Should We Leave the EU?

[Harbornite]

I've nothing against modern Germany, but I do find it galling that we are told that we must stay in the EU to promote European peace. Germany starts WW2, we send men to die and bankrupt ourselves to defeat its fascism and now we are told that we should be giving up our sovereignty just in case they might otherwise be tempted to try it again.

Sounds like you have got something against modern Germans. What's wrong with trying to cooperate with the Europeans? We aren't losing much in the way of sovereignty.

 

[YorkshireBear]

What is sovereignty exactly? I dont mean a definition. But what is it of we leave the EU and how exactly is it better?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Sounds like you have got something against modern Germans. What's wrong with trying to cooperate with the Europeans? We aren't losing much in the way of sovereignty.

Most of us quite like the Germans - just don't want to be part of the Greater Reich that's all.

 

[Harbornite]

What is sovereignty exactly? I dont mean a definition. But what is it of we leave the EU and how exactly is it better?

The brexiters want the UK to make all of its own laws and they don't like EU interference in these matters. I personally think the UK isn't doing too bad, we still have our own laws, currency, government and flag.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The brexiters want the UK to make all of its own laws and they don't like EU interference in these matters. I personally think the UK isn't doing too bad, we still have our own laws, currency, government and flag.

....for now

 

[TheKnightWho]

One might look backwards into the history of Britain, looking at the peoples who invaded Britain from the Romans onwards and ask ourselves..."Who are we?"

It doesn't make that right either. The spread of technology does not inherently rely on conquest.

 

[Harbornite]

....for now

You say that, do you really think Brussels will eventually force us to ditch the Union Jack and Pound sterling?

 

[Barn]

Well it's got laws, the senior tier of government and for most of the continent the currency. They had a go with the flag in the constitution which was shot down.

I'm slightly more worried about the other trappings of state, like the diplomatic corps, continent-wide arrest warrants and, let's face it, soon the armed forces.

 

[yorksrob]

You say that, do you really think Brussels will eventually force us to ditch the Union Jack and Pound sterling?

We have a treaty opt-out of the single currency along with Denmark. Other countries such as Sweden and some in Eastern Europe are still obliged to join at some unspecified time in the future which, given the experience of the currency is, I believe, bad for Europe as a whole.

 

[YorkshireBear]

let's face it, soon the armed forces.

Why is that a bad thing?

Might stop our government going into wars it should not....

 

[Barn]

Why is that a bad thing?

hock:hock:hock:hock:

One of the following is true:

• I am being trolled.
• For some reason (maybe because of a younger demographic or because of the left-wing tendencies of rail workers) opinions held on this Board differ wildly from mainstream British opinion.
• Mainstream British opinion has changed radically in recent years and I am seriously out of touch.

My strong impression is that most remainers reach that decision based on a warts-and-all acceptance of the EU and a consideration that it may, on balance, be more certain to stay where we are. I have never in real life encountered such enthusiasm for federalisation and in particular this is the first time I have heard, shockingly, of the benefits of placing British troops under European Union control.

 

[YorkshireBear]

hock:hock:hock:hock:

One of the following is true:

• I am being trolled.
• For some reason (maybe because of a younger demographic or because of the left-wing tendencies of rail workers) opinions held on this Board differ wildly from mainstream British opinion.
• Mainstream British opinion has changed radically in recent years and I am seriously out of touch.

My strong impression is that most remainers reach that decision based on a warts-and-all acceptance of the EU and a consideration that it may, on balance, be more certain to stay where we are. I have never in real life encountered such enthusiasm for federalisation and in particular this is the first time I have heard, shockingly, of the benefits of placing British troops under European Union control.

I am simply trying to understand why it is such a bad thing and offered one advantage to balance your obvious dislike for the idea. I did not actually express an opinion either way if you read what I said.

A lot of outers seem to just say its a bad thing without providing any reason.

 

[Harbornite]

I am simply trying to understand why it is such a bad thing and offered one advantage to balance your obvious dislike for the idea. I did not actually express an opinion either way if you read what I said.

A lot of outers seem to just say its a bad thing without providing any reason.

