Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.

Moderator: Flyin'Dutch'

  • 1
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 448
By spaughty
#1664649
Two examples from the current Private Eye, which I happened to have been reading this morning:
1) The Eurozone bail-out fund
2) The European Defence Force
Both run jointly by member states, and not by the Commission.
kanga, johnm liked this
By Bill Haddow
#1664650
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
. . . with the UK leaving both the UK and the EU will be poorer . .



I actually think that after we leave, the EU will either have to back off its federal agenda and go back a bit to being more of an economic, trading, bloc (which I suspect is more in tune with the needs and aspirations of most Europeans) or our departure will simply hasten the demise of the EU. I think either scenario would be better for the remaining members.

In any event, I do not think the EU can continue on its present course.

Bill H
User avatar
By TheKentishFledgling
#1664656
Colonel Panic wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:I am forever the optimist in these matters and am pretty sure that there will be no federalisation for some time to come - neither in our or our kids lives.

On what basis - other than “I would like to think that...” - do you base that assertion? It seems to me that everything that has happened to date suggests the opposite. Whether that be Schengen, the erosion of national vetos, ever closer diktats re domestic taxation, the widespread (& from here on in compulsory) adoption of the Euro for new members & the preparation for a European Army. I could go on ...


The Germans are certainly keen on that European Army idea: https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/opin ... cAmARB-ap4
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1664659
Bill Haddow wrote:
In any event, I do not think the EU can continue on its present course.

Bill H


Agreed!
eltonioni liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1664661
Colonel Panic wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:I am forever the optimist in these matters and am pretty sure that there will be no federalisation for some time to come - neither in our or our kids lives.

On what basis - other than “I would like to think that...” - do you base that assertion? It seems to me that everything that has happened to date suggests the opposite. Whether that be Schengen, the erosion of national vetos, ever closer diktats re domestic taxation, the widespread (& from here on in compulsory) adoption of the Euro for new members & the preparation for a European Army. I could go on ...


1. Brexit;
2. The opposition of the Visegrád countries against taking in refugees
3. The expressed antipathy by the Danes and Dutch against further federalisation
4. The financial difficulties in the Southern EU countries
5. The rise of nationalism in a large number of EU states

The mood music has changed considerably and whilst I don't think that there are currently any serious plans for any of the remaining 27 to follow the UK it is my perception that a lot of wind has been taken out of the federalists sails.

The speech of Verhofstad that is currently doing the rounds on the various Pro-Leave/Brexit sites and associated Social Media posts is from 2011.

That is 8 years ago - in politics a week is a long time.
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1664662
TheKentishFledgling wrote: The Germans are certainly keen on that European Army idea: https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/opin ... cAmARB-ap4

It's the only way that they will be able to call on more than 3 operational aeroplanes. Even Merkel's state Airbus broke down on the way to the G20.

The world really doesn't need another large army, especially one with expansionist Germans in charge, French nuclear weapons, assorted sucky up small states, rejuvenated authoritarian politicians, a rising far right / far left wing, and a slowly withering economic place in the world. I try really hard not to invoke Godwin's Law but it's hard when we see the same basic routine of the German state never being quite comfortable with its place in the world. Brexit is all a bit 1938.
By Colonel Panic
#1664663
Thanks FD - I wish I shared your sense of optimism for the EU winding its' neck in within the foreseeable future. But I don't.

(PS I stand corrected re: the European Army being a collective of states, not an EU plc endeavour).

