chance of a European war. You can split the costs and you can avoid being railroaded in situations like Iraq

[njackets]

What are your views on UK membership of NATO?

I can see where you're going with this, I've been on NATO operations three times and never had to change my Beret and cap badge.

 

Why do we need an EU Army if we're a member of NATO?

[cloggypop]

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but how far would you be willing to go with an EU Army?

Switzerland

[Section_31]

I remember when I first joined here moaning about the Blair and Bush era. Seems like halcyon times. 

[njackets]

I shouldn't be surprised people in here think there's nothing wrong with getting rid of our own Military but I am!

[cloggypop]

You are what?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but how far would you be willing to go with an EU Army?

Stalingrad.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I can see where you're going with this, I've been on NATO operations three times and never had to change my Beret and cap badge.

 

Why do we need an EU Army if we're a member of NATO?

What difference does the hat make?

 

In NATO, the UK is very much a junior partner, serving the needs of US imperialism. There is no pretence of democratic oversight, just Washington using other nations' armies as tools of hard power. The new boss in Washington has contempt for the other members of NATO and wants to cost up to the autocrat who presents the biggest threat to Europe.

 

In any forces coordinated at EU level, the UK (if the 52% hadn't been so easily gulled) would have been, along with France and Germany, the dominant decision maker.

 

The point is that it's absurd to support NATO and then whinge about moves toward an EU Defence Union, when the latter is more democratic and more likely to serve the UK's interests.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I shouldn't be surprised people in here think there's nothing wrong with getting rid of our own Military but I am!

Who is proposing that?

[Plev]

The quicker they form an EU army and invade us, all the better as far as I'm concerned.

[moof]

I can see where you're going with this, I've been on NATO operations three times and never had to change my Beret and cap badge.

 

Why do we need an EU Army if we're a member of NATO?

Hahaha

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Andy McNab wannabe, a few years service and a low rank yet he's an expert on defence.

 

We're all traitors in his eyes.  

[Fugitive]

Exclusive picture of njackets during his Army days.

 

[Chairman Meow]

I have it on good authority he was in the ACC.

 

So technically he was actually doing more to help the enemy than anything else. 

[moof]

Exclusive picture of njackets during his Army days.

 

I hope that's a standard issue beret

[njackets]

Various government's over the years have already done enough damage to the Military without giving powers abroad to do even more.

 

Even if you don't give a fuck about the various Regiments, traditions and history of individual units within the Military (which I've no doubt people in her don't)

 

I think this is a good piece by Colonel Bob Stewart..

 

NATO is now 66 years old and over the years it has expanded to include 28 member states. In basic organisation NATO has always had two parts; Political and Military. The Military Organisation of NATO does the martial business and the Political side provides approval and authority. The United States pays between a fifth and a quarter of the costs of NATO. No other member comes near contributing as much as the Americans.

 

Yet there have sometimes been tensions within NATO because some members, particularly the French, have seemed to resent American influence in the Organisation. Such feelings led to France withdrawing from the Military Organisation from 1966 – 2009. Indeed NATO’s Headquarters was expelled from France to Belgium.

 

Still France remained a political member of the Alliance. Thereafter, using its political seat on the North Atlantic Council, French delegates often seemed to greatly complicate - to say the least - operations of the Military Organisation. It was incredibly frustrating for people like me who worked both on the staff in Headquarters NATO and later at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. I remember at one stage an American politician commenting somewhat sarcastically that perhaps France would like Americans to dig up their war dead from the cliffs of Normandy and take them home!

 

Meanwhile NATO watched the rise of demands for what is now called a European Union Army (EU Army). These feelings had their origins in the Western European Union (WEU) which had been established in the early 1950’s basically between the France, Germany, Italy and the BENELUX countries as an attempt to coordinate respective military establishments. The WEU had a small Headquarters in Brussels and as Chief of Policy at SHAPE from 1994 – 96 I spent a lot (too much) of my time writing papers on how NATO could work with it. To my mind the WEU wanted to leech off NATO; to use its resources without paying for the privilege and, as it seemed to me, to side-line the Americans. However by the late 1990’s the WEU as was had been dissolved or absorbed into what is now called the European Union Common Security and Defence arrangements. By 2002 in a comprehensive package of agreements it was agreed that the EU could draw on some of NATO’s assets for its own peacekeeping operations.