I support remaining in the EU, but at this stage, I still don't like the idea of an EU army. How much control would the UK government have over any British forces that would be under EU control? It makes me wonder what would happen if there was another incident in the Falklands, would the UK be able to respond effectively?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

hock:hock:hock:hock:

One of the following is true:

• I am being trolled.
• For some reason (maybe because of a younger demographic or because of the left-wing tendencies of rail workers) opinions held on this Board differ wildly from mainstream British opinion.
• Mainstream British opinion has changed radically in recent years and I am seriously out of touch.

My strong impression is that most remainers reach that decision based on a warts-and-all acceptance of the EU and a consideration that it may, on balance, be more certain to stay where we are. I have never in real life encountered such enthusiasm for federalisation and in particular this is the first time I have heard, shockingly, of the benefits of placing British troops under European Union control.

Just out of interest, why are you against the idea of British troops serving in an EU army?

 

[AM9]

hock:hock:hock:hock:

One of the following is true:

• I am being trolled.
• For some reason (maybe because of a younger demographic or because of the left-wing tendencies of rail workers) opinions held on this Board differ wildly from mainstream British opinion.
• Mainstream British opinion has changed radically in recent years and I am seriously out of touch.

My strong impression is that most remainers reach that decision based on a warts-and-all acceptance of the EU and a consideration that it may, on balance, be more certain to stay where we are. I have never in real life encountered such enthusiasm for federalisation and in particular this is the first time I have heard, shockingly, of the benefits of placing British troops under European Union control.

Maybe some prefer the very remote threat of federalisation to quasi-annexation that could happen if certain New York born politician was to get in a position of national power in the UK.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Most of us quite like the Germans - just don't want to be part of the Greater Reich that's all.

"Greater Reich"

You see, I'm not really seeing how you can say your first sentence and then come out with that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

hock:hock:hock:hock:

One of the following is true:

• I am being trolled.
• For some reason (maybe because of a younger demographic or because of the left-wing tendencies of rail workers) opinions held on this Board differ wildly from mainstream British opinion.
• Mainstream British opinion has changed radically in recent years and I am seriously out of touch.

My strong impression is that most remainers reach that decision based on a warts-and-all acceptance of the EU and a consideration that it may, on balance, be more certain to stay where we are. I have never in real life encountered such enthusiasm for federalisation and in particular this is the first time I have heard, shockingly, of the benefits of placing British troops under European Union control.

What a contentless answer. You didn't actually say anything about why it would be bad.

 

[Barn]

the very remote threat of federalisation

It's not as if it's a secret conspiracy:

A Europe of nations is a relic of the past.
Guy Verhofstadt
Former Belgian Prime Minister
President of the Liberal group in the European Parliament

The time of the homogenous nation-state is over.
Herman Van Rompuy
Former president of the European Council

We all know that the only way out of this crisis is a new transfer of powers to the EU and the European institutions.
Guy Verhofstadt

A political union needs to be our political horizon.
Jose Manuel Barroso
Former president of the Commission

We need a political federation with the Commission as government.
Vivian Reding
European Commissioner

If you don't want the strengthening of Europe, there is only one way. The only way possible for those who are not convinced of Europe is to leave Europe.
Francois Hollande
President of France

Britain belongs to the EU.
Martin Shultz
President of the European Parliament
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What a contentless answer. You didn't actually say anything about why it would be bad.

Sorry, but your entire modus operandi is to post one- or two-line messages which contain nothing but a sarcastic barb or snipe.

But if you insist, problems with an EU army include, just for starters:

• Antagonism of Russia.
• Relegating of the Nato alliance.
• Incentive for countries not to individually meet their 2% target.
• Creation of expensive new layers of top generals (at a time when we are streamlining our top command structures).
• If unanimity required, extreme difficulty in making responsive decisions .
• If unanimity not required, risk of national troops being deployed against governmental or democratic wishes.
• Jurisdiction of ECJ over combat decisions; forced application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights reducing combat effectiveness.
• Permanent UN security council seat would appear to look misplaced in our hands.
• Loss of patriotic link with nation (we are asking these people to kill and die for us, after all).
• Weakening of newly-developed custom of parliamentary control of deployment.
• Placing policy with a European Commisison that is terrible at almost everything it does.

