Politics, politics, politics

[glorygloryeze]

Meanwhile....


PESCO: EU army one step closer after defense pact agreement

The prospect of a European army has gained momentum following a historic agreement by 25 member states. The new defense cooperation PESCO could reduce the EU's reliance on NATO.



Twenty-five European member states on Monday formally agreed to establish a European Union defense union, known as PESCO.

The Permanent Structured Cooperation could pave the way for the creation of a European army.

What does this entail?

Officials have earmarked 17 joint projects that will fall under the scope of the PESCO agreement, including:

• a pan-European military training center
• common standards for military radio communication
• the creation of a German-led European medical unit and logistics hub
• an initiative to build up faster crisis response forces
• intelligence exchanges on cyber threats
• submarine drones

Read more: PESCO: EU paves way to defense union


'Sleeping beauty awakes'

The EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini called the decision "historic."

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hailed the move on Twitter, posting: "She is awake, the Sleeping Beauty of the Lisbon Treaty: Permanent Structured Cooperation is happening."

https://twitter.com/x/status/940175532196589568

A historic step: The deal fulfills a 70-year-old ambition among European nations to integrate their defenses and marks the biggest move in two decades to help match the EU's economic and trade prowess with a more powerful military.

What is PESCO? The alliance was first set out in the Lisbon Treaty — in effect the EU's constitution. It will allow member states to jointly develop military capabilities, invest in shared projects and enhance their respective armed forces.

Why PESCO is being discussed now: The shift in US policy under President Donald Trump — who berated European partners on military spending at a NATO summit in May — has intensified efforts to reduce an over-reliance on Washington for protection.

The member states involved: Only three EU member states refused to sign up to the pact: Malta, Denmark and the UK, which is set to leave the bloc in March 2019.

What happens next: Money for PESCO could be provided by the European Defense Fund, which is expected to be signed on Tuesday. The initial projects are expected to be formally adopted by the European Council in early 2018.

https://www.dw.com/en/pesco-eu-army-one-step-closer-after-defense-pact-agreement/a-41741828


On 6 March 2018, the Council adopted a Recommendation which sets out a roadmap for the further implementation of PESCO. See PESCO factsheet here: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters...ent-structured-cooperation-pesco-factsheet_en

 

[SpurMeUp]

You still need to ask yourself why the EU want us to stay in so much.

To take all your money to give to peasants in eastern Europe and French farmers.

To tell our fisherman they can not fish in international waters that they are legally allowed to do so. While European fisherman come into ours.

To stop us from giving state aid to industries to help them more competitive on the world stage.

Or because they are dictators trying to control every aspect of people's lives.

“it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth.” Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[glorygloryeze]

“it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth.” Alexis de Tocqueville

"For every good reason there is to lie, there is a better reason to tell the truth." Bo Bennett

 

[SpurMeUp]

"For every good reason there is to lie, there is a better reason to tell the truth." Bo Bennett

There is one vital truth which i don't think anyone rational can deny. It is that hard Brexit would be very very bad for the UK and soft Brexit leaves no one happy. Soft Brexit is just EU-lite with less Sovrignity.

It's boring, but participation in the EU keeps the UK at the top table, and helps everyday people in the UK a lot more than we realise. Workers rights, controls on air and water pollultion (which couldn't work nation by nation as air and water flow accross borders), free phone roaming, a stronger economy with free access to 550m consumers etc.

It's a no brainer. The old need to be get over free movement and let the young stay free to work, travel and cooperate with neighbours. People who are our genetic cousins - and the most advanced nations and cultures in the world.

 

[glorygloryeze]

There is one vital truth which i don't think anyone rational can deny. It is that hard Brexit would be very very bad for the UK and soft Brexit leaves no one happy. Soft Brexit is just EU-lite with less Sovrignity.

It's boring, but participation in the EU keeps the UK at the top table, and helps everyday people in the UK a lot more than we realise. Workers rights, controls on air and water pollultion (which couldn't work nation by nation as air and water flow accross borders), free phone roaming, a stronger economy with free access to 550m consumers etc.

It's a no brainer. The old need to be get over free movement and let the young stay free to work, travel and cooperate with neighbours. People who are our genetic cousins - and the most advanced nations and cultures in the world.

That's all well and good; however: Europe is a multitude of diverse cultures, histories and economies. It is not one country...