(PPS Maybe the European Army could mount a bloodless coup on the EU and kick the likes of Juncker out? It could be easier than trying to do it via the ballot box.) :wink:
User avatar
By kanga
#1664666
TheKentishFledgling wrote:
The Germans are certainly keen on that European Army idea: https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/opin ... cAmARB-ap4


Er, that is the current German Defence Minister in the current coalition government there. There are as many differences among politicians and the wider populations, and tendencies to change policy when facts change in all EU and other nations as in UK. But even the Minister says in that article that use of any 'combined' military force must remain under democratic control and constraint of each contributing nation:

"It would be counterproductive to scale back the involvement of Europe's national parliaments a time when Europe is struggling to earn new trust. Questions about the use of force are of such fundamental significance that they need the broadest legitimacy possible. Hence the decisive role of national parliaments, through their direct connection with citizens. It's no coincidence that the trend in Europe – and not just in the UK – is towards more democratic involvement, not less.


Nonetheless, to prevent this from impeding Europe's ability to act, parliamentary participation has to accelerate. I have therefore proposed forming a special committee at the European level, composed of members of national parliaments, which is to be informed early on about crisis scenarios as they take shape. That could speed up decision-making processes at the national level, as well as strengthen support for any military action."

Whereas, UK military forces can in theory and law be deployed and used under Royal Prerogative on direction of a single individual, the Secretary of State for Defence (or, in ultimate theory, the Sovereign). Parliamentary support for military action is not needed, and IIRC has been sought by UK Prime Ministers only twice, both recently, once accepted and once refused in Commons.

Concerted NATO military action, or national use of own forces committed to NATO, requires unanimous consent in North Atlantic Council, ie all member governments, even under Article Five invocation, aiui
spaughty liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1664669
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:.

The speech of Verhofstad that is currently doing the rounds on the various Pro-Leave/Brexit sites and associated Social Media posts is from 2011.

That is 8 years ago - in politics a week is a long time.


.. and, IIRC, was in the specific context of calling for concerted and coherent international EU action to regulate banking in the light of the 2008 financial crisis. Clips I have seen suggest it has been edited to imply him calling for omnipotent federal powers for a European Government.
Flyin'Dutch', johnm liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1664672
Colonel Panic wrote:..

(PPS Maybe the European Army could mount a bloodless coup on the EU and kick the likes of Juncker out? It could be easier than trying to do it via the ballot box.) :wink:


The President of the Commission is appointed and continues to serve at the pleasure of a qualified majority within the Council of Ministers, consisting of democratically elected Heads of Government. An adequate majority of them could vote to remove the incumbent tomorrow if they chose. Each HoG is liable at the ballot box to his or her own electorate. Seems as democratic to me as the system whereby UK PM is directly liable only to the electorate of Maidenhead, but indirectly ( ie through the votes of others, themselves elected elsewhere) to a much wider electorate.
Last edited by kanga on Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
johnm, Newfy liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1664673
kanga wrote:The President of the Commission is appointed and continues to serve at the pleasure of a qualified majority within the Council of Ministers, consisting of democratically elected Heads of Government. An adequate majority of them could vote to remove the incumbent tomorrow if they chose. Each HoG is liable at the ballot box to his or her own electorate. Seems as democratic to me as the system whereby UK PM is directly liable only to the electorate of Maidenhead, but indirectly ( is through the votes of others, themselves elected elsewhere) to a much wider electorate.


So what is it that's stopping them removing the embarrassing old soak? Maybe that's the point.
By spaughty
#1664683
eltonioni wrote:
kanga wrote:The President of the Commission is appointed and continues to serve at the pleasure of a qualified majority within the Council of Ministers, consisting of democratically elected Heads of Government. An adequate majority of them could vote to remove the incumbent tomorrow if they chose. Each HoG is liable at the ballot box to his or her own electorate. Seems as democratic to me as the system whereby UK PM is directly liable only to the electorate of Maidenhead, but indirectly ( is through the votes of others, themselves elected elsewhere) to a much wider electorate.


So what is it that's stopping them removing the embarrassing old soak? Maybe that's the point.


For fear of somebody worse? ... that everybody would have to agree on? (Reminds me of Brexit ...)

In theory I am not a monarchist, but in practice the two words "President Blair" stop me dead in my tracks. :shock:
eltonioni, OCB liked this
  • 1
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 448