Britain outside the EU

[Blackshep]

Yes that article is utter bilge far more based in agenda driven politics then the reality of NATO.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Blackshep

Yes that article is utter bilge far more based in agenda driven politics then the reality of NATO.

It may feel better trying to live in the past, but Europe has changed since the invasion of Ukraine.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That article is utter tripe - or worse. Why must the FT link UK's influence in NATO with Brexit or being EU members? So what - Germany is going to be "military-equipped"; what does that mean? And what shots would France/Germany call that the UK couldn't influence. Utter bollocks by the FT.

Andrew, I hope you don't subscribe to the words you quoted.

I think you may need to read the full article to avoid drawing erroneous conclusions.

This is my take on that aspect of the article.

When the UK left the EU, it decided to adopt an ad hoc approach to defence meetings with the EU, which is obviously weaker than a regular structure. To the delight of Russia, it was soon squabbling with France over fish and to the horror of the US, arguing with Ireland over its own Brexit agreement.

Post the Ukraine invasion, it's now obvious that the UK's defence priorities lie with Europe. The UK therefore needs some kind of regular forum with EU members. This need is more pressing given Germany's change of position increasing its prominence in NATO.

I can certainly see the benefit of such meetings. If not, there must surely be the chance of France and Germany sewing up European defence policy between them and the UK falls into the background.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It may feel better trying to live in the past, but Europe has changed since the invasion of Ukraine.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------


I think you may need to read the full article to avoid drawing erroneous conclusions.

This is my take on that aspect of the article.

When the UK left the EU, it decided to adopt an ad hoc approach to defence meetings with the EU, which is obviously weaker than a regular structure. To the delight of Russia, it was soon squabbling with France over fish and to the horror of the US, arguing with Ireland over its own Brexit agreement.

Post the Ukraine invasion, it's now obvious that the UK's defence priorities lie with Europe. The UK therefore needs some kind of regular forum with EU members. This need is more pressing given Germany's change of position increasing its prominence in NATO.

I can certainly see the benefit of such meetings. If not, there must surely be the chance of France and Germany sewing up European defence policy between them and the UK falls into the background.

There’s not an awful lot to discuss here as long as you so casually conflate NATO and the EU. They are very different beasts. If you can unpick your thinking on these two separate institutions, or perhaps justify the way you read across from one to the other, then maybe we have a basis for a debate.

[Sephiroth]

What Chris said.

None of what Andrew has seen fit to post supports the notion that the UK should not have left the EU.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

There’s not an awful lot to discuss here as long as you so casually conflate NATO and the EU. They are very different beasts. If you can unpick your thinking on these two separate institutions, or perhaps justify the way you read across from one to the other, then maybe we have a basis for a debate.

Don't understand where you derive the conflation of NATO and the EU from. That's one hell of a leap that would put even Greg Rutherford to shame!

The author is making the point that the UK needs to put a structure in place for its defence meetings with the EU. Seems to make sense to me.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What Chris said.

None of what Andrew has seen fit to post supports the notion that the UK should not have left the EU.

This thread is about Britain outside the EU and my post is about exactly that. It's not about travelling back to 2016 and rehashing old arguments.

[Blackshep]

Andrew the difference between the EU and NATO is cavernous which you clearly don't understand.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Don't understand where you derive the conflation of NATO and the EU from. That's one hell of a leap that would put even Greg Rutherford to shame!

The author is making the point that the UK needs to put a structure in place for its defence meetings with the EU. Seems to make sense to me.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------


This thread is about Britain outside the EU and my post is about exactly that. It's not about travelling back to 2016 and rehashing old arguments.

I, and no doubt others, perceive that Remainers tend to seek out articles that justify their stance.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I, and no doubt others, perceive that Remainers tend to seek out articles that justify their stance.

You need to join me by moving on mate.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Blackshep

Andrew the difference between the EU and NATO is cavernous which you clearly don't understand.

I do and I'm pretty sure the author of the article and the editor who signed off on the piece all do as well.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You need to join me by moving on mate.

Moving on isn’t exactly how I’d describe it …

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Moving on isn’t exactly how I’d describe it …

lol.

It may go against the grain to acknowledge it, but discussing how the Ukraine invasion may impact UK-EU relations ticks the box of moving on.

[Blackshep]

Andrew the EU as an organisation has little to do with the operation of NATO even though they get regular briefings and the UK role within NATO was not altered by brexit.

Originally Posted by Blackshep

Andrew the EU as an organisation has little to do with the operation of NATO even though they get regular briefings and the UK role within NATO was not altered by brexit.

You may find this informative…

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49217.htm

tl:dr - there’s a lot more co-operation than "regular briefings’…

Enhanced consultations at all levels and practical cooperation in operations and capability development have brought concrete results. The security challenges in the two organisations' shared eastern and southern neighbourhoods make it more important than ever to reinforce the strategic partnership.

Allied leaders welcomed the joint declaration issued in Warsaw by the NATO Secretary General, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission, which outlines a series of actions the two organisations intend to take together in concrete areas, including countering hybrid threats, enhancing resilience, defence capacity building, cyber defence, maritime security, and exercises.

[Blackshep]

Hugh the EU does not have control over NATO operation's of course there's cooperation given so many EU member states are NATO member's but the EU cannot override NATO on theatre operations but NATO could overrule the EU if it ordered it's member state's to conduct operation's not in accordance with NATO strategy.

You appear to have accidentally moved the goalposts from "has little to do with the operation of NATO" to "does not have control over NATO operations"…

[Blackshep]

No you know what I mean the EU can request but cannot demand or order anything militarily and the UK's role within NATO has not been affected by brexit as somebody would like some to believe.