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's all well and good; however: Europe is a multitude of diverse cultures, histories and economies. It is not one country...

Yes it is. Our cultures are so deep rooted, with distinct languages and histories. Even if you wanted to get rid of them, you couldn't; and no one wants to. The EU government is the same size as Birmingham council. It's role isn't to make all of Europe the same, but primarily to faciliate trade and cooperation. Sure you can point to silly things and find examples of this and that which are not perfect, but its essence is a force for good, which is often misold and misunderstood in the UK print media. Like the stories of th EU telling us what shape our bananas should be

What would you go for as an alternative? A hard Brexit or a compromised soft one where we do what the EU says and have no input?

 

[glorygloryeze]

Yes it is. Our cultures are so deep rooted, with distinct languages and histories.

Eh? Cultures are "deep rooted, with distinct languages and histories" but yet Europe is one country??

Even if you wanted to get rid of them, you couldn't; and no one wants to. The EU government is the same size as Birmingham council. It's role isn't to make all of Europe the same, but primarily to faciliate trade and cooperation.

Hahaha..pull the other one! Even if that were true, does Birmingham council need or want it's own army/defence force? If the EU GOVERNMENT was only to facilitate trade and cooperation, it's likely that Brexit wouldn't have even been on the cards.

Sure you can point to silly things and find examples of this and that which are not perfect, but its essence is a force for good, which is often misold and misunderstood in the UK print media. Like the stories of th EU telling us what shape our bananas should be

What would you go for as an alternative? A hard Brexit or a compromised soft one where we do what the EU says and have no input?

I want the UK outside of the EU and all it's Superstate building processes it is taking, including the push for an EU army. A Superstate where one-size-fits-all Economic and Political policies are being pushed onto 27 countries is doomed to fail in the end, despite how "culturally linked" you feel the EU 27 countries are. The steps towards that eventual failure will likely and inevitably include outright dictatorship at worst or a major democratic deficit for the electorates across Europe at best.
If that is called a "Hard Brexit" then so be it

 

[glorygloryeze]

The EU army thing is real...

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legis...nger-global-actor/file-european-defence-union

Legislative train schedule

Europe as a stronger global actor


EUROPEAN DEFENCE UNION



Departed..



The possibility of a common defence policy is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty's Article 42. In his 2016 State of the Union speech, Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker proposed a number of initiatives in defence, including the creation of a European Defence Fund (EDF), a single headquarters for operations, the implementation of permanent structured cooperation and a move towards common military assets. He insisted on full complementarity with NATO.


On 28 June 2016 the HR/VP Federica Mogherini presented the global strategy for the EU’s foreign and security policy (EUGS). On 14 November 2016, the HR/VP presented the implementation plan on security and defence to the Council. On 15 November 2016, the HR/VP and NATO's Secretary-General presented their package of 42 proposals for the implementation of the joint EU-NATO declaration, signed in Warsaw in July 2016. On 30 November 2016 the Commission submitted a communication on the European Defence Action Plan to the Council and the European Parliament (EP). These three initiatives are known as the Defence Package.


On 7 June 2017 the Commission presented a Communication on launching the European Defence Fund and an accompanying Proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP). On 13 June 2018 it submitted a proposal for a Regulation establishing the EDF.


As part of the Defence Union, on 28 March 2018 the Commission presented an Action Plan to improve military mobility within and beyond the European Union. This Action Plan identifies a series of operational measures to tackle physical, procedural or regulatory barriers which hamper military mobility.


On 14 November 2016, the Council welcomed the implementation plan on security and defence and reiterated its call to deepen European defence cooperation. It called on the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the Member States, to develop proposals to that effect.


On 6 December 2016, the Council and the NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs endorsed the proposals for the implementation of the EU-NATO Joint Declaration.

To be continued in next post...

 

[glorygloryeze]

The European Council welcomed and endorsed all three elements of the defence package on 15 December and called for comprehensive follow-up.


On 6 March 2017 the Council approved a concept note on the operational planning and conduct capabilities for CSDP missions and operations, including the establishment of a military planning and conduct capability (MPCC). On 8 June 2017, the Council adopted the decision establishing the MPCC within the EU military staff (EUMS). The March 2017 European Council welcomed the progress achieved.


On 18 May 2017 the Council welcomed the progress made in EU-NATO cooperation. It provided guidance for further work in deepening defence cooperation, including permanent structured cooperation (PESCO), the possibility of a voluntary coordinated annual review on defence (CARD) and the EDAP.


On 19 June 2017 the Council welcomed the progress made in implementation of the common set of proposals (42 actions) agreed by the EU and NATO. The Council also discussed the implementation of the EUGS, on the basis of a report by the HR/VP on the first year of implementation.


The European Council of June 2017 welcome the progress made in defence and agreed on the need to launch PESCO. It also agreed that the deployment of Battlegroups should be borne as a common cost by the EU-managed Athena mechanism on a permanent basis. It urged the Council to speed up its work on civilian crisis management.


On 17 July 2017 the Council stated that the EU should continue strengthening its cooperation in security and defence, including through the establishment of PESCO. On 19 October 2017 the European Council welcomed progress on PESCO, on the EDIDP, the EDF and CARD.


On 13 November 2017, the Council welcomed the common notification by 23 Member States on their intention to participate in PESCO, the progress on the implementation of the EDF and the launch of the trial run of the CARD. The Council also welcomed the presentation of the Joint Communication on Military Mobility.


PESCO was launched by 25 Member States on 11 December 2017 and welcomed by the European Council on 14 December. EU leaders called for more progress in defence, including in the EDF, the revision of the Athena mechanism, military mobility and the implementation of proposals on EU-NATO cooperation.


On 6 March 2018, the Council – meeting for the first time in 'PESCO' format – formally adopted the list of projects to be developed and a roadmap for the implementation of PESCO. Defence Ministers also welcomed the agreement of the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the Secretary General of NATO to start working towards a new EU-NATO declaration which could be signed in the margins of the forthcoming NATO Summit in July. The HR/VP presented to the Council her initiative on a proposal for an off-EU budget European peace facility. The Council also underlined the importance of military mobility as a priority for the EU and for EU-NATO cooperation.


On 28 May 2018 the Council adopted conclusions on strengthening civilian CSDP. On 25 June it welcomed the Commission's proposals on security and defence in the framework of the next MFF and adopted conclusions on PESCO, CARD, the EDF, Military Mobility, the European Peace Facility, hybrid threats and various aspects of CSDP. On 28 June the European Council welcomed progress in various areas of security and defence, invited the Council to decide on the conditions for third State participation in PESCO projects and called for further deepening of EU-NATO cooperation.


The European Parliament (EP) has called for an effective and ambitious European foreign and security policy based 'on a shared vision of key European interests'. On 22 November 2016, the EP adopted a resolution which calls on the HR/VP to produce an EU security and defence white paper to be based on the EUGS. The resolution encourages the European Council to lead the progressive framing of the EDU, with a view to its establishment under the EU's next multiannual political and financial framework (MFF).


On 14 December 2016 Parliament re-emphasised that the EU must strengthen its security and defence capabilities and expressed support for all related initiatives, including the setting up of a defence configuration of the Council and the activation of PESCO. On 16 March 2017 the EP urged the Council to take steps towards the harmonisation and standardisation of the European armed forces as a step in the framing of a common Union defence policy. It called on the Council and the HR/VP to elaborate an EU White Book on security and defence.


On 13 December 2017 the EP welcomed PESCO. It urged the Member States to commit themselves to a common and autonomous European defence, and to aim to ensure that their national defence budgets amount to at least 2 % of GDP within a decade. It added that a common cyber defence policy should be one of the first building blocks of EDU, within the PESCO framework, and called for the establishment of a DG Defence in the Commission. The EP stressed the need for close coordination of all CSDP-related.


On 13 June 2018 the EP adopted a resolution on EU-NATO relations where it stressed that "certain EU Member States’ non-membership of NATO should mean that they have different EDU obligations" and that EU Member States should be capable of launching autonomous military missions also where NATO is not willing to act or where EU action is more appropriate. On the same day Parliament also adopted a resolution on cyber defence. On 3 July 2018 Parliament adopted a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation establishing the European Defence Industrial Development Programme aiming at supporting the competitiveness and innovative capacity of the EU defence industry (COM(2017)0294 – C8-0180/2017 – 2017/0125(COD)) (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)



For further information: Elena Lazarou, legislative-train@europarl.europa.eu


As of 20 June 2018


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legis...nger-global-actor/file-european-defence-union

 

[SpurMeUp]

Eh? Cultures are "deep rooted, with distinct languages and histories" but yet Europe is one country??