 

[richa2002]

Finally, someone with the right idea on this forum. With you all the way, Barn.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Sorry, but your entire modus operandi is to post one- or two-line messages which contain nothing but a sarcastic barb or snipe.

But if you insist, problems with an EU army include, just for starters:

• Antagonism of Russia.
• Relegating of the Nato alliance
• Incentive for countries not to individually meet their 2% target
• Creation of expensive new layers of top generals (at a time when we are streamlining our top command structures)
• If unanimity required, extreme difficulty in making responsive decisions
• If unanimity not required, risk of national troops being deployed against governmental or democratic wishes
• Jurisdiction of ECJ over combat decisions; forced application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights reducing combat effectiveness
• Permanent UN security council seat would appear to look misplaced in our hands

That is demonstrably not true. I have given numerous extensive answers, but I will call out sophistry and rhetoric such as your previous post when I see it.

1) Blame Russia for Russia's behaviour. It is the epitome of weakness to say we should not do something because it would make others annoyed.

2) NATO isn't going anywhere. Indeed, it might stop US domination.

3) This is actually less likely, as there would be another organisation enforcing it. This is a real stretch.

4) Economies of scale. What you are arguing is the opposite of how things happen in reality.

5/6) How on earth do federalised nations like the US cope, I wonder?

7) How would this reduce combat effectiveness, exactly?

8) Our permanent seat on the council is an outdated relic anyway. If Brexit is really about democracy, you should oppose these sorts of entrenched power structures giving us an unreasonable advantage on the world stage.

Besides anything else, many of your points are contradictory: Russia has its own agenda anyway, and yet you advocate less coordination in the face of it, which is utterly absurd. Britain is a very valuable thing, and I don't want to undervalue it at all, but the idea that we should throw pragmatism in the bin because of nationalism just does not sit right with me. Indeed, it's this kind of island mentality that is far more likely to hurt us in the long run.

 

[Antman]

Finally, someone with the right idea on this forum. With you all the way, Barn.

Here, here!

 

[TheKnightWho]

A question for the Brexiters: if we do remain, will you accept that decision?

 

[Barn]

A question for the Brexiters: if we do remain, will you accept that decision?

Yes, I would.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1) Blame Russia for Russia's behaviour. It is the epitome of weakness to say we should not do something because it would make others annoyed.

You accuse me of rhetoric and then this is your first point. I agree with your ideology here, but in the real world we should not antagonise an unstable neighbour unless in doing so we are creating a genuine uplift in our capabilities. Juncker has been clear that one purpose of the army is to send a signal to Russia. He has been far less clear as to why it would be operationally more effective. Isn't this an example of 'throwing pragmatism in the bin because of (Euro)nationalism', to borrow your phrase?

2) NATO isn't going anywhere. Indeed, it might stop US domination.

As the Cold War fades from memory, US interest in defending Europe is at risk, but the simple fact is that only with the help of a superpower can we defeat a superpower. The US would be justified in feeling undervalued and as though they are shouldering the bulk of the financial cost of defending the European continent. We need to reinvogorate Nato but reportedly France is decidedly lukewarm about it (having only brought itself to rejoin a few years ago) due to its excitement at creating a European army instead.

3) This is actually less likely, as there would be another organisation enforcing it. This is a real stretch.

Why would the EU enforce someone else's target? It is much more likely in time to simply raise military funding through its own budgetary processes.

4) Economies of scale. What you are arguing is the opposite of how things happen in reality.

Not in the miltary they don't and not in Europe they don't. It is very difficult to clear out existing command structures and there would be massive political objections to concentrating power in a few hands. It is more likely that there would be a military equivalent of the Commission, with each country providing a top general, admiral and air marshal and a team of other senior officers to support them.

5/6) How on earth do federalised nations like the US cope, I wonder?

By being exactly that, single federalised nations. That's exactly the point.

7) How would this reduce combat effectiveness, exactly?

Human rights law and combat effectiveness is a topic which has been well studied and reported, so I'll let you carry out your own research if you're interested. There are military humanitarian laws (such as the Geneva convension) which are fine. Applying civilian human rights law (such as the ECHR and CFR) to military operations is dangerous and can lead to an over-cautious approach that actually increases danger to deployed personnel.

