Jump to content

JRM Admits UK has a lot of influence as an EU Member


Barryd999

Recommended Posts

:D

 

Shown his true colours now but in doing so has pretty much openly said that as members we have a lot of influence in the EU. None whatsoever in the vassal state deal he has now signed up for.

 

What a spiteful little toad. Shot himself right in the foot with this one though. Not so clever after all huh?

 

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Barryd999 - 2019-04-05 12:28 PM

 

:D

 

Shown his true colours now but in doing so has pretty much openly said that as members we have a lot of influence in the EU. None whatsoever in the vassal state deal he has now signed up for.

 

What a spiteful little toad. Shot himself right in the foot with this one though. Not so clever after all huh?

 

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554

 

 

That's not what he's said at all *-) ...........

 

But after May's EU elections we may have the opportunity to combine with other populists parties for a bit of payback >:-) ........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Fast Pat - 2019-04-05 1:08 PM

 

2019: we should s**t the bed for attention

 

You lot have been doing that since the 25/06/2016 >:-) ............

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2019-04-05 12:33 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2019-04-05 12:28 PM

 

:D

 

Shown his true colours now but in doing so has pretty much openly said that as members we have a lot of influence in the EU. None whatsoever in the vassal state deal he has now signed up for.

 

What a spiteful little toad. Shot himself right in the foot with this one though. Not so clever after all huh?

 

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554

 

 

That's not what he's said at all *-) ...........

 

But after May's EU elections we may have the opportunity to combine with other populists parties for a bit of payback >:-) ........

 

 

He said "We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes."

 

Yet he has been telling us as have you that we cannot influence anything within the EU and now both him and you seem to be implying we are all powerful and that we can. So which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barryd999 - 2019-04-05 4:11 PM

pelmetman - 2019-04-05 12:33 PM

Barryd999 - 2019-04-05 12:28 PM

 

:D

 

Shown his true colours now but in doing so has pretty much openly said that as members we have a lot of influence in the EU. None whatsoever in the vassal state deal he has now signed up for.

 

What a spiteful little toad. Shot himself right in the foot with this one though. Not so clever after all huh?

 

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554

 

That's not what he's said at all *-) ...........

 

But after May's EU elections we may have the opportunity to combine with other populists parties for a bit of payback >:-) ........

 

He said "We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes."

 

Yet he has been telling us as have you that we cannot influence anything within the EU and now both him and you seem to be implying we are all powerful and that we can. So which is it?

God, dont'cha just hate these trick questions? :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fast Pat - 2019-04-06 12:32 AM

 

747 - 2019-04-05 7:23 PM

 

That all sounds fine ... until the EU scraps the veto. :-(

 

Oh please, you'll be banging on about the Lisbon Treaty and other unicornsv next.

 

An integrated Federal Europe will see an end to 'Member States' and the end of the Veto as it will no longer be needed.

 

Perhaps Mr Corbyn has worked that one out as well. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

747 - 2019-04-06 9:30 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-04-06 12:32 AM

 

747 - 2019-04-05 7:23 PM

 

That all sounds fine ... until the EU scraps the veto. :-(

 

Oh please, you'll be banging on about the Lisbon Treaty and other unicornsv next.

 

An integrated Federal Europe will see an end to 'Member States' and the end of the Veto as it will no longer be needed.

 

Perhaps Mr Corbyn has worked that one out as well. :D

 

But the veto is not going, https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2019-04-05 6:13 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2019-04-05 4:11 PM

pelmetman - 2019-04-05 12:33 PM

Barryd999 - 2019-04-05 12:28 PM

 

:D

 

Shown his true colours now but in doing so has pretty much openly said that as members we have a lot of influence in the EU. None whatsoever in the vassal state deal he has now signed up for.

 

What a spiteful little toad. Shot himself right in the foot with this one though. Not so clever after all huh?

 

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554

 

That's not what he's said at all *-) ...........

 

But after May's EU elections we may have the opportunity to combine with other populists parties for a bit of payback >:-) ........

 

He said "We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes."

 

Yet he has been telling us as have you that we cannot influence anything within the EU and now both him and you seem to be implying we are all powerful and that we can. So which is it?

God, dont'cha just hate these trick questions? :-D

He's ducked out of giving an answer....can't think why. :-|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Fast Pat - 2019-04-06 10:23 AM

 

747 - 2019-04-06 9:30 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-04-06 12:32 AM

 

747 - 2019-04-05 7:23 PM

 

That all sounds fine ... until the EU scraps the veto. :-(

 

Oh please, you'll be banging on about the Lisbon Treaty and other unicornsv next.

 

An integrated Federal Europe will see an end to 'Member States' and the end of the Veto as it will no longer be needed.

 

Perhaps Mr Corbyn has worked that one out as well. :D

 

But the veto is not going, https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/

 

So why do they want an army? ;-) .........If any EU nation can veto its use? :-| ......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

747 - 2019-04-05 7:23 PM

That all sounds fine ... until the EU scraps the veto. :-(

But, "the EU" cannot just summarily "scrap" the veto. Changing what can be vetoed under which circumstances requires the unanimous approval of all 28 (presently) members. The idea that vetoes can simply be removed by a sweep of the Commission's hand, as you seem to be implying, is misleading. Any broadening of the application of qualified majority voting (QMV) requires treaty revision, and treaty revisions require unanimity. In the case of unanimity, all members hold a veto - because if they do not vote, or vote against, a proposal, unanimity cannot be achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2019-04-06 2:51 PM...……………...So why do they want an army? ;-) .........If any EU nation can veto its use? :-| ......

Please keep up Dave, it isn't the deployment of the "army" that we could veto, it is its formation in the first place. No army, no deployment! Simples. :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2019-04-06 5:56 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-04-06 2:51 PM...……………...So why do they want an army? ;-) .........If any EU nation can veto its use? :-| ......

Please keep up Dave, it isn't the deployment of the "army" that we could veto, it is its formation in the first place. No army, no deployment! Simples. :-D

 

Please keep up Brian ;-) .........Who in the EU has attempted to prevent its formation? *-) .....

 

As it seems our EU's masters ......ie Germany and Vichy France are all for it >:-) ........

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-to-complement-nato/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2019-04-06 6:01 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-04-06 5:56 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-04-06 2:51 PM...……………...So why do they want an army? ;-) .........If any EU nation can veto its use? :-| ......

Please keep up Dave, it isn't the deployment of the "army" that we could veto, it is its formation in the first place. No army, no deployment! Simples. :-D

Please keep up Brian ;-) .........Who in the EU has attempted to prevent its formation? *-) .....

As it seems our EU's masters ......ie Germany and Vichy France are all for it >:-) ........

https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-to-complement-nato/

I've lifted this from Fullfact as it covers most of the ground.

 

"The EU doesn’t currently have an army. It does encourage military co-operation between member countries, which already run joint operations under an EU banner, and some European politicians would like to see this take the form of stand-alone EU armed forces.

 

Member countries would have a veto on any such plans, so the UK would only take part if it chose to.

European military force is still a matter for national governments

 

The EU doesn’t have the legal power to act in this area unless member governments actively give their permission.

 

The EU treaties do allow for “the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence”.

 

But this “common defence” will only come about “when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides”. Unlike in other areas of EU decision-making, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security and defence, and any decisions in these areas must be made unanimously.

 

That means that the UK effectively has a veto.

 

UK law also states that no such common EU defence powers can be handed from the UK to the EU without the approval of parliament and a referendum on the decision. So the government would need the support of both the public and MPs before they could make such a decision.

 

The treaties don’t say what “common defence” means exactly. Presumably, while you could have a “common defence” without an EU army, creation of an EU army couldn’t happen without a “common defence” being formally approved by each individual government.

 

So while UKIP is correct to say that there’s supposed to be a gradual development of shared responsibilities in this area, an EU army couldn’t be brought into existence without the agreement of the UK (and other EU member countries, many of which reportedly don’t think it’s a good idea).

 

The UK’s position on an EU army.

 

The UK doesn’t support an EU army.

The government’s position is that: “The Prime Minister has been clear that the UK will never be part of a European Army. We have consistently said that we will oppose any measures which would undermine member states' competence for their own military forces, or lead to competition and duplication with NATO, which is the cornerstone of our defence”.

 

The EU already runs military operations, based on armies working together

 

When people talk about an “EU army”, they seem to mean armed forces recruited by, and under the central command of, an EU organisation which could deploy them as it sees fit.

 

Military operations are already managed at EU level. The first of these began in 2003 in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under the control of the EU Political and Security Committee of member countries’ ambassadors. Other operations followed in the Congo, and Bosnia Herzegovina in 2004—that one is still going on.

 

The EU currently has six ongoing military operations in non-EU countries, and another dozen ‘civilian missions’.

 

An important difference between these operations and an “EU army” is that they rely on member countries to provide the boots on the ground. The Union doesn’t directly employ soldiers.

Its military operations, and stand-by ‘Battlegroups’, are formed from various armies working together.

 

On a practical level, this shows up in soldiers on EU missions wearing EU badges on their regular army uniforms.

 

In terms of high-level organisation, the EU Military Committee is made up of Chiefs of Defence from each country. The EU Military Staff reporting to it are on secondment from the armed forces of member states—the European Commission told us that the dozen UK military personnel on the Military Staff “remain employees of the UK Government”.

 

EU military operations are also financed from a separate pot of money from the centralised EU budget.

EU member states can have closer cooperation between their armies

 

Member countries who want greater defence cooperation can work together without the involvement or backing of all members. This is referred to as ‘permanent structured cooperation’.

 

These countries can then coordinate on a number of areas including operational planning, training and sharing equipment.

 

Leave campaigners have claimed that the UK would be forced into an ‘EU army’ under the rules allowing for these activities.

 

But even if you think this kind of cooperation amounted to an EU army, which isn’t clear, it’s entirely optional. Member countries also have the option to leave these agreements further down the line if they wish to.

 

So far no EU countries have taken up this option.

 

Some people would like an EU army, but there aren’t concrete plans for one

 

Proposals reported in May 2016 as “the first step towards an EU army” referred to a push for permanent structured cooperation, to be tabled after the UK membership referendum.

 

There are plenty more examples of EU politicians pushing for more defence integration.

 

Proposals put forward in 2013 involved “assets directly purchased, owned and operated by the Union”, although the EU said that this referred to non-military equipment.

 

These mirror the desire of the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, for “at least some integrated defence capacities”. He’s also made a more specific call for a joint EU army, in an interview with the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.

 

A paper published by his European People’s Party political grouping called for “an EU strategic civilian and military headquarters” and, in the long run, “European stand-by forces under Union command”.

So we know that some players on the EU political scene would like the Union to be able to use military force on its own. Accordingly, experts in European issues and defence policy have been debating whether or not it’s realistic and a good idea.

 

But, politically, it seems a fairly distant prospect at present. The 2013 proposals we mentioned, for instance, were welcomed by the European Council of national leaders on the pointed condition “that the capabilities are owned and operated by the Member States”.

 

The European Council has given defence and security policy more attention recently. After a recent meeting, it said that the EU should be doing things like “fostering greater and more systematic European defence cooperation to deliver key capabilities, including through EU funds”.

While this suggests that countries will work more closely together in future, it’s not a resounding call for an EU army."

 

However, the above does not address the critical (IMO) issue of who would have command of whatever forces the EU might, one day, sanction. Ceding command to a committee of 28 would be a recipe for disaster, as they still be arguing over what to do as the bombs began to fall. Ceding command to a single EU institution to act without consultation would turn the EU into a virtual military dictatorship. Ceding command to a single EU state would, I suggest, never be accepted by the other states. I'm sure I don't need to explain why!! :-D

 

Add to that the risk of posing with a military that the world would know had no rapid deployment capability and a fractured command structure. Surely, everyone recognises the dangers of chocolate armies, don't they?

