Brexit matters

[najaB]

Much better to be in control of our own destiny

As one of the big three in the EU we were in control of much more than we are now. There wouldn't have been an EU army if we didn't want one.

 

[Annetts key]

And have a political union? And a single currency? And a single Army?

I don’t see any movement in any of the larger members of the E.U. towards having a single E.U. army. And given the continued reduction in the British Army, in the coming years it may well be us, the U.K. that wants such a thing if we feel threatened by Russia or China. Soon the so called Royal Navy will be down to less than twenty active surface fighting warships (current numbers here). Compare that to the task force we sent to retake the Falklands.

I actually think being in a single European currency would be a good thing. Even better if we can have a single worldwide currency.

And the only place there will ever be a political union is in the fictional world inside brexiteers heads.

 

[JonasB]

If they've not bothered to fill out the form, I'll pillory their disorganisation instead. I've no sympathy for not bothering.

That might also involve having to learn at least basic Spanish, something it seems many have not bothered with.

 

[class ep-09]

And have a political union? And a single currency? And a single Army?

What is wrong with an army you are part off ??

I know , we are British and no foreign general will tell us what to do .

Wait ....

What about Iraq , Afghanistan and NATO joint commands ?

 

[BananaRepublic]

.....Wait ....

What about Iraq , Afghanistan and NATO joint commands ?

What is described as a"European Army" or "EU Army", involves the member states transferring all defence competencies to a central (i.e. EU) defence authority.
In other words, there would be no joint commands, in the sense of cooperating partners.
Member states would not retain their own independent defence capabilities.
The principle is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty and the roadmap is a series of steps, many of which are already in place, or in their development stages.

It's very hard to see it coming about at the present time, because it relies on much deeper integration and much deeper transfers of sovereignty from the member countries (the ultimate end game of "ever greater union").
There's also the difficult issue of 5 member countries being constitutionally neutral states.

The highest levels and most difficult areas for transferring competencies involve Foreign Policy, Momentary and Fiscal Union and Defence.
Responsibility for those areas would be transferred from national governments to the EU, very likely coming under dedicated commission authorities, with the commission becoming the de-facto government of all member states.
It would also require significant changes to the various treaties.

This would be well down the road to federalism, which many members don't want and would ultimately render the governments of the member states to be little more than glorified county councils.
The council of ministers and member state governments would have transferred their authority to the EU.
There's significant resistance to this, although there are federalists who are pushing for it to come about.

 

[REVUpminster]

What help did the our EU allies give during the Falklands War. France did not give us the Exocet codes that could have saved many British lives.

 

[najaB]

There's significant resistance to this, although there are federalists who are pushing for it to come about.

That's an understatement on both parts. There are head in the clouds federalists who want to see a United States of Europe. But equally, there are stanch nationalists who, while acknowledging the benefits to be had by being in the single market, are dead set against the idea of a supranational government.

The result is that the status quo will obtain in the medium to long term. I doubt that there will be either a USE or a European Army this side of 2071 (i.e. within the next 50 years).

What help did the our EU allies give during the Falklands War.

Little. But that would probably be due to them not having time machines.

Edit: Slightly less facetiously, France did help the UK quite a bit - through providing intelligence on Argentine forces to allowing the British to use their base in West Africa. They also refused to sell any more arms to Argentina, and didn't ship them missiles that they had already paid for. One area that they let us down in was that they didn't recall a team that was already in-country in Argentina working on the Exocet missile launchers. If this team (which, admittedly worked for a private company rather than the French government) had been recalled, the Argentines would probably only have had two or three working Exocet systems.

France did not give us the Exocet codes that could have saved many British lives.

What are these 'codes' of which you speak?

 

[BananaRepublic]

.....The result is that the status quo will obtain in the medium to long term....

The status quo is not on the agenda. It wasn’t in 2016 and it isn’t now.
There are constant changes and developments heading in the direction of “greater integration” and cooperation.
Defence is just one area, where a series of treaties and cooperation pacts have been implemented over the last few years, with more to come.
But you are right, there’s only so far that most are prepared to go and the various major treaties would need to be amended and superseded to move towards federalism.
The problem is how much individual national sovereignty is eroded or damaged by the time it gets to the “this is as far as we’re prepared to go” stage: especially with the gradual replacement of the right of veto with qualified major voting.

 

[REVUpminster]

How France helped both sides in the Falklands War - BBC News

The last paragraph sums it all up. Also the private company helping Argentina was 51% owned by the French government.

 

[najaB]

The status quo is not on the agenda. It wasn’t in 2016 and it isn’t now.

Of course it's not. No organisation sets out its plan for the upcoming year as "Basically, just do the same thing we've been doing".

There will always be people suggesting new plans, directions or initiatives. And there will be people who seek to hold them back - it's the nature of all political institutions. But, barring some major geopolitical event, the pace of movement towards a USE is going to be glacial. As I noted above, we're talking fifty-plus years from present.

The last paragraph sums it all up. Also the private company helping Argentina was 51% owned by the French government.