8) Our permanent seat on the council is an outdated relic anyway. If Brexit is really about democracy, you should oppose these sorts of entrenched power structures giving us an unreasonable advantage on the world stage.

You might argue whether anybody should have a permanent seat. But for as long as they exist I certainly want our country to keep it. Why wouldn't I?

Let me just make the point again, because there genuinely seems to be an underlying feeling of a gentle dislike or unease towards this wonderful island that we call home. We are a good country. We have flaws. We make mistakes. Everybody does. We haven't built a utopian society at home and we have made some bad calls internationally. One of the best and worst parts of our national psyche is that we continually beat ourselves up over these mistakes. But this is are decent, fair-minded, just, democratic, industrious, strong, creative, prosperous, innovative and beautiful country. I am so grateful to be part of it.

 

[DarloRich]

Not in the miltary they don't and not in Europe they don't. It is very difficult to clear out existing command structures and there would be massive political objections to concentrating power in a few hands. It is more likely that there would be a military equivalent of the Commission, with each country providing a top general, admiral and air marshal and a team of other senior officers to support them.

You assume a combined command structure and the absporbtion of Brtish armed forces into a Euro Army.

I don't see the deletion of the British Army and the absorption of our soldiers into one massive EU army. I see a European collation of exactly the same nature as our forces deployment to recent conflicts. We already take part in deployments of that nature today. Why should tomorrow be different?

Human rights law and combat effectiveness is a topic which has been well studied and reported, so I'll let you carry out your own research if you're interested. There are military humanitarian laws (such as the Geneva convension) which are fine. Applying civilian human rights law (such as the ECHR and CFR) to military operations is dangerous and can lead to an over-cautious approach that actually increases danger to deployed personnel.

Why? The law should apply to soldiers as it does to all. There should not be carte blanche to act like barbarians because of war. I know that is terribly genteel but if we hold ourselves out to be a civilised society then we must live those rules and embody those requirements, even in war. How do we win hearts and minds without accountability and responsibility?

Surely the rules of engagement cover these eventualities?

Let me just make the point again, because there genuinely seems to be an underlying feeling of a gentle dislike or unease towards this wonderful island that we call home. We are a good country. We have flaws. We make mistakes. Everybody does. We haven't built a utopian society at home and we have made some bad calls internationally. One of the best and worst parts of our national psyche is that we continually beat ourselves up over these mistakes. But this is are decent, fair-minded, just, democratic, industrious, strong, creative, prosperous, innovative and beautiful country. I am so grateful to be part of it.

So only Brexitiers may feel any pride or connection to our country?

 

[EM2]

But this is are decent, fair-minded, just, democratic, industrious, strong, creative, prosperous, innovative and beautiful country. I am so grateful to be part of it.

I feel exactly the same. But I also feel that it gains more of all these qualities by being part of the European Union.

 

[Barn]

You assume a combined command structure and the absporbtion of Brtish armed forces into a Euro Army.

I don't see the deletion of the British Army and the absorption of our soldiers into one massive EU army. I see a European collation of exactly the same nature as our forces deployment to recent conflicts. We already take part in deployments of that nature today. Why should tomorrow be different?

I'm afraid that's just not our experience of how the EU works. It might start looser, but there will be an inexorable movement towards common defence policies and then a common command structure.

If the plans are simply for joint operations as now, then I'm not sure why people like the President of the EPP - the major centre-right grouping in the EP - are saying things like "We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe".

Why? The law should apply to soldiers as it does to all. There should not be carte blanche to act like barbarians because of war. I know that is terribly genteel but if we hold ourselves out to be a civilised society then we must live those rules and embody those requirements, even in war. How do we win hearts and minds without accountability and responsibility?

Surely the rules of engagement cover these eventualities?

You're right - the rules of engagement should cover these eventualities, and these should be set bearing in mind humanitarian principles and military objectives. It is very difficult when complex European jurisprudence is also at play within a live combat environment. However, it's not just 'victims' of war that are claimants. The bigger question is how human rights law affects the quasi-employment relationship between the armed forces and soldiers / sailors / airmen. If the 'right to life' is paramount, then riskier operations may not happen, which may increase future risk by not dealing with problems as they arise. If equality is paramount, then there may be pressure to be more inclusive on entry requirements for women even where this reduces ineffectiveness or increases danger.

