The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	marton
	I am losing the plot! Source Can that be true? Somewhat hypocrical?

I watched this interview on Sky News with him this afternoon. https://news.sky.com/video/general-e...-jobs-11861396

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	YuropFlyer
	China definitely isn't an ASEAN member (neither PRC nor ROC..)

Sorry. My mistake. Strategic partner.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	StirB
	Will there be a European army? Maybe, all depends on the external pressures I guess - I can't see it being an offensive force, just a defensive measure brought about by Russia/China/American advances.

It always amusing how BREXITEERS seem to think that the same countries and armies will work if their are called NATO, but not if they are called something else....

The biggest impact that will come from EU coordination is the concentration of that spend in Europe as opposed to the US military complex and given that will be the second biggest budget in the world is a major part of the objection...

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	It always amusing how BREXITEERS seem to think that the same countries and armies will work if their are called NATO, but not if they are called something else.... The biggest impact that will come from EU coordination is the concentration of that spend in Europe as opposed to the US military complex and given that will be the second biggest budget in the world is a major part of the objection...

If you would harmonize budgets, standards, military service etc in the EU, then that could definitely work, but will need a lot of time. Especially when considering that the US spends 3 times more than EU countries.



Also, I don't think that someone like Putin will be impressed by a military alliance without the US.

[amogles]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Also, I don't think that someone like Putin will be impressed by a military alliance without the US.

Maybe not impressed, but not unhappy

[StirB]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	If you would harmonize budgets, standards, military service etc in the EU, then that could definitely work, but will need a lot of time. Especially when considering that the US spends 3 times more than EU countries. Also, I don't think that someone like Putin will be impressed by a military alliance without the US.

Surely the military alliance would still be NATO, but with a consolidated European force rather than piecemeal contributions from each member state?

[baboon]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	If you would harmonize budgets, standards, military service etc in the EU, then that could definitely work, but will need a lot of time. Especially when considering that the US spends 3 times more than EU countries. Also, I don't think that someone like Putin will be impressed by a military alliance without the US.

Why would that be any different to NATO?

And why do you think Putin is working so aggressively to undermine the EU? EU military spending is something like 4 times Russia. And as Europe is not seeking world domination we don't need the level of military spending the US has.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	StirB
	Surely the military alliance would still be NATO, but with a consolidated European force rather than piecemeal contributions from each member state?

I agree. Question is just if US, Canada and Turkey will like that. Question is also if the 6 non-NATO EU members will like it.

[StirB]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	I agree. Question is just if US, Canada and Turkey will like that. Question is also if the 6 non-NATO EU members will like it.

I presume they would have the power to Veto an EU army, as Britain would also have had.

[Odile]

Good woman- great accent too- would be better without the beep though

https://www.indy100.com/article/bori...FIRWCDFwfJZrWM

[Ato]

	Quote:	StirB
	Surely the military alliance would still be NATO, but with a consolidated European force rather than piecemeal contributions from each member state?

It needs to be different as some EU countries are not in NATO.
I think the understanding is that the EU force is for limited conflicts such as disaster relief peacekeeping whilst NATO is an alliance for war. Not sure if that's written in stone though.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Ato
	It needs to be different as some EU countries are not in NATO. I think the understanding is that the EU force is for limited conflicts such as disaster relief peacekeeping whilst NATO is an alliance for war. Not sure if that's written in stone though.

NATO is breathing it's last, the US and the UK just have not read the memo. Being obliged to render assistance to war mongers is not longer acceptable. That is why all recent support of EU states have been invoked under the EU mutual assistance treaties not NATO.

[YuropFlyer]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	NATO is breathing it's last, the US and the UK just have not read the memo. Being obliged to render assistance to war mongers is not longer acceptable. That is why all recent support of EU states have been invoked under the EU mutual assistance treaties not NATO.