The article doesn't say anything that I didn't. 51% of the share capital being owned by the French government isn't the same thing as 100% controlled by the French government.

Edit: I've been looking for a source to back up the article's claim that the French government owned 51% of Dassault, but everything I've come across indicates that they owned c. 46%. E.g.

Between 1977 and 1981 the French government accumulated a 45.76 percent interest in Dassault, which it transferred to the French aerospace firm Aerospatiale (a forerunner of EADS) in 1998.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dassault-Industries

The French government took a first step in the long-expected restructuring of the country's aerospace industry Thursday by shifting its 46% stake in jet-fighter manufacturer Dassault Aviation into the hands of state-owned Aerospatiale.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB895177236502029000

Seeing as the French government owned 46% in 1981 and transferred its 46% stake to Aerospatiale in 1998, it's a fair bet that they never owned more than 46%.

Not that that excuses a NATO member from helping the enemy of another NATO member state, but by the same token it's a bit rich to expect the heads of government to know the whereabouts of every employee of a minority state-owned company. I have no difficulty believing what the French government officials quoted said - some people in government knew about the team and what they were doing, but that information didn't bubble up to the top, at least not before they had already completed their work.

 

[REVUpminster]

"Behind the scenes, actions were speaking louder than words. In what would appear to be a clear breach of President Mitterrand's embargo, a French technical team - mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government - stayed in Argentina throughout the war."

So the BBC got that wrong in 2012? The BBC have never been Tory friendly and before the referendum and since have been pro EU or at least 51% of their reporters.

 

[notlob.divad]

Almost to the point that they've treated it as a right.

Thats because it was a right: The right to free movement, which Britain has now taken away from its own citizens.

One would hope that the EU would have the equivalent of our EU settlement scheme. Otherwise it doesn't say much for reciprocity.

They could have had, but the UK took the route of cutting all EU ties and being a 3rd country. Therefore it is down to the individual member states to implement/adapt their own imigration policies for 3rd country nationals, because they are soverign entities.

 

[yorksrob]

They could have had, but the UK took the route of cutting all EU ties and being a 3rd country. Therefore it is down to the individual member states to implement/adapt their own imigration policies for 3rd country nationals, because they are soverign entities.

They are indeed. But having reciprocal arrangements has always struck me as a good way for sovereign nations to interact with eachother.

 

[notlob.divad]

They are indeed. But having reciprocal arrangements has always struck me as a good way for sovereign nations to interact with eachother.

And most if not all of the countries in the EU have adopted recipricol policies that allow British Citizens to stay.

However the UK cannot just say here is the policy we will implement for your citizens, we expect you to do exactly the same. That isn't reciprocity, that is the UK thinking it is better than others and can dictate policy to them.

 

[yorksrob]

And most if not all of the countries in the EU have adopted recipricol policies that allow British Citizens to stay.

However the UK cannot just say here is the policy we will implement for your citizens, we expect you to do exactly the same. That isn't reciprocity, that is the UK thinking it is better than others and can dictate policy to them.

This is true.

 

[class ep-09]

What help did the our EU allies give during the Falklands War. France did not give us the Exocet codes that could have saved many British lives.

Thanks God EU did not exist during 2nd WW , there would be plenty to blame them for . Would it not ?

 

[birchesgreen]

What help did the our EU allies give during the Falklands War.

Absolutely none, the EU didn't exist until 1993.

European (and elsewhere) allies did help a lot in 1982, taking over our NATO commitments so we could send the task force down South.

 

[daodao]

As one of the big three in the EU we were in control of much more than we are now. There wouldn't have been an EU army if we didn't want one.

The EEC was founded originally to ensure co-operation between the 3 big western European countries (France/Germany/Italy) and to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict between them. The UK was not wanted originally as a partner, and after the 2nd refusal to admit it in the late 1960s and with the benefit of the retrospectoscope, should have accepted that decision and moved on. When the UK finally joined, it was as a lesser partner and the big 3 remained the same until German unification. Subsequent to this event, Germany has become the dominant partner, due to its size and economic power.

Thanks God EU did not exist during 2nd WW , there would be plenty to blame them for . Would it not ?

Some might view the Greater Germany of WW2 as a forerunner of the EU in some ways, although it was clearly not a voluntary partnership. Napoleon's Continental System, established following the Berlin decree of 1806, was another autocratic attempt to create a European continental block opposed to the UK.

One thing that has become clear over the last few months as Brexit has evolved, as illustrated by the spat over vaccine availability, is that a divorce is rarely amicable.

 

[REVUpminster]

^and the smaller entity has to pay the alimony. Will Scotland likewise pay alimony to England if there is a split? I don't think so. They will ask for reparations.

 

[najaB]

Will Scotland likewise pay alimony to England if there is a split? I don't think so. They will ask for reparations.

I knew there was a chip on one shoulder, but apparently there's one on the other one too.