So only Brexitiers may feel any pride or connection to our country?

No, I don't think I've said that. I know many patriotic Remainers. But rather than talk about the benefits of continued union, this debate has tended to descend into arguments like 'island syndrome', 'little Englander', talk of slavery and colonialism, suggestions that we are not democratic, suggestions that we need European masters to keep us on the straight and narrow, suggestions of incapability of managing our own affairs, wishes for us to give up our permanent security council seat, etc.

I am beginning to understand how Scottish nationalists felt.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I feel exactly the same. But I also feel that it gains more of all these qualities by being part of the European Union.

Good answer. If that's how you feel then you should vote Remain with pride.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In response to your suggestion that we could, as Europeans, all simultaneously elect pro-reform governments: this implies that we are a single European population across the continent who agree to exercise democratic decisions together as a continent. Nobody has ever asked us if we are happy with that. I accept that the status quo wins if people in Inverness and Bangor and Newry and Preston want it to. Nobody has asked us if we're happy to accept the status quo because people in Prague and Lisbon and Luxembourg and Vilnius are happy with it.

Can't you see that making points like this requires the federal Europe mindset that we sceptics fear is the intended final destination of the EU?

And this seems to be a crucial point. You appear to be happy to view the UK as if it were a democracy, in which decisions that affect the UK are based (indirectly, via elections) on the aggregate views of the population, but you seem unhappy with the idea of the same being true of decisions that affect the entire EU being determined by the aggregate views of the population of the EU. Why? What is different about - say - French people and German people compared to British people?

And you use the word 'fear'. Again, I wonder why? What is there to fear?

FWIW I don't particularly want a Federal Europe. But neither do I fear the (IMO unlikely) prospect [*]. In the end, I want the laws etc. that govern our lives to be good laws that on balance improve our well being etc. In other words, my concern is that we are governed well, not that we are governed from any particular geographical location. And to that aim it does seems best for different aspects of Government to be dealt with at the most appropriate level. There are clearly many issues that are best dealt with at local or national level, but there are also issues that are transnational in nature and therefore more appropriately dealt with at European level. Accepting that seems to me pragmatic. But if you've understood your posts correctly, you appear to have belief that the ultimate tier of Government must be at Westminster, and you appear to be fearful of anything different, but I've not seen you provide any rational justification for that belief.

FPTP is not a proportional system. That doesn't mean that it is not democratic - it is just a constituency-based system. We have always had a constituency-based system and there are advantages of that.

I think (apologies if I'm mistaken) that you are a Conservative supporter, and your opinions have therefore benefitted from the lack of proportionality. As a Labour member, the same is true of me and my views. I invite you to consider how you'd feel if you were - say a UKIP supporter who had seen millions of votes in 2015 turn into basically no representation. Or a Green supporter who, in repeated elections, had consistently seen hundreds of thousands of votes turn into basically no representation, and countless more votes lost because people want to support your party but feel that they cannot purely because the electoral system would 'waste' their vote if they did so. I suspect, that in that case, you would feel - with considerable justification - that the system was not at all democratic.

In 1951 the Conservatives[**] secured an absolute majority in Parliament, despite gaining 250 000 votes fewer than Labour. In February 1974, the situation was reversed, albeit on a smaller scale, when Labour got more seats despite getting fewer votes than the Conservatives. Do you really believe that it's democratic for an election to give the 'wrong' party the most seats? Today, the Conservatives hold virtually absolute power in Parliament, despite that nearly two thirds of those who voted in the last election didn't vote for them. And in the Blair years when Labour had massive majorities, this was similarly despite Labour never getting anywhere near 50% of the votes. I cannot see how any reasonable person can consider those kinds of results to be democratic.

Slightly more speculative, but I wonder how many local councils across the UK are ruled with absolute majorities by the party that came 2nd in the popular vote in their council elections - because the distortions of our electoral system meant they got more seats than the party that got the most votes. I'm not aware of anyone ever systematically looked into that - but thanks to the vagaries of our electoral system, it's a pretty safe bet that that will have happened numerous times over the last few decades.