Pretty much that. NATO support is terribly low. You can't just stick dictatorships like Turkey who go on offensive landgrabs or countries run by maniacs like Trump into the same military alliance with peaceful nations. NATO was there due to the need to "protect the western hemisphere from communism" (well, rather widely said) - the Russians nowadays, while having still a reasonable large force, aren't the risk to Europe that some still try to portray them at being. Their success against Ukraine was mostly if not solely working only because a clear majority of local people in those areas didn't feel as Ukrainians, but as Russians (and by extremely alienating Ukrainian politics regarding their Russian minorities in the East & on the Krim)

The Russians can't steamroll into Latvia, Estonia, Finland or anything like that - NATO or not. In fact, placing NATO troops right at the Russian border probably heated up the conflict, nothing else. Instead of working together to remove the world wide nuclear threat, NATO aggression has "worked" on exactly the opposite. By crazy Trumps' refusal to honour the Iran treaty, Europe got into a position where they can't do anything without either making the annoying toddler in Washington D.C. going all nuts, or supplying the Iranians with massive support from their own people. Because, that time, it's clear the "west" (ie, NATO..) did the treason, while Iran did everything that was in the deal. Break the deal, face the consequences. Can't push Iranians into supporting their own gouvernment more than that.

Cancelling NATO (US+UK+Canada+Turkey can found their own best buddy alliance..) and having a strong yet defensive European military force will enable current NON-NATO members to join it, and it being clearly of defensive nature will save tons of money. No need to buy all those offensive weapons the US/Turkey love to use to bomb and invade foreign countries at will.

[amogles]

	Quote:	YuropFlyer
	Pretty much that. NATO support is terribly low. You can't just stick dictatorships like Turkey who go on offensive landgrabs

NATO's inability to do anything about Turkey reflects a weakness of leadership within NATO. It shouldn't be necessary to argue that being in NATO comes with certain responsibilities and these include not invading neighbouring countries. NATO countries need to tell Turkey, either you play by the rules that we jointly signed up to, or we sanction you and maybe even expel you from NATO. Their silence on the matter is pretty disqualifying IMHO.

	Quote:	YuropFlyer
	the Russians nowadays, while having still a reasonable large force, aren't the risk to Europe that some still try to portray them at being. Their success against Ukraine was mostly if not solely working only because a clear majority of local people in those areas didn't feel as Ukrainians, but as Russians (and by extremely alienating Ukrainian politics regarding their Russian minorities in the East & on the Krim)

Such is the nature of Europe, with a long history of land grabs and borders being moved to and fro for questionable reasons that there is hardly a country that doesn't have a minority from neighbouring countries. Of course with people moving around more freely these days, the injustice does not even have to be historical. A cynical exploitation of the injustice does not somehow justify an invasion. Or does the large Irish population of say, Liverpool, justify Irish territorial claims on that city?

	Quote:	YuropFlyer
	The Russians can't steamroll into Latvia, Estonia, Finland or anything like that - NATO or not.

All of these countries have sizeable Russian minorities, and indeed Russian majorities in certain parts of those countries. What's the difference to the Ukraine?

	Quote:	YuropFlyer
	In fact, placing NATO troops right at the Russian border probably heated up the conflict, nothing else. Instead of working together to remove the world wide nuclear threat, NATO aggression has "worked" on exactly the opposite.

I agree. NATO has a leadership problem.

	Quote:	YuropFlyer
	By crazy Trumps' refusal to honour the Iran treaty, Europe got into a position where they can't do anything without either making the annoying toddler in Washington D.C. going all nuts, or supplying the Iranians with massive support from their own people. Because, that time, it's clear the "west" (ie, NATO..) did the treason, while Iran did everything that was in the deal. Break the deal, face the consequences. Can't push Iranians into supporting their own gouvernment more than that.

In my view, this whole epsiode has only underlined how the rest of the West just expects the USA to not only fix problems but to work out how to fix them and assume leadership on all levels. The moment the USA refuses to do that, the others are just a bunch of headless chickens and are unable to even form a coherent strategy.