 

[ainsworth74]

Hmm, Mrs T was rather glowing in her praise for European Community support:

The third aspect of our pressure against Argentina has been economic. We have been urging our friends and allies to take action parallel to our own, and we have achieved a heartening degree of success. The most significant measure has been the decision of our nine partners in the European Community to join us not just in an arms embargo but also in stopping all imports from Argentina.

This is a very important step, unprecedented in its scope and the rapidity of the decision. Last year about a quarter of all Argentina's exports went to the European Community. The effect on Argentina's economy of this measure will therefore be considerable and cannot be without influence on her leaders in the present crisis. I should like warmly to thank our European partners for rallying to our support. It was an effective demonstration of Community solidarity.

The decision cannot have been easy for our partners, given the commercial interests at stake, but they were the first to realise that if aggression were allowed to succeed in the Falkland Islands, it would be encouraged the world over.

Falkland Islands (Hansard, 14 April 1982)

Falkland Islands (Hansard, 14 April 1982)

api.parliament.uk

"The most significant measure", Thatcher's own choice of words in describing the actions of our European Community allies in terms of economic pressure.


As for the French technicians I note the comments, from the same BBC article, of the then head of French intelligence, who were aware of their presence, who said:

"It's bordering on an act of treason, or disobedience to an embargo," he says. "I mean, it's clear that if the head of state in France decrees an embargo, it's an embargo. Full point."

"It's bordering on an act of treason" is not exactly the comments I'd expect from someone who was pleased with how things turned out. Or how about, again from the BBC article, the international security adviser to the French Minister of Defence:

"It is now undeniable and... one should not belittle it. This was not what was supposed to be done. It is the sort of thing which mars what should otherwise have been picture-perfect co-operation between the two countries,

But yeah, sure, the EU (sic) did nothing to help us during the Falklands War.

 

[REVUpminster]

I knew there was a chip on one shoulder, but apparently there's one on the other one too.

Out of context reply by leaving out the first part. It's funny on a Rail Forum this is the most active thread !!

 

[VauxhallandI]

I knew there was a chip on one shoulder, but apparently there's one on the other one too.

Indeed the Brexiteer ignorance is strong in this one.

 

[najaB]

Out of context reply by leaving out the first part.

Okay...

and the smaller entity has to pay the alimony. Will Scotland likewise pay alimony to England if there is a split? I don't think so. They will ask for reparations.

Nope. Still reads exactly the same.

 

[nlogax]

It's funny on a Rail Forum this is the most active thread !!

Is that because there's so still much misinformation, inaccuracy and reductionist claptrap from a few Brexiteers on this thread that requires constant correction?

 

[najaB]

When the UK finally joined, it was as a lesser partner and the big 3 remained the same until German unification. Subsequent to this event, Germany has become the dominant partner, due to its size and economic power.

Yes, there's no denying that Germany holds a lot of sway in defining EU policy, but that's not to say that the UK didn't. I'm not aware of any major EU policy that was enacted over the objections of the UK government, and many of the things that the pro-Brexit side held up of examples of "EU overreach" where things that we were in favour of. Famously, Margaret Thatcher was instrumental in creating the single market, along with the pan-Europe standards that its implementation required.

 

[alex397]

So the BBC got that wrong in 2012? The BBC have never been Tory friendly and before the referendum and since have been pro EU or at least 51% of their reporters.

The BBC tends to annoy both the left and right so they must be doing something right.

You’ll be pleased to know the new DG is a Tory, and the Chairman is appointed by government, the current one a Brexit supporter. I should add, they seem to be good from what I’ve read about them, but kind of makes the ‘left wing bias’ stuff I hear about them slight nonsense.

 

[edwin_m]

Some might view the Greater Germany of WW2 as a forerunner of the EU in some ways, although it was clearly not a voluntary partnership. Napoleon's Continental System, established following the Berlin decree of 1806, was another autocratic attempt to create a European continental block opposed to the UK.

Beyond the simple fact that they provided some sort of central authority, any comparison of the EU with either Hitler or Napoleon is clearly ridiculous. A voluntary partnership of independent nations stands no comparison with a military conquest that killed around five million people by genocide and millions more in armed conflict. A bit like comparing the actions of our Queen with Henry VIII on the grounds they were both British monarchs.

 

[jon0844]

The BBC tends to annoy both the left and right so they must be doing something right.

You’ll be pleased to know the new DG is a Tory, and the Chairman is appointed by government, the current one a Brexit supporter. I should add, they seem to be good from what I’ve read about them, but kind of makes the ‘left wing bias’ stuff I hear about them slight nonsense.

It was quite amusing to see how they recently flicked through the papers and picked up two copies of a paper to hide the front page headline about Boris and his affair. I wonder if this was just an accident on live TV, or purposely trying to avoid showing it and having to read it out.

 

[class ep-09]

Out of context reply by leaving out the first part. It's funny on a Rail Forum this is the most active thread !!

That is because brexit is / will negatively affect lives of all of us , while other threads are commented upon by members interested in the subject of that thread.