I sincerely hope this makes a difference.
I cynically don’t believe it will though.
I do think it’s the simplest option. Revoke Article 50 and immediately remove a lot of pressure.
Get the brexit bunch together, make them hammer out a manifesto. If need be, get parliament to agree to a brexit plan, and not delay forever (if we decide we really want to leave that is)
Take it to parliament.
If/when parliament finally agree on a plan, then we trigger article 50 and go to Brussels with that plan, and have 2 years from a solid start position of unity to build on.
Instead of now, where we are about to crash out because none of the brexit muppets seems to have a clue what they actually want.
Because if the EU is essentially an anti-European-War project, then a single military force is the end game. Armies generally don’t make war on themselves.
I’m inclined to think Nato is sufficient for this purpose.
Plus only Britain and France have capable and vaguely sizeable militaries. Capable here is defined by global reach and capability. France, the USA, Holland and Britain have the capacity to land a battalion plus if troops anywhere in the world within 24 hrs if need be. That’s a hard bar to reach and most militaries can’t do it. Infact most wouldn’t even care to be able to.
I think China now can manage it.
Holland is very professional, but small.
Germany is small for obvious reasons, and I think it’d be a hard sell up scaling them.
Note that Nato already has common standards and. Procedures so an EU army would be superfluous.
Plus there’s the issue of who would control it.
The USA being the behemoth it is makes the leadership of Nato pretty smooth.
An EU army would be led by… The French? The Germans (I don’t see that going down well…)
And I think that level of EU integration is something even I would vote against, and I’m a remainer with military experience!
Sure, but the one outcome is more or less like the other, so there is nothing obviously wrong about wanting the other. And at least the EU military force can’t be effectively destroyed by a senile American President, so in that sense the other is clearly superior.
My end game is a single world govt, world economy, world currency, world police/army, world healthcare and welfare. Just imagine how much competition and warfare would be eliminated. The EU is a step to that. If the West doesnt play this long game and a world around freedom then the others already in this game are the Chinese and a more totalitarian vision.
Has the American force been neutered by Trump?
It’s a serious question.
Any EU force is a counter to aggression outside of the EU, and more like a peacekeeping/anti-insurgent force for other occasions.
You dont need individual armies in the EU. Its inefficient. It also stops certain members involving themselves in military adventurism, gunboat diplomacy and various imperialist wankery.
In that case let’s push for universal disarmament by everyone.
That’ll solve all those problems and more.
Why, the EU stll gets involved in issues that require force. It needs more than just counter-terrorism/insurgency, especially with the Duginists to the East.
Amen. European Federalism is the next step in the right direction.
He is certainly undermining NATO and encouraging NATO’s traditional enemies. And his doing it has pointed out that the world can’t rely on traditional checks on Presidential power in cases like this; that at least one party will tolerate an executive undermining traditional stabilizing forces. So that cannot help but weaken confidence in NATO as an institution, which probably explains why some people are thinking about an EU force; one the EU can rely on.
Earlier I said we should just revoke article 50 and then invoke it when we are united in what we want.
It appears that a revocation must be a proper revocation, and not to be used as a delaying tactic, Ergo I think I was technically wrong in my assessment.
That’s my understanding from this BBC article :
Where it states there may be legal repercussions for abusing article 50. What constitutes abuse I don’t know.
Point is I was wrong about it being a super simple thing to do.
I was right however that Britain doesn’t need any approval to do it.
Therlun
3777
Wasn’t this discussed earlier in this thread a lot? Maybe a different forum/thread.
The UK can revoke article 50 and the judgement by the ECJ even toned down the “in good faith” requirement slightly compared to the initial assessment.
Revoking A50 with the intent to trigger it again just to buy time still has a bundle of repercussions.
First it would immensely weaken an already rather weak negotiation position and would notably erode remaining goodwill on the EU side.
There is also a bunch of very tangible effects. Revoking A50 means the UK stays a member temporarily. Even if A50 is instantly triggered with the intent to leave two years later that temporary membership has longer lasting ramifications.
Being a member means the UK will participate in the EU parliament elections for the following 5 years (even after the UK leaves you can’t just remove the UK MEP easily). The UK will have to participate in EU policy making.
Additionally the next budgeting phase is currently negotiated. Those are planned in 7 year cycles and the next one is for 2021-2027.
If the UK remains a member it will have to oblige and contribute to that budget (for those 7 years directly and additional long term effects) or it will have to completely and absolutely obstruct the budget agreement process. The first is a very unattractive option for a leave focused UK and the second is a … quite big problem for the EU side.
A semi-logical approach would be to just exempt the UK from those obligations, agreements and negotiations, but that brings a whole gaggle of problems in itself. Especially concerning the meaning of EU membership.
It would be an incredibly tough, probably outright impossible balancing act.
The EU can’t kick the UK out, but there are a bunch of (so far mostly theoretical) options to directly and indirectly isolate and freeze out a member which is intentionally disruptive and obstructionist.
Interesting point. Likewise if the UK skips the EU elections but ends up deciding to remain in the EU then they would be without representation.
I’m afraid the UK is going to rescind Article 50, vote in a new Brexiteer government, send Brexiteer MEP’s to Parliament, and pretty much muck up the EU for awhile, until Brexit becomes doable without pain.
And I don’t know what the EU could do to combat this.
Rather a good read if you are EU inclined like myself and apparently an awful lot of other people.
Well, for one, the MEPs are presumably elected by the British people, so the chance that you send 100% Brexit-friendly MEPs seems rather slim, given that you’re currently split 50-50% nationally.
In the meantime, British MEPs are - in all cases - going to find that their influence is significantly weakened after this debacle. That influence will be near non-existent, if there is any sign that the UK is thinking of invoking article 50 again.
It’s not as if other countries don’t also send EU-hostile MEPs to Brussels. In a case like what you suggest, those would likely be the only people willing to work with the UK MEPs.
It could just end up in an endless series of splits and divisons and I’ll end up posting to Qt3 from the the Dunmonian-Wessex Republic.
More big turn outs for Remain. Hundreds of thousands. Ironically, the only people with the intelligence, experience, knowledge and skills to actually pull off a successful Brexit are probably marching in that lot.
I just want to bump this. A very good vid. Thought provoking and challeneging, it has the whiff of being right, maybe there is a shifft in politics. Fascinating. Thanks again for sharing.