Hahaha..pull the other one! Even if that were true, does Birmingham council need or want it's own army/defence force? If the EU GOVERNMENT was only to facilitate trade and cooperation, it's likely that Brexit wouldn't have even been on the cards.



I want the UK outside of the EU and all it's Superstate building processes it is taking, including the push for an EU army. A Superstate where one-size-fits-all Economic and Political policies are being pushed onto 27 countries is doomed to fail in the end, despite how "culturally linked" you feel the EU 27 countries are. The steps towards that eventual failure will likely and inevitably include outright dictatorship at worst or a major democratic deficit for the electorates across Europe at best.
If that is called a "Hard Brexit" then so be it

Who said Europe is one country? It’s clearly not and never will be. Europe’s nations have the most distinct cultures and histories. Apart from anything else each nation has its own language. How could Europe ever be one country!? Would never happen. The closest Europe came to being one was Hitler, and the EU was setup to ensure Europe trades rather than ever witnesses war again. The precursor to the two World Wars were trade wars in europe incidentally.

How does this ‘superstate’ effect you? Where is it? It’s government is the size of a local council. The real 'project fear' is making the EU out to be something it ain’t.

Do you feel less British with us in the EU? Does anyone ever bother with EU elections apart from UKIP? The EUs role in our lives is minimal. Most of what the EU does is quietly helpful. It goes about its business without fanfare and it tends be pretty boring adminstrive and legal stuff to allow memeber countires to trade.

The uk in the 70s before the EU, was known as the sick man of Europe. Economically we were far worse off than France Germany, but by being able to trade freely we grew faster than them and prospered. Freedom to trade is a good thing. We are not in the Euro so not bound by one currency.

The superstate thing is overplayed. Many nations in the EU are ‘euro-sceptics’. While some individuals maybe Federalists, more are sceptical, and the UK (and other nations) can veto anything we don’t want.

Brexit was a victory of simple lies over complex truth.




Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[the dza]

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...s/98086/ministers-delay-vote-major-boundaries

The Government is set to publish a report by the Boundary Commission, which has recommended cutting the number of parliamentary constituencies from 650 and 600.

The review also plans to make constituencies more equal in size, with similar numbers of voters in each seat.

But The Times reports that ministers will not table a vote on the changes because of concerns that it could allow Brexiteer critics of the Government to inflict a defeat.

Although Labour has accused the Government of using the proposals to launch a "power grab", some Tory MPs, including prominent Brexiteers Boris Johnson and Priti Patel, could see their seats either abolished or have their majorities slashed under the plans.

Conservative chairman Brandon Lewis last week vowed to press ahead with the plans, saying they would stop Britain from having "the most out-of-date boundaries in modern political history".

But a Conservative source told the paper: "The last thing that any government would want is a vote on this amid all the Brexit shenanigans."

Speaking ahead of the report's presentation to Parliament, Boundary Commission secretary Sam Hartley, said: "We're confident that the new map of constituencies best reflects the rules set for us by Parliament and we're especially pleased that our recommendations are based heavily on what members of the public have told us about their local areas.

"It is now up to the government to present our report to Parliament, and we look forward to being able to publish our recommendations once that has happened."

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hailed the move on Twitter, posting: "She is awake, the Sleeping Beauty of the Lisbon Treaty: Permanent Structured Cooperation is happening."

That just sounds ominous to me. Genuinely, its what the bad guy says in the movies when he thinks he is about to win!

 

[SpurMeUp]

Eh? Cultures are "deep rooted, with distinct languages and histories" but yet Europe is one country??



Hahaha..pull the other one! Even if that were true, does Birmingham council need or want it's own army/defence force? If the EU GOVERNMENT was only to facilitate trade and cooperation, it's likely that Brexit wouldn't have even been on the cards.



I want the UK outside of the EU and all it's Superstate building processes it is taking, including the push for an EU army. A Superstate where one-size-fits-all Economic and Political policies are being pushed onto 27 countries is doomed to fail in the end, despite how "culturally linked" you feel the EU 27 countries are. The steps towards that eventual failure will likely and inevitably include outright dictatorship at worst or a major democratic deficit for the electorates across Europe at best.
If that is called a "Hard Brexit" then so be it

Got a bit more time now. I do think this Brexit gonads is fascinating, it could be the biggest political change in our life times and determine the UKs role in the world as well as its future prosperity. A few questions to you:

• In all those articles you posted, does it actually say the EU is setting up an army? Skim reading it, it says things like coperation, setting up a way for different armies to communicate using a standard radio frequency etc. Where has the EU army bit come from?