And to bring the subject back to Europe: I understand that there is no perfectly democratic electoral system. Any system is inevitably going to be some kind of compromise between representing the 'will of the people', getting a stable Government that can actually govern, and making sure that decisions are to some reasonable extent made by people have the right skills and experience to make those decisions. But, given the kinds of oddities I've just described, I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that the EU is significantly less democratic than the UK system.


[*] A Federal Europe seems very unlikely IMO because of the nationalistic political climate across Europe, although I accept that is or was the goal of a number of European politicians.
[**] Strictly speaking the Conservatives / National Liberals

 

[Barn]

But if you've understood your posts correctly, you appear to have belief that the ultimate tier of Government must be at Westminster, and you appear to be fearful of anything different, but I've not seen you provide any rational justification for that belief.

What is different about - say - French people and German people compared to British people?

You're right that I think that Westminster is 'high enough'. There are really two reasons for this:

First, I have a general tendency towards localism. I believe that mayors and councils are the most democratic structures that we have. I believe that localised decision-making allows people to feel closer to their representatives, have more visibility of decision-making and have more influence per capita over decisions.

It is not an absolute belief. Certain things like defence are clearly not local issues. I understand the anguish around 'postcode lotteries' in health spending. But generally, the lower the better. I tend to feel that harmonisation tends to develop organically on the market when it is really useful (e.g. the ubiquity of USB sockets and the shape of USB plugs). I tend to think that harmonisation for harmonisation's sake tends to have an anti-innovative effect.

On that basis, Europe is simply too far away. It is the opposite of local decision-making. People feel distant from their representatives, it covers too much ground (and over-complicates matters too much) for it to be adequately covered by media, many decisions happen privately creating vulnerability to lobbying, the influence per capita is tiny, decision cannot hope to apply well to local circumstances, meaning the circumstances have to bend to the law rather than the other way around.

Westminster is not perfect. It is about as distant from parts of the UK as you can get before it seems just that bit too far away. London is rightly considered as remote (both geographically and in other ways) from regions of the UK. But it is just small enough to be followable in the media. MPs serve small enough constituencies to be able to hold effective surgeries. The business transacted at Westminster can be covered by the media. There is enough scrutiny to expose and criticise lobbying.

On my second point, in a way I think you're right. It is not entirely rational. It is that I feel British. I feel that my neighbours on these islands are my countrymen. I don't feel that we are a superior breed of human, but I do believe in a national culture. I do believe in a national psyche. I do believe that there is something that makes us British. I don't believe that it is exclusive to people born here - I think people can become British and it's a wonderful thing when they want to. I believe that our culture is a good one.

I love the French. Really, I do. I'm going to France in two weeks and I can't wait. But I love them because they're French. I love their differences. I love the fact that France still feels like going abroad.

I'm still young but perhaps I am just old enough to feel like this. Perhaps the younger generation, who grew up with global media and internet access and smartphones from a young age feel connected to Europeans to a much greater extent. Perhaps borders and frontiers feel much more artificial to them.

I think (apologies if I'm mistaken) that you are a Conservative supporter, and your opinions have therefore benefitted from the lack of proportionality.

I'm socially liberal and economically conservative. I voted for Blair in 2001 and 2005 for social reasons and voted Conservative in 2010 and 2015 for economic reasons. I won't tie my hands for the next election as Cameron isn't my favourite politician right now!

I understand that there is no perfectly democratic electoral system. Any system is inevitably going to be some kind of compromise between representing the 'will of the people', getting a stable Government that can actually govern, and making sure that decisions are to some reasonable extent made by people have the right skills and experience to make those decisions. But, given the kinds of oddities I've just described, I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that the EU is significantly less democratic than the UK system.

FPTP is not perfect. It has advantages, including producing a Government in a country which draws its executive from the legislature. I think it has generally, with the exceptions you mentioned, tended to provide the 'right' result. I accept that this may become less and less likely in the future as the number of seats that can be described as simple two-horse races diminishes. Personally I would like us to find a way of using a more proportional method to elect a Senate as our upper house, and turn peerages into mere honours.

