Getting brexit done!

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I don’t want to dig too deep into this as Brexit feels like a wound that needs to heal rather than be torn open again, but I’d like to give an answer to this, if just to provide my perspective.

 

I voted leave and still would again today. Most friends and people I know voted remain (including my parents, interestingly) and I’ve been addressed angrily many times for my choice, but I stand by it. The European army situation feeds is representative of a big reason for my choice, and that is to do with how I feel about Britain. There was a topic on identity going around a little while back, and I said in that that I feel I identify strongly with being British. In foreign policy terms, I tend to feel Britain has it right. I feel America is too bombastic. I feel the EU is too preachy. And the less said about the likes of Russia, the better. But I see Britain’s approach as being diplomatic, helpful and respectful, but also tough when needed to be. I see us often as the adults in the room (granted more difficult with Boris as PM). I believe it makes us a good manager of nuclear weapons. And I believe all that’s worth arguing for, and a good, strong influence for the world that would get ever more diluted inside the EU.

 

I’m sure many here would disagree, and a more European or even internationalist identity would make a remain vote a no-brainer for you. Honestly, I’ve never argued against that. And I have no desire to delve into a long argument about whether we should have Brexited or not. But essentially, no; I haven’t changed my mind on it.

 

Thanks, but it doesn't really answer my question.

 

Most of what you wrote seemed to be reasons for leaving the EU (or maybe I'm not getting it) but not specifically why not a coordinated Army. I'd like to hear more from those that object because I'm struggling to see a downside to having one.

[Dunge]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Thanks, but it doesn't really answer my question.

 

Most of what you wrote seemed to be reasons for leaving the EU (or maybe I'm not getting it) but not specifically why not a coordinated Army. I'd like to hear more from those that object because I'm struggling to see a downside to having one.

Well, I see the EU army as part of that. I have nothing specific against an EU army in a sense of being afraid of it or anything like that. But I’m happier with the UK not being slowly assimilated into it (as I feel would be inevitable over time remaining within the EU) as I believe the approach we have is better and of value to the world, and therefore better being independent.

[Dunge]

I suppose if you’re asking whether I object to a European army on principle, I don’t and never have.

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I suppose if you’re asking whether I object to a European army on principle, I don’t and never have.

 

I'm just genuinely interested because I've never seen anyone articulate why. Tbh, I assumed it would have been on grounds of mis-placed Nationalism or feelings of British exeptionalism. From an operational point of view it would seems to make perfect sense to have one.

[Dunge]

Aside from being an interested lurker on the Foxestalk politics threads for years, I haven’t had a lot of interaction with other leavers. I don’t recall ever seeing an argument against an EU army per se, but maybe others have one.

Personally, I see it as something that’s up to the EU, and we’ll work with it and being a key ally either way.

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I'm just genuinely interested because I've never seen anyone articulate why. Tbh, I assumed it would have been on grounds of mis-placed Nationalism or feelings of British exeptionalism. From an operational point of view it would seems to make perfect sense to have one.

Think the only general ground for being against an EU army is who would control it. If it worked anything like the european budget where every country had a veto then I'd imagine it would be largely ineffective, but on the other hand if a select group had control of it then you'd be asking countries to put their (or at least part of their) military power into someone elses hands. I think whilst it sounds a good idea in theory, the eu isn't close to that sort of unity yet and it would be better left to NATO, which has generally provided acceptable defense. As an additive I'd say even with Trump at the helm of NATO's most powerful member, better to keep them in the fold than to try and go our separate ways.

[Dunge]

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Think the only general ground for being against an EU army is who would control it. If it worked anything like the european budget where every country had a veto then I'd imagine it would be largely ineffective, but on the other hand if a select group had control of it then you'd be asking countries to put their (or at least part of their) military power into someone elses hands. I think whilst it sounds a good idea in theory, the eu isn't close to that sort of unity yet and it would be better left to NATO, which has generally provided acceptable defense. As an additive I'd say even with Trump at the helm of NATO's most powerful member, better to keep them in the fold than to try and go our separate ways.

I suppose I assume it would be in NATO, but it’s a good point regarding whether an EU military would want independence from it - which I would say is a bad thing, although somewhat understandable if they felt they couldn’t rely on America anymore.

[Dahnsouff]

EU army would be a hard sell, and a perilous one I think. It feels inevitable it would get into a fractious situation with Russia if an East European member got into a situation where it felt its sovereignty was being compromised by Russia.

Edited 9 December 2020 by Dahnsouff

[Paninistickers]

The whole concept of an army is all a bit of an anachronism anyway.

 

I suspect any eventual EU 'army'is not a fighting for the flag type machine.... but more along the lines of shared intelligence, bulk buying of hardware, joint manoeuvres, streamlining any duplication of services. So we'll eventually  end up chasing around asking to be part of it in some.form, in the endless quest to save on defence spending 

 

The EU isn't gonna send a taskforce down to retake the Falklands, that's for sure! 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

EU army would be a hard sell, and a perilous one I think. It feels inevitable it would get into a fractious situation with Russia if an East European member got into a situation where it felt its sovereignty was being compromised by Russia.

 

That would make no difference because we already obligated by treaty to come to the defence of a member state.

 

In fact, one could say we already have an EU Army, just not one that is streamlined and efficient.

[Dahnsouff]

27 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That would make no difference because we already obligated by treaty to come to the defence of a member state.