 

Personally I am very wary of the rise of an EU Army for many reasons. Let me rehearse some of them. Firstly, I want the UK to retain absolute control over all its armed forces and I utterly reject the notion that we should cede such powers to Brussels. Secondly, NATO works and has proved itself as a European Defence Treaty. That is self-evident. It has kept the peace in Europe almost since the Second World War. Thirdly, I cannot see any need for duplication. It is pandering to European aggrandisement and wishful thinking. Fourthly, NATO is perfectly adaptable and can deploy in a European configuration if necessary as it has done on several occasions. Fifthly, and quite candidly, I very much want to keep the United States, which has saved Britain twice in the 20th Century, involved militarily in Europe through NATO. Sixthly, many of our European Union partners are very ‘wobbly’ on paying for Defence. They don’t contribute their proper dues to NATO already and I certainly don’t think they would not do so properly for any EU Army. Finally, I believe any EU Army would be a ‘Trojan Horse’ in the drive to reach a European Union super state which I certainly do not want.

 

Thus I am increasingly worried to see Brussels-centric politicians and bureaucrats, using cover provided by Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty, continually pushing for substantial military integration within the institutional framework of the European Union. Implicitly this can only be at the expense of NATO.

 

The moves to do this are quite blatant. For instance on 8th March this year Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission told the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag that he would like to see the introduction of an EU army. He argued that it was needed to combat growing Russian aggression, claiming ‘a common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union.’ What did he think NATO, of which he made scant mention, has been doing for the last 66 years?

 

During June this year in one of its many papers the European Commission argued that the case for ‘more Europe’ in defence is strong and it condemned so-called ‘traditional ‘NATO-first reflexes’. The document went on to argue that European Union Defence integration was not just a political option but a ‘strategic and economic necessity’.

 

On 17 July 2015, the Commission stated that the legal basis for further defence integration already existed under the Treaty on European Union. It argued that ‘in this connection, the full potential of the Treaty should be used’. Such ideas seem to have support from key European Union leaders including Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. Neither are these thoughts unique to Germany. On 12 March this year the Spanish Foreign Minister announced that a European Army could be complementary to NATO.

 

Why does the European Union need an Army of its own? NATO works well for Europe with the added huge advantage of transatlantic support. If there is a need for Europe to act separately there are already proven operations where NATO has willingly helped out such as in Bosnia from 2004. Today the European Union also runs counter piracy operations off the coast of Somalia. I have no problem with such operations so far as they go.

 

But it is clear that the European Union has its sights on NATO. Slowly but surely it is niggling away at an alliance which has stood us in great stead for 66 years. For me it is another attempt by Brussels to restrict our national sovereignty.

 

More recently, on 24 November 2015, the European Parliament resolved to endorse a report calling for the ending of the British seat on the UN Security Council. The United Kingdom and France’s positions as Permanent Members of the Security Council would both be abolished and replaced by one for the European Union.

 

I believe the primary purpose of the drive for a European Army is far more political than military. After all statehood is symbolised by possession of armed forces. In its push for greater political, social and economic union towards its aim of a United States of Europe, Brussels sees an army as being an essential accessory.

 

Beware NATO; the European Union is out on manoeuvres with its nascent so-called demands for an EU Army. I for one will utterly resist such siren calls.

 

 

 

I just wonder how close the referendum would of been if it was made clear we was heading towards getting rid of nation states.

 

There's no doubt whatsoever this is the first big step towards that goal, if Cameron would of stepped up and said "we're heading towards an EU Army" as one of his selling points.

 

How popular do you think this would of been?

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Retired Army Officer who is now a Tory MP. He left the Army 21 years ago.