 

Its a political and military non runner, and is merely an example of Brexit's project fear trying to scar sensible people into leaving the EU.

 

Besides all of which, were it ever contemplated, it would truly be the time to leave. There is no point in leaving for fear of improbable scenarios and paranoid nightmares. Stick to reality, IMO! :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2019-04-06 6:52 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-04-06 6:01 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-04-06 5:56 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-04-06 2:51 PM...……………...So why do they want an army? ;-) .........If any EU nation can veto its use? :-| ......

Please keep up Dave, it isn't the deployment of the "army" that we could veto, it is its formation in the first place. No army, no deployment! Simples. :-D

Please keep up Brian ;-) .........Who in the EU has attempted to prevent its formation? *-) .....

As it seems our EU's masters ......ie Germany and Vichy France are all for it >:-) ........

https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-to-complement-nato/

I've lifted this from Fullfact as it covers most of the ground.

 

"The EU doesn’t currently have an army. It does encourage military co-operation between member countries, which already run joint operations under an EU banner, and some European politicians would like to see this take the form of stand-alone EU armed forces.

 

Member countries would have a veto on any such plans, so the UK would only take part if it chose to.

European military force is still a matter for national governments

 

The EU doesn’t have the legal power to act in this area unless member governments actively give their permission.

 

The EU treaties do allow for “the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence”.

 

But this “common defence” will only come about “when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides”. Unlike in other areas of EU decision-making, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security and defence, and any decisions in these areas must be made unanimously.

 

That means that the UK effectively has a veto.

 

UK law also states that no such common EU defence powers can be handed from the UK to the EU without the approval of parliament and a referendum on the decision. So the government would need the support of both the public and MPs before they could make such a decision.

 

The treaties don’t say what “common defence” means exactly. Presumably, while you could have a “common defence” without an EU army, creation of an EU army couldn’t happen without a “common defence” being formally approved by each individual government.

 

So while UKIP is correct to say that there’s supposed to be a gradual development of shared responsibilities in this area, an EU army couldn’t be brought into existence without the agreement of the UK (and other EU member countries, many of which reportedly don’t think it’s a good idea).

 

The UK’s position on an EU army.

 

The UK doesn’t support an EU army.

The government’s position is that: “The Prime Minister has been clear that the UK will never be part of a European Army. We have consistently said that we will oppose any measures which would undermine member states' competence for their own military forces, or lead to competition and duplication with NATO, which is the cornerstone of our defence”.

 

The EU already runs military operations, based on armies working together

 

When people talk about an “EU army”, they seem to mean armed forces recruited by, and under the central command of, an EU organisation which could deploy them as it sees fit.

 

Military operations are already managed at EU level. The first of these began in 2003 in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under the control of the EU Political and Security Committee of member countries’ ambassadors. Other operations followed in the Congo, and Bosnia Herzegovina in 2004—that one is still going on.

 

The EU currently has six ongoing military operations in non-EU countries, and another dozen ‘civilian missions’.

 

An important difference between these operations and an “EU army” is that they rely on member countries to provide the boots on the ground. The Union doesn’t directly employ soldiers.

Its military operations, and stand-by ‘Battlegroups’, are formed from various armies working together.

 

On a practical level, this shows up in soldiers on EU missions wearing EU badges on their regular army uniforms.

 

In terms of high-level organisation, the EU Military Committee is made up of Chiefs of Defence from each country. The EU Military Staff reporting to it are on secondment from the armed forces of member states—the European Commission told us that the dozen UK military personnel on the Military Staff “remain employees of the UK Government”.

 

EU military operations are also financed from a separate pot of money from the centralised EU budget.

EU member states can have closer cooperation between their armies

 

Member countries who want greater defence cooperation can work together without the involvement or backing of all members. This is referred to as ‘permanent structured cooperation’.

 

These countries can then coordinate on a number of areas including operational planning, training and sharing equipment.

 

Leave campaigners have claimed that the UK would be forced into an ‘EU army’ under the rules allowing for these activities.

