Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

It does. The standards are laid down by the UN, the EU then acts as enforcer to the UK......

Universal safety standards for child seats, so what?

Does taking back control mean we can reduce the safety standards then?

 

[tsubaki]

It does. The standards are laid down by the UN, the EU then acts as enforcer to the UK......

No, the standards are laid down by the UN's Economic Commission for Europe, which is a group of the 56 "Western" states minus the Australians and NZ.

Any of those states can opt out of those standards (the US does for much of it, for instance), and the enforcement of those standards is down to the individual member states and not the EU - so when we leave, we will still be a part of the UN-ECE and follow the directives we have signed up to under it.

 

[peteblue]

Universal safety standards for child seats, so what?

Does taking back control mean we can reduce the safety standards then?

I hope you are deliberately missing the point......

 

[Seanjd]

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;

Can't see anything in there about an all powerful EU army which takes military powers away from its member states.

What I can read, though, is what everybody already knew about the EU and its military aims - that it's states work cooperatively, share certain policy in regards to anti terrorism, shares resources in some instances and can use some of the resources of its member states to respond to crisis.

So no, member states haven't voted for the almighty EU army you envisage.

 

[Chewbacca]

Universal safety standards for child seats, so what?

Does taking back control mean we can reduce the safety standards then?

This is exactly what it means to many employers

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I hope you are deliberately missing the point......

I've no idea what your point is Pete.

You appear to confusing the UN with UNECE.

 

[Seanjd]

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.

My responses were to old blue 2, who claims that the end goal is one EU army controlled centrally which will replace our own. That wouldn't improve security or bring countries together, and isn't going to happen. Ever.

 

[Clint Planet]

This is exactly what it means to many employers

To the detriment of employees.

 

[tsubaki]

This is exactly what it means to many employers

Certainly in the US, where they effectively ban imports of cars and bits of cars under the UN-ECE agreement and instead let manufacturers self-certify that their parts are roadworthy and safe. This is the result.

 

[peteblue]

No, the standards are laid down by the UN's Economic Commission for Europe, which is a group of the 56 "Western" states minus the Australians and NZ.

Any of those states can opt out of those standards (the US does for much of it, for instance), and the enforcement of those standards is down to the individual member states and not the EU - so when we leave, we will still be a part of the UN-ECE and follow the directives we have signed up to under it.

My point really was the absurdity of a body such as the UN laying down standards for child car seats in the first place, while Russia, the USA, the U.K. et al and Syria are bombing the crap out of the Syrian population and causing massive migration and suffering.....perhaps these bodies should concentrate on the real reasons they were set up......

 

[tsubaki]

My point really was the absurdity of a body such as the UN laying down standards for child car seats in the first place, while Russia, the USA, the U.K. et al and Syria are bombing the crap out of the Syrian population and causing massive migration and suffering.....perhaps these bodies should concentrate on the real reasons they were set up......

The UN doesn't lay down those standards. A sub-group of member states do, and they all agree to follow those standards because of the improvements to trade and safety (in that order). If you oppose something as sensible as that then you really oppose any kind of agreement between states.

 

[tsubaki]

My responses were to old blue 2, who claims that the end goal is one EU army controlled centrally which will replace our own. That wouldn't improve security or bring countries together, and isn't going to happen. Ever.

It isn't the end goal, but it really should be. Under a properly reformed EU (one that is admittedly unlikely to happen and which would look nothing like it does now) a pan-European armed force would be a massive boost to our security and would bring the nations of Europe together more than almost anything else (with the possible exception of a shared language).

 

[peteblue]

Can't see anything in there about an all powerful EU army which takes military powers away from its member states.

What I can read, though, is what everybody already knew about the EU and its military aims - that it's states work cooperatively, share certain policy in regards to anti terrorism, shares resources in some instances and can use some of the resources of its member states to respond to crisis.

So no, member states haven't voted for the almighty EU army you envisage.

If you cannot see what this is telling you then fair enough......nothing to see here folks, move along, move along.....

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

To the detriment of employees.

And to the benefit of their bottom line....

Reduce administration = cut costs

Reduce the burden of legislation = cut corners in order to cut costs

It'll be sound though, I mean who wouldn't trust the Tories with H&S & employment legislation

 

[peteblue]

The UN doesn't lay down those standards. A sub-group of member states do, and they all agree to follow those standards because of the improvements to trade and safety (in that order). If you oppose something as sensible as that then you really oppose any kind of agreement between states.

I do not oppose any sort of agreements whatsoever. My throwaway example was just to point out how bureaucracies generate work for themselves, and in this particular instance in totally the wrong bureaucracy.......