New Poll. Europe: In or Out

[5ways]

How is our message amplified? I could equally claim the UK position is diminished, subsumed within an EU voice. For instance do you know for a fact that we didn't call for more severe actions but were limited to agreeing to a consensus EU position?

Some EU countries may want fewer sanctions some more, how do you know that we arrived at an overall harder position?

How many times have we blocked the rest of the EU from taking a Foreign policy decision against our interests? And I take it 27 other EU countries can block our Foreign policy interests.

This "Outside of the EU our policy on any issue of international security is weaker " is obviously rubbish. We would never get EU consensus on deploying our armed forces in numerous conflicts or situations only as an independent nation can we truly act in our national interest.

It's amplified because it represents the voices of 28 states rather than one. This should be obvious to even the most casual observer. We do not need EU consensus to deploy armed forces, but when we want to amplify our voice on any issue we are able to use our membership of the UN, NATO and the EU to do so.

We are able to implement unilateral sanctions on individuals and their assets. These sting more from a bigger player like the UK but we are also able to push EU-wide sanctions at the European level. We have two avenues of attack. It is not obviously rubbish it is a hard political fact. We have more sway over smaller EU states because we retain a unilateral military capability comparable only to France. Our ability to limit EU policy is greater than the EU's to curtail our own. I'm not sure this has actually happened because on foreign policy we are, by and large, pulling in the same direction to common ends. Yet I see no point in removing the option.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's amplified because it represents the voices of 28 states rather than one. This should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

and when the 28 voices done speak as one? when they are 27 shades of "er" or split on the course of action? its been commented that the reason Putin has taken the risks he has in Ukraine is precisely because of a perceived, and subsequently seen, inaction and inability to react from Europe. yes, the EU sanctions are powerful, but came rather too late after the annexation of Crimea and invasion of western Ukraine. on this matter, the US stood by expecting the EU to do something as it was in their back yard, while the EU pussy footed around. on foreign policy they give the impression of a single bloc, but no actual power so in practice its inept. the resolution to this of course is a single EU foreign policy. i wonder how many of those generals will sign up to that?

and to say the EU is pulling in a common direction on foreign policy is comical, they cant even agree on policy within their own rules, see Greece financial disaster, response to Syria and the rest of the Arab spring nations before that. organised chaos.

 

[El Presidente]

Time to FLY THE FLAG.

 

[5ways]

and when the 28 voices done speak as one? when they are 27 shades of "er" or split on the course of action? its been commented that the reason Putin has taken the risks he has in Ukraine is precisely because of a perceived, and subsequently seen, inaction and inability to react from Europe. yes, the EU sanctions are powerful, but came rather too late after the annexation of Crimea and invasion of western Ukraine. on this matter, the US stood by expecting the EU to do something as it was in their back yard, while the EU pussy footed around. on foreign policy they give the impression of a single bloc, but no actual power so in practice its inept. the resolution to this of course is a single EU foreign policy. i wonder how many of those generals will sign up to that?

and to say the EU is pulling in a common direction on foreign policy is comical, they cant even agree on policy within their own rules, see Greece financial disaster, response to Syria and the rest of the Arab spring nations before that. organised chaos.

Of course it's not perfect but the EU sanctions have done a lot of damage to the Russian economy, when oil prices are already low its a double-whammy and may threaten even Putin's grip on power eventually. That is real power. Greece or Bulgaria, who have a lot of bilateral trade with Russia and have been hit by the Russian import ban, would not have signed up to the sanctions, or would have vetoed them, if they felt powerful enough to do so. They didn't because they're small players. If you are able to line up the big EU countries you can tow a unified line. If you have larger FP ambitions, as we naturally do, the ability to strengthen our hand via the EU is a useful tool to have.

Of course the EU is reactive to problems, rather than proactive. That's the nature of the beast - and for it to be more reactive it would need to be more of a state. But I'm fairly sure that Putin expected no unified action, that's not what he got. That sends a message for the future.

 

[Notters]

This is a bit odd!

https://www.rt.com/uk/328180-eu-ukip-brexit-referendum/

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

This is a bit odd!

https://www.rt.com/uk/328180-eu-ukip-brexit-referendum/

A little out of date

 

[5ways]

Time to FLY THE FLAG.

I hope and pray they use this as the backing music to their free BBC political advert.

"They've taken all our fish"

 

[gregbrighton]

Vote OUT!

Time to FLY THE FLAG.

Vote OUT!

 

[El Presidente]

Vote OUT!

The dilemma you have there Greg is working out which one is a 'Y' and which one is a 'M' as they are both English Roses.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

The EU from top to bottom is a complete and utter mess. I hope come June the voters see sense