 

But even if you think this kind of cooperation amounted to an EU army, which isn’t clear, it’s entirely optional. Member countries also have the option to leave these agreements further down the line if they wish to.

 

So far no EU countries have taken up this option.

 

Some people would like an EU army, but there aren’t concrete plans for one

 

Proposals reported in May 2016 as “the first step towards an EU army” referred to a push for permanent structured cooperation, to be tabled after the UK membership referendum.

 

There are plenty more examples of EU politicians pushing for more defence integration.

 

Proposals put forward in 2013 involved “assets directly purchased, owned and operated by the Union”, although the EU said that this referred to non-military equipment.

 

These mirror the desire of the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, for “at least some integrated defence capacities”. He’s also made a more specific call for a joint EU army, in an interview with the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.

 

A paper published by his European People’s Party political grouping called for “an EU strategic civilian and military headquarters” and, in the long run, “European stand-by forces under Union command”.

So we know that some players on the EU political scene would like the Union to be able to use military force on its own. Accordingly, experts in European issues and defence policy have been debating whether or not it’s realistic and a good idea.

 

But, politically, it seems a fairly distant prospect at present. The 2013 proposals we mentioned, for instance, were welcomed by the European Council of national leaders on the pointed condition “that the capabilities are owned and operated by the Member States”.

 

The European Council has given defence and security policy more attention recently. After a recent meeting, it said that the EU should be doing things like “fostering greater and more systematic European defence cooperation to deliver key capabilities, including through EU funds”.

While this suggests that countries will work more closely together in future, it’s not a resounding call for an EU army."

 

However, the above does not address the critical (IMO) issue of who would have command of whatever forces the EU might, one day, sanction. Ceding command to a committee of 28 would be a recipe for disaster, as they still be arguing over what to do as the bombs began to fall. Ceding command to a single EU institution to act without consultation would turn the EU into a virtual military dictatorship. Ceding command to a single EU state would, I suggest, never be accepted by the other states. I'm sure I don't need to explain why!! :-D

 

Add to that the risk of posing with a military that the world would know had no rapid deployment capability and a fractured command structure. Surely, everyone recognises the dangers of chocolate armies, don't they?

 

Its a political and military non runner, and is merely an example of Brexit's project fear trying to scar sensible people into leaving the EU.

 

Besides all of which, were it ever contemplated, it would truly be the time to leave. There is no point in leaving for fear of improbable scenarios and paranoid nightmares. Stick to reality, IMO! :-D

 

Reality is ;-) .......What Germany wants.....Germany gets *-) .......

 

BTW I suppose JRM got Merkel & Macron to sign this accord? >:-) .......

 

"STRASBOURG — German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday endorsed the creation of an EU army"

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-to-complement-nato/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fast Pat - 2019-04-06 1:05 PM

 

747 - 2019-04-06 1:01 PM

 

The Veto proposal has not been scrapped.

 

It has been 'shelved'.

 

 

Source please?

 

Originally mooted in 2000.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/dec/04/emu.europarl (from the remoaners Bible).

 

17 years later:

 

https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-tax-digital/eu-commission-aims-move-to-reduce-governments-veto-powers-on-tax-idUSKBN1CT2FC

 

Will it ever go away?

 

If anyone believes in Unicorns, it is yourself.

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Fast Pat - 2019-04-06 7:01 PM

 

 

I think I've had an insight into Farty Pants mind :D .........It appears to be empty (lol) ......

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

747 - 2019-04-06 7:00 PM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-04-06 1:05 PM

 

747 - 2019-04-06 1:01 PM

 

The Veto proposal has not been scrapped.

 

It has been 'shelved'.

 

 

Source please?

 

Originally mooted in 2000.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/dec/04/emu.europarl (from the remoaners Bible).

 

17 years later:

 

https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-tax-digital/eu-commission-aims-move-to-reduce-governments-veto-powers-on-tax-idUSKBN1CT2FC

 

Will it ever go away?

 

If anyone believes in Unicorns, it is yourself.

 

;-)

 

So twenty odd years and we still haven't been able to scrap it?

 

It's almost like we have a veto against the veto?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...