But I think we should realise that the voting system is only one ingredient in the quality of a democracy. (An important one, I grant you). It also includes closeness / remoteness of representatives, visibility of decision-making, appropriate level of decision-making, chosing the appropriate demos, respecting the rule of law and constitutional conventions, direct participation of the electorate in referendums where appropriate, awareness of local consequences, and much more.

 

[Johnuk123]

To those saying the EU is more democratic and runs it's affairs better than we could ever do, who remembers this from 1999 :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/297461.stm

The entire European Commission - the executive body of the European Union - has resigned in the wake of a damning report exposing fraud, corruption and mismanagement at senior levels.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT]

Nothing will have changed since 1999 in fact it's almost certainly far worse, however untrustworthy Westminster is it's never remotely been that bad.

 

[TheKnightWho]

To those saying the EU is more democratic and runs it's affairs better than we could ever do, who remembers this from 1999 :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/297461.stm



Nothing will have changed since 1999 in fact it's almost certainly far worse, however untrustworthy Westminster is it's never remotely been that bad.

How can you know this?

 

[yorksrob]

Ultimately we are faced with a dreadful Hobsons choice.

Either we stay in a neo-liberal superstate which is content leave member states impoverished in pursuit of it's poorly thought out objectives.

Alternatively we leave and run the gauntlet of that same entity determined to make an example of us to ensure that no other electorates dare to spoil the master plan.

A bad situation all round.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm afraid that's just not our experience of how the EU works. It might start looser, but there will be an inexorable movement towards common defence policies and then a common command structure.

If the plans are simply for joint operations as now, then I'm not sure why people like the President of the EPP - the major centre-right grouping in the EP - are saying things like "We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe".

I will agree to disagree on the depth of any military union. I think any move to towards an integrated/single EU army would be a mistake although deployment in a lose coalition seems normal to me. We often serve under other nations command as part of NATO. Why should a deployment under EU command be different?

Also do we not already have a common defense policy in Europe. The NATO policy of an attack on one is exactly the same surely. Would an EU army not seek to remain a member of NATO? Even joined together as Team Europe we couldn't hope to take on, say, the Russians without US help. Why would the EU give up that protection?

The policy of NATO has always been local forces and forward deployed US troops hold off the Russian advance, seal up the Fulda gap and wait for the cavalry to arrive from America. That or nuke em. What changes if the local forces are now EU badged as opposed to British, French, German, Dutch, Beligian or Norwegian soldiers?

You're right - the rules of engagement should cover these eventualities, and these should be set bearing in mind humanitarian principles and military objectives. It is very difficult when complex European jurisprudence is also at play within a live combat environment. However, it's not just 'victims' of war that are claimants. The bigger question is how human rights law affects the quasi-employment relationship between the armed forces and soldiers / sailors / airmen. If the 'right to life' is paramount, then riskier operations may not happen, which may increase future risk by not dealing with problems as they arise. If equality is paramount, then there may be pressure to be more inclusive on entry requirements for women even where this reduces ineffectiveness or increases danger.

But does the EHR legislation not specifically exclude some of these accountabilities in the event of war? Are the services not exempted from the legislation?

Why should women not serve in the front line if they can meet realistic and fair standards that apply equally to all?

No, I don't think I've said that. I know many patriotic Remainers. But rather than talk about the benefits of continued union, this debate has tended to descend into arguments like 'island syndrome', 'little Englander', talk of slavery and colonialism, suggestions that we are not democratic, suggestions that we need European masters to keep us on the straight and narrow, suggestions of incapability of managing our own affairs, wishes for us to give up our permanent security council seat, etc.

but by the same token the rhetoric of the Brexeter has focused on simplistic arguments about foreigners, benefits and the lack of democracy and portrayed those who want to remain as simple minded quislings complicit in the destruction of all that is wonderful within Britain

As i have long said, I don't know how I will vote. I feel we benefit as a country ( and i know that the North East benefited from EU money the government wouldn't have spent) being a member but have concerns about the operation of the union, the cost of membership etc.

I want clear information from both sides but get tired cliches and fear mongering. It has all been very poor and designed to pander to prejudiced views on both sides.