Merkel, Marcron and co are shouting, "Look, Trump is a toddler. Who is going to change our diapers now?"

	Quote:	YuropFlyer
	Cancelling NATO (US+UK+Canada+Turkey can found their own best buddy alliance..) and having a strong yet defensive European military force will enable current NON-NATO members to join it, and it being clearly of defensive nature will save tons of money. No need to buy all those offensive weapons the US/Turkey love to use to bomb and invade foreign countries at will.

How can you cancel NATO?

[baboon]

	Quote:	amogles
	In my view, this whole epsiode has only underlined how the rest of the West just expects the USA to not only fix problems but to work out how to fix them and assume leadership on all levels. The moment the USA refuses to do that, the others are just a bunch of headless chickens and are unable to even form a coherent strategy.

Not really in this case. This episode has been created by the US who are using various forms of legal extra-territoriality to push everyone else to follow their dictat.

Europe are doing what they can to keep to the agreement but as the US sanctions companies for trading with Iran even though that trade is wholly outside the US by companies with no US ownership there are limits to how effective they can be.

[marton]

@amogles
The parties to the Iran nuclear deal framework were the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China plus Germany and the European Union.

So it was not the US acting alone as a leader. Certainly, the US pulling out unilaterally without the agreement of the other parties and without any evidence that Iran was not doing their part created a huge problem.
It pushed Iran into increasing their nuclear development and left the other parties trying to maintain a fractured agreement.

[greenmount]

	Quote:	baboon
	Why would that be any different to NATO? And why do you think Putin is working so aggressively to undermine the EU? EU military spending is something like 4 times Russia. And as Europe is not seeking world domination we don't need the level of military spending the US has.

But then nobody will keep in check the Germans and you never know with those ones.

On a more serious note, I don't believe it's the time for an European army. Not yet. It wouldn't be quite good or efficient for us - the "decrepit European populations" (especially those from the Eastern part if I may add ) - as somebody here has put it. As our voices will probably not even count in the near future, might be useful to keep the yankees around.

[John William]

Meanwhile here's the view from north of the border on the forthcoming General Election.

[John William]

Well here's the latest runners & riders of the British General Election - Wacky Races.

As you can see The Gruesome Twosome ( Boris & Rees-Mogg ) are in the lead, proving
that money really does grow on trees, while dogging their every path is Nigel ( Dick Dastardly )
Farage, ably assisted by The Brexit Party's mascot, Muttley.

Trying to overtake them is Corbyn & the Labour party faithful in their run down, open top Soviet
era Zil limousine; while in third place we have the Environmentally friendly tricycle, ridden
by Jo Swinson, for the LibDems as Penelope Pitstop.

Coming in at fourth 'hoots mon' we see Nicola Sturgeon closing in on the PM for the SNP from
Scotland and bringing up the rear, we have none other than The Orange Order automobile,
driven by Will power ( King William's ghost ? ) with Arlene Foster and senior members
of the DUP on board; representing Unionist interests in Northern Ireland.

[greenmount]

	Quote:	YuropFlyer
	And with a fast changing world, indeed many jobs in the first world (which HKG is part of) have become redundant, due to automatisation and global trade. However, if you position yourself right, and got the skills, this new world does offer plenty of opportunities. Protesting against a changing world never has worked. It won't for America under Trump, and - to get back to topic - it won't bring back the UK it's "Empire" as the Brexshiters think it will.

"Brexshiters"? I have heard of Brexiters or Brexiteers lol, that's an "upgrade" on the insult scale. Wonder where is K and E to preach you some manners.
Although some of the Brexiteers actually do fit your term/description, but we're usually polite on EF... Farage being one of them, but who listens to that guy anymore? His role is done. What a brave soldier he was, covering himself all in that mud. For a good cause, of course...of course.