tzijlstra Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 EU: A joint european armed force for a military defence? Whats that joke all about then? Ah yes, that is a nice one coming out of the Leave camp isn't it. Did you know that the EU is not talking about this at all? It keeps being brought up because there were politicians, post-Bataclan, in France, Germany and some other countries who wanted to explore the idea of setting up a joint task-force to improve the capabilities to deal with large scale terror attacks like this, that cross borders. People here sound all offended 'the EU makes us do this!', the EU isn't making the UK doing anything. The UK did however sign an agreement for closer integration with the French army. Look up the Lancaster House Treaty (2010). Similarly, Germany is signing treaties with neighbouring countries with the express aim of improving efficiencies and develop joint strategies for particular instances. So the Dutch, whose army is renowned for its logistical capabilities, provide logistical training to the Germans, Danes, Swedes and I believe Austrians. The Belgians and Austrians, who are very good at making rifles and handguns develop the infrastructure for that side of things. It is all natural, ground up development and none of it is EU-centralised, it is simply EU and NATO member-states looking to improve their cooperation. But of course that doesn't fit the Leave message, God forbid that countries actually cooperate! Jeez, imagine the madness that would lead to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Ah yes, that is a nice one coming out of the Leave camp isn't it. Did you know that the EU is not talking about this at all? It keeps being brought up because there were politicians, post-Bataclan, in France, Germany and some other countries who wanted to explore the idea of setting up a joint task-force to improve the capabilities to deal with large scale terror attacks like this, that cross borders. People here sound all offended 'the EU makes us do this!', the EU isn't making the UK doing anything. The UK did however sign an agreement for closer integration with the French army. Look up the Lancaster House Treaty (2010). Similarly, Germany is signing treaties with neighbouring countries with the express aim of improving efficiencies and develop joint strategies for particular instances. So the Dutch, whose army is renowned for its logistical capabilities, provide logistical training to the Germans, Danes, Swedes and I believe Austrians. The Belgians and Austrians, who are very good at making rifles and handguns develop the infrastructure for that side of things. It is all natural, ground up development and none of it is EU-centralised, it is simply EU and NATO member-states looking to improve their cooperation. But of course that doesn't fit the Leave message, God forbid that countries actually cooperate! Jeez, imagine the madness that would lead to! I recall reading about members of the French Admiralty saying quite the reverse. How confident are you that this is not in the works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgewalk Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 The three most intelligent people on SF are all voting remain. L00b, Cyclone & Tzjilstra. Speaks volumes. Tzjilstra "intelligent" ? He's a 19th century classical Liberal and supports Wednesday, hardly signs of intelligence. Vote Remain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Don't let Tomjames draw you into making personal comments about other members. It's a trap. We're all just decent people disagreeing. Nobody's opinion is invalid. Let's all stick to the arguments and keep it clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgewalk Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I recall reading about members of the French Admiralty saying quite the reverse. How confident are you that this is not in the works? Any military links as I understand it are nothing to do with the EU. Tzjilstra is correct. During the so called Arab Spring, President Sarkozy backed wrong horses in Egypt and Tunisia and in order to gain any credibility decided for some bizarre reason to bomb and attack Libya, as a consequence Britain had to join in due to the signing of an agreement which commits both countries to support each other in the event of conflict. At the time I opposed the decision and thought it was a bad decision, time will tell, but even Obama has wagged the naughty finger at "Dave" over the decision ---------- Post added 22-06-2016 at 08:29 ---------- Don't let Tomjames draw you into making personal comments about other members. It's a trap. We're all just decent people disagreeing. Nobody's opinion is invalid. Let's all stick to the arguments and keep it clean. Err... I was joking of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I recall reading about members of the French Admiralty saying quite the reverse. How confident are you that this is not in the works? Let's not deal in simplicities and qualify what is actually in the works: It is being discussed among member-states, on the initiative of member-states. The EU is not the facilitating body for these discussions, but could provide an umbrella for structured cooperation should the member-states want it to. Currently there is one member-state not wanting to use the EU for an umbrella; The United Kingdom, so it is all on ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Err... I was joking of course That wasn't directed specifically at you. I sensed a danger of the debate drifting into discussion over the character of the posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Err... I was joking of course You weren't talking about me anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I understand laws and jurisprudence just fine, thanks. The ECHR hasn't changed one bit since 1950. Neither have circumstances under which it is invoked. Protocols to the ECHR have evolved, but the UK is not a signatory of many of them, which therefore do not apply here. Case law develops as interpretations are tested and precedents set. The ECtHR has in recent years made a number of controversial judgements (particularly relating to Article 8 ) and it is disingenuous for you to pretend these do not amount to real change. And the fact that we have only ratified some protocols is not evidence of no change! Just the usual smoke and mirror rubbish. I'm not blind to the connection, it is simply irrelevant to what you are after: you are effectively wishing the jurisdiction and jurisprudence of the ECtHR away, regardless of whether the UK is in or out of the EU. It's never going to happen, regardless of whether the UK is in or out of the EU. That is a matter of opinion not fact. What is fact is that we cannot opt out whilst a member of the EU because it is a condition of membership. NATO Article 5 imposes upon the UK to take up arms in the defense of any fellow NATO member aggressed by a third party country. The WTO dispute settlement system’s rulings are binding on the countries involved in a dispute. If these are not an encroachment on British sovereignty, I don't know what is. So, I take it that you want the UK out of NATO and the WTO...right? That's going to help British international relations post-Brexit to no end Nothing to stop the UK doing that now, you know. It's not in Schengen, it's in full control of its borders. You take it that I want out of these treaties even though I specifically said people don't have a problem with them? I'll clarify, I have no pressing desire to withdraw from these treaties. I want us to withdraw from the EU treaty so we can be free again to make our own non-trade related laws and policies without EU interference or involvement. There is no comparison with a treaty that means we agree with other nations to come to each others aid if attacked - that isn't a loss of sovereignty but the protection of sovereignty. You just spout the usual nonsense about EU membership not resulting in any significant erosion of sovereignty or democratic power. The vast majority disagree with your assessment, including most of the people who are campaigning to Stay! Go ask Corbyn. The EU is deeply unpopular with people on both sides of the debate who recognise it's many undemocratic flaws and its' unwelcome interference in matters of state not trade. There is no question that sovereignty is at stake and it is only a question of whether people will abandon the principle of self-rule out of fear. Without the fear factor it would be a landslide rejection of the EU and everyone knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Just the usual smoke and mirror rubbish. Snip How can anybody be so salty years after the Abu Hamza ordeal? It is amazing really. What is even more amazing is the complete and blatant disregard of cases where the ECHR protected the vulnerable from ridiculous rules in this country. For example the case of Widowers of casualties of war not being allowed to keep their widowers pension after they remarry, effectively punishing them for getting their life back together after losing their beloved ones. Let's just ignore that all, they refused extradition of Abu Hamza to a country known to torture suspects! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts