Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Old Blue 2 said:
Ho hum...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...sh-joint-army-plans-Trump-NATO-Russia-US-news

French Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve insisted there is greater need for an EU defence system, because the President-elect called NATO “obsolete.”

At the National Assembly in Paris, he said: “We need European defense, with European means, with European investments, with a European projection capacity that will make the EU, the peoples and the nations that make it up, independent.”

A European Army has been on the cards for a long time as ministers across the bloc insist they need to protect their interests as a group.
In November 2016 a resolution was passed to create such a union.
Click to expand...

Wow, and with us leaving - we can't veto it!

Well done Brexiteers for the provision of a clear path.
 
edge said:
Tony Blair putting his oar in today that should go down well?
Click to expand...
If ever the was a fillip for leaving this blert has to pipe up 6 days before two important bi elections for Labour even slating them in his speech over article 50?
remember Iraq Tony WOMD lies what a crass politician he really turned into - even the Remain camp are upset with his sentiments saying he is causing a bigger divide!
Is TB are you concerned about the EU or your pension from the EU if it disbands??
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Do we regard the UN with such scepticism I wonder?
Click to expand...

Yes we do. Whenever you put a bureaucracy in place it always attempts to push out and take control of things that really should not concern it. For instance the UN was built to resolve conflicts between nations and provide appropriate assistance or military policing as required etc etc. But do you realise that it now lays down the standards for child seats in cars......
 
Seanjd said:
Because it's member states would never allow it's armed forces to be solely controlled by an EU executive. The proposition would break up the EU completely, hence why it will never, ever be proposed.
Click to expand...

Voted on yesterday......

Towards a common defence policy

111. Calls for progressive steps to be taken towards a common defence policy (Article 42(2) TEU) and, eventually, a common defence, which can be set up by unanimous decision of the European Council while also strengthening civilian and civil society on the basis of conflict prevention and resolution approaches based on non-violence, notably through an increase in financial, administrative and human resources aimed at dealing with mediation, dialogue, reconciliation and civil society organisation-based immediate crisis response;

112. Suggests, as a first step in this direction, that the provisions of Article 46 TEU regarding the establishment of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) through a QMV vote in Council be implemented, as this instrument would allow more ambitious Member States to cooperate more closely in a coordinated way in the area of defence under the umbrella of the EU, and empower them to use the EU’s institutions, instruments and budget;

113. Recommends setting up a permanent Council of Defence Ministers, to be chaired by the VP/HR with a view to coordinating the Member States' defence policies, particularly with regard to cybersecurity and anti-terrorism, and jointly developing the EU's defence strategy and priorities;

114. Insists on the establishment of an EU white book on security and defence on the basis of the EU global strategy for foreign and security policy presented by the VP/HR as well as the Bratislava agenda, as such a document would further define how the EU’s strategic objectives in the field of security and defence, and identify the existing and required capabilities; calls on the Commission to base its ongoing preparatory work on a European defence action plan on the results of the future EU white book on security and defence, which should also address the question of how and under what circumstances the use of military force is appropriate and legitimate;

115. Underlines the need to define common European capabilities and armaments policy (Article 42(3) TEU), which would encompass the joint planning, development and procurement of military capabilities and which should also include proposals to react to cyber, hybrid and asymmetrical threats; encourages the Commission to work on an ambitious European Defence Action Plan, as announced in the 2016 Work Programme;

116. Stresses the great potential of the European Defence Agency (EDA) in helping develop a single defence market that is competitive, efficient, underpinned by intensive R&D&I and focused on creating specialised jobs, and advocates, to that end, looking into possible public-private partnerships; reiterates the urgent need to strengthen the EDA by providing it with needed resources and political backing, thereby allowing it to play a leading and coordinating role in capability development, research and procurement; repeats its view that this would be best done by financing the Agency's staffing and running costs from the Union budget;

117. Recalls the existence of Article 44 TEU, which provides additional flexibility provisions and introduces the possibility of entrusting the implementation of crisis management tasks to a group of Member States, which would carry out such tasks in the name of the EU and under the political control and strategic guidance of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the EEAS;

118. Suggests that Article 41(3) TEU be used to establish a start-up fund consisting of Member States’ contributions to finance preparatory activities pertaining to CSDP activities not charged to the Union budget;

119. Stresses the importance of extending common financing in the area of military CSDP, including through the Athena mechanism, as this would reduce financial disincentives on the part of Member States to contributing to military CSDP missions and operations and, thereby, improve the EU’s ability to react to crises;

120. Calls for the creation of a permanent civilian and military headquarters, with Military Planning and conduct capability (MPCC) and Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC); calls for the institutionalisation of the various European military structures (among others the different battlegroups, Euroforces, France-UK defence cooperation and Benelux air defence cooperation) into the EU framework, and for an increase in the usability of EU battlegroups, inter alia by extending common financing and by considering, by default, their deployment as an initial entry force in future crisis management scenarios;

121. Notes that this permanent headquarters could engage in permanent contingency planning and play a major coordinating role in future applications of Article 42(7) TEU; is of the view that the ‘mutual defence clause’, as laid down in that article and invoked by France during the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 November 2015, can constitute a catalyst for further development of the EU’s security and defence policy, leading to stronger commitment by all Member States;

122. Considers that there is a need to enhance EU-NATO cooperation at all levels in areas such as capability development and contingency planning for hybrid threats, and to intensify efforts to remove the remaining political obstacles; urges a comprehensive EU-NATO political and military partnership;

123. Calls for decisive action to ensure policy coherence for development (PCD), under Article 208 TFEU), and demands the improvement of the PCD impact assessment system and the establishment of an arbitration mechanism to remedy any discrepancies in the EU's various policies, giving the President of the Commission political responsibility for its broad guidelines and settling matters in accordance with the EU's commitments on PCD;
 
Seanjd said:
Because it's member states would never allow it's armed forces to be solely controlled by an EU executive. The proposition would break up the EU completely, hence why it will never, ever be proposed.
Click to expand...

Then what is the point of its existence? An organization dedicated to ever closer unity whose members would automatically refuse one of the few measures that would demonstrably improve their security and bring them all together is not one that has much of a future.
 
peteblue said:
Yes we do. Whenever you put a bureaucracy in place it always attempts to push out and take control of things that really should not concern it. For instance the UN was built to resolve conflicts between nations and provide appropriate assistance or military policing as required etc etc. But do you realise that it now lays down the standards for child seats in cars......
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, at least not here.
 
tsubaki said:
Then what is the point of its existence? An organization dedicated to ever closer unity whose members would automatically refuse one of the few measures that would demonstrably improve their security and bring them all together is not one that has much of a future.
Click to expand...

Indeed.......there's none so blind as those who won't see.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top