 

In fact, one could say we already have an EU Army, just not one that is streamlined and efficient.

Suppose it depends what it would be, if it’s just going to operate globally as a unified armed force (rather than policing local issues) then yes, the Russia thing is misplaced.

[st albans fox]

Does there actually need to be a no deal for both sides to realise that they need to compromise to get a deal done ?? 

[Manwell Pablo]

  

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

That would make no difference because we already obligated by treaty to come to the defence of a member state.

 

In fact, one could say we already have an EU Army, just not one that is streamlined and efficient.

 

 

I was a committed remain voter  and still rue the day we decided to leave but have accepted the result and moved on, but one thing I have no love for at all is getting involved in an EU army.

 

We've invested far more in our armed forces than we should of done for decades, which I don't agree with. However as a result, and I imagine most will have a hard time believing this,  there is a resounding consensus among international military analysts that in a conventional non nuclear war we would be able to defeat both Russia or China (or not and) with no outside help from the States or any other EU country whatsoever.

 

We have nothing to gain from being part of an EU army.

Edited 9 December 2020 by Manwell Pablo

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Does there actually need to be a no deal for both sides to realise that they need to compromise to get a deal done ?? 

Looks like we'll be finding out the answer to this!

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

  

 

 

I was a committed remain voter  and still rue the day we decided to leave but have accepted the result and moved on, but one thing I have no love for at all is getting involved in an EU army.

 

We've invested far more in our armed forces than we should of done for decades, which I don't agree with. However as a result, and I imagine most will have a hard time believing this,  there is a resounding consensus among international military analysts that in a conventional non nuclear war we would be able to defeat both Russia or China (or not and) with no outside help from the States or any other EU country whatsoever.

 

We have nothing to gain from being part of an EU army.

I actually don't believe the bolded, but not for the most obvious reason.

 

I have little reason to doubt the analysts opinion that the UK could take on either China or Russia conventionally and, given good selection of time and place, win. However, in such a situation I would also posit that either nation involved would consider the penalty for losing such a conflict unacceptable, and as any potential party are armed with nuclear weapons, escalation to that stage by the party that looked like it was going to lose conventionally would be not only a possibility, but an extreme probability.

 

As such, I think the UK's ability to defeat either China or Russia conventionally is certainly possible, but also irrelevant.

[Sly]

If it ever came to a nuclear war, we’d struggle in all honesty.

 

The concept of an EU army is an interesting debate. We still hold historical strategic locations such as Cyrus and Gibraltar. What happens to these post Brexit? Will we face pressure from the EU? 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Sly said:

If it ever came to a nuclear war, we’d struggle in all honesty.

 

The concept of an EU army is an interesting debate. We still hold historical strategic locations such as Cyrus and Gibraltar. What happens to these post Brexit? Will we face pressure from the EU? 

If it came to a nuclear war, everyone would struggle, because I can't see the being any such thing as a "limited" exchange between parties in such a matter (except maybe for India and Pakistan, and that would still be devastating for the world for a variety of reasons).

 

That's why I tend to think that the conventional forces of most of the big players tend to not be all that relevant when compared to each other as opposed to compared to states that don't have a nuclear option.

[Mike Oxlong]

The only oven ready thing in this whole fiasco so far has been the Turbot served up at last nights dinner 

[StanSP]

 

 

[surrifox]

10 hours ago, Fktf said:

Looks like we'll be finding out the answer to this!

Indeed . It could work either way However I doubt that the EU would want to demonstrate that leaving not bringing ruin and disaster might flag up that the whole set up was a pointless waste of time in the first place 

[Spudulike]

5 minutes ago, surrifox said:

Indeed . It could work either way However I doubt that the EU would want to demonstrate that leaving not bringing ruin and disaster might flag up that the whole set up was a pointless waste of time in the first place 

I don't think the UK leaving will have much affect on the opinion in those countries that are net receivers (ie most of them). They won't want to leave (apart from Poland and Hungary). 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

 

Were they not suspended in March also for food transport?

Edited 10 December 2020 by Strokes

[RoboFox]

Fvcking amazing that at this point they’ve hedged themselves into having to sell the benefits of the single market they’re tearing us out of.

 

This is some serious spin even for Gove. For years we needed a clean break from the EU. Now it's the "best of both worlds." How does he maintain a straight face when he babbles this fvcking garbage? 

 

 

[bovril]

57 minutes ago, surrifox said:

Indeed . It could work either way However I doubt that the EU would want to demonstrate that leaving not bringing ruin and disaster might flag up that the whole set up was a pointless waste of time in the first place 

The EU have said from the start that we can have as soft a Brexit as we like. Full membership of the single market as long as we sign up to the rules. That would've been the easiest deal in history, and it wouldn't have brought ruin and disaster. The problem is we would've still had freedom of movement, which is why the government ruled it out from the start. 

People need to at least admit that rock hard Brexit is our choice, nobody else's. 

[surrifox]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

The EU have said from the start that we can have as soft a Brexit as we like. Full membership of the single market as long as we sign up to the rules. That would've been the easiest deal in history, and it wouldn't have brought ruin and disaster. The problem is we would've still had freedom of movement, which is why the government ruled it out from the start. 

People need to at least admit that rock hard Brexit is our choice, nobody else's. 

Hmm . Yes but that still sounds like “you can leave on whatever terms you like as long as you don’t leave “