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.
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.
BTW I wish to revoke my previously stated admiration for May’s negotiating skills. She’s playing a bad hand and now clearly making it worse.
In my defence it was only a passing feeling that lasted a few days.
I still think that blind stubbornness and the threat of no deal gives her a non-zero chance of forcing her deal through, though.
I signed the petition.
Anyone else.
I was number 5, 055, 006.
EDIT:
Even though the numbers are vastly inflated (probably by about 50%) I still have to admit that is a shit load of people. Something I always understood at an intellectual level but never fully grasped and took in was the level of disenfranchisement Remainers have been feeling since the referendum result.
EDIT2:
One of the biggest problems with Brexit is navigating through the misinformation and rhetoric that occurs from both sides (Remain and Leave). This is why I keep moaning about the names of things. “Peoples vote”, “Meaningful vote”, “Crashing out of the EU” etc.
Ofcourse they overestimated it.
Or downright exaggerated it.
Still bigger than the corresponding leave march.
And in any case 1 million marching makes one wonder what the other 47 million who could vote are doing.
Ditto the petition.
And going back to the original referendum, out of 46 million eligible voted, 17.4 said leave and 16.2 said stay.
Add them together and you get 33 million.
What were the other 13 million doing?
And where are they now?
And voice of the people?
I did! Felt good! :)
Is anyone reputable polling the likely result of a new referendum?