Sounds like you are passionate about the UK being out of the EU, and a soft Brexit wouldn't be cool with you. As we'd be taking orders from the EU - it would be worse than now right? Are you comfortable with a Hard Brexit therefore?

• Would you be comfortable telling the employees of the car factories in the UK that will have 10% tarrifs applied to EU exports, that they are likely out of a job?
• How would you deal with the additional costs of everythig from getting drugs to patients to moving goods from the EU to build wind farms etc? Government pays for these things, which means we - tax payers - are paying.
• Would you be okay with cuts to the NHS to pay for new customs checks and all the other things required?

This is not gonads. Hard Brexit means a lot of messy nonsense that adds cost to a huge amount of UK activity. The UK also loses a lot of investment e.g. into car manufacturing, as well as the tax that we get from wages paid to car workers, bankers etc that woudl be lost, and we have to pay for them being on welfare if there are no other jobs.
Even if we somehow create oppotunites outside the EU that could take decades, and no one can tell me how we would breate these oppotunities (apart from Liam Fox who mentioned potato seeds to China! Can you see that happening??)

• The key question is, why isn't the UK generating these non-EU oppotunities now as Germany or Italy does successfully within the EU?
• The world over, nations trade most with their neigbours. Are there any exceptions to this rule? I don't know of any.
• Finally, do you go on holiday ever? Do you mind paying 20 to 30% more for your holidays, as well as any imported goods?

Prices have already rises after the vote outcome and our currency being devalued. A Hard Brexit would likely devalue the pound even more. These are real things that will affect us day to day. Vist a supermarket 2 years ago, pre-vote, and prices were cheaper. These are real effects of Brexit. It is hitting us in the pocket now.

On the other hand there is supposedly a 'super state' that no one really has any examples of how it affects them negatively.

Time to get over it, and let people be free to trade and work with europe. The EU is a force for good, born out of the ashes of the most debilitating and destructive war this planet has known. "Project fear" is that the EU is negative and holding the UK back. That is the opposit of the truth. Just look at the UK of the 1970s pre-EU.

 

[the dza]

If there's one aspect of "ever closer union" I couldn't give a sh1t about, it's an EU Army. So it means that all the countries that border us are on the same team and could never fight one another? That makes us more secure imo. And it'd also mean 20-something nations have to agree on going to war with someone instead of just one, making another Libya or Iraq much less likely (if we were part of the EU Army).

Not that it matters, as we are leaving the EU. But that would have been a benefit of staying in, imo.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The big issue with the army is sovereignty and accountability.

NATO is an international organisation. The EU is a supranational one.

The proposals mean Juncker and co. can send French/German/Dutch soldiers off to die - not their own governments with the consent of their people.

International co-operation through NATO (especially the recent Anglo-French axis), Five Eyes etc. couldn't be closer and is a good thing. But you can't outsource decisions on potential mass casualties to an unaccountable third party. You might as well hand Trident over to G4S or Facebook

 

[glorygloryeze]

If there's one aspect of "ever closer union" I couldn't give a sh1t about, it's an EU Army. So it means that all the countries that border us are on the same team and could never fight one another? That makes us more secure imo. And it'd also mean 20-something nations have to agree on going to war with someone instead of just one, making another Libya or Iraq much less likely (if we were part of the EU Army).

Not that it matters, as we are leaving the EU. But that would have been a benefit of staying in, imo.

National interest will always take precedence over whatever agreement/cooperation treaty a country is in. Being part of NATO whilst some countries being pro and against, say, the two invasions of Iraq show this. The UK spends shedloads on Defence as it is anyway and being in or out of an EU Army/defence force would be largely irelevant...however, the fact that the EU is (trying to) build one says all there is to know about whether the EU Comission/Parliament see themselves are "just a bunch of civil servants" or actually as a Political Union Government-in-waiting..

 

[Gutter Boy]

National interest will always take precedence over whatever agreement/cooperation treaty a country is in. Being part of NATO whilst some countries being pro and against, say, the two invasions of Iraq show this. The UK spends shedloads on Defence as it is anyway and being in or out of an EU Army/defence force would be largely irelevant...however, the fact that the EU is (trying to) build one says all there is to know about whether the EU Comission/Parliament see themselves are "just a bunch of civil servants" or actually as a Political Union Government-in-waiting..

The actual definition of a 'state' is an organisation which has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Got a bit more time now. I do think this Brexit gonads is fascinating, it could be the biggest political change in our life times and determine the UKs role in the world as well as its future prosperity. A few questions to you:

• In all those articles you posted, does it actually say the EU is setting up an army? Skim reading it, it says things like coperation, setting up a way for different armies to communicate using a standard radio frequency etc. Where has the EU army bit come from?

Which part of Juncker's own words "I welcome the operational steps to lay the foundations of a European Defence Union. Our security cannot be outsourced" does NOT mean "paving the way to set up an EU Army"??

Sounds like you are passionate about the UK being out of the EU, and a soft Brexit wouldn't be cool with you. As we'd be taking orders from the EU - it would be worse than now right? A

Are you comfortable with a Hard Brexit therefore?

• Would you be comfortable tell the employees of all the car factories they are out of a job?
• How would you deal with the additional costs of everythig from getting drugs to patients to moving goods from the EU to build wind farms etc? Government pays for these things, which means we - tax payers - are paying.
• Would you be okay with cuts to the NHS to pay for new customs checks and all the other things required?

I am a Brexiter in that i want the UK out of the one-size-fits-all EU supersate building process. If that makes me "passionate" to you, so be it, i don't give myself that label.

This is not gonads. Hard Brexit means a lot of messy nonsense that adds cost to a huge amount of UK activity. The UK also loses a lot of investment e.g. into car manufacturing, as well as the tax that we get from wages paid to car workers, bankers etc that woudl be lost, and we have to pay for them being on welfare if there are no other jobs.
Even if we somehow create oppotunites outside the EU that could take decades, and no one can tell me how we would breate these oppotunities (apart from Liam Fox who mentioned potato seeds to China! Can you see that happening??)

• The key question is, why isn't the UK generating these non-EU oppotunities now as Germany or Italy does successfully within the EU?
• The world over, nations trade most with their neigbours. Are there any exceptions to this rule? I don't know of any.
• Finally, do you go on holiday ever? Do you mind paying 20 to 30% more for your holidays, as well as any imported goods?

Prices have already rises after the vote outcome and our currency being devalued. A Hard Brexit would likely devalue the pound even more. These are real things that will affect us day to day. Vist a supermarket 2 years ago, pre-vote, and prices were cheaper. These are real effects of Brexit. It is hitting us in the pocket now.

On the other hand there is supposedly a 'super state' that no one really has any examples of how it affects them negatively.

Time to get over it, and let people be free to trade and work with europe. The EU is a force for good, born out of the ashes of the most debilitating and destructive war this planet has known. "Project fear" is that the EU is negative and holding the UK back. That is the opposit of the truth. Just look at the UK of the 1970s pre-EU.

I am over it; i've voted for Brexit and hope that the UK Government can enact it (though they are doing a terrible job of things in terms of negotiations). I'm ok with people trading and working with Europe. It's not like i want or expect that to stop, i just want the UK outside of the EU state-building processes (which i feel are due to fail long-term).
Project fear i think is actually people making out that life outside of the EU couldn't possibly exist. It's not like the EU is the Garden of Eden

 

[glorygloryeze]

That just sounds ominous to me. Genuinely, its what the bad guy says in the movies when he thinks he is about to win!

It's interesting; no doubt someone will post and say that "Juncker was misquoted" or "English isn't Juncker's first language and it was a mistranslation" etc etc

In fact he actually said once in the EU Parliament when discussing Brexit that "The UK doesn't actually need the EU.."

 

[the dza]

National interest will always take precedence over whatever agreement/cooperation treaty a country is in. Being part of NATO whilst some countries being pro and against, say, the two invasions of Iraq show this. The UK spends shedloads on Defence as it is anyway and being in or out of an EU Army/defence force would be largely irelevant...however, the fact that the EU is (trying to) build one says all there is to know about whether the EU Comission/Parliament see themselves are "just a bunch of civil servants" or actually as a Political Union Government-in-waiting..

That's true re. NATO, but NATO is only an alliance of different forces. If the EU creates an army then it will, I assume, be a singular armed force and would have to take military decisions on that basis.

But, it doesn't really matter for us anyway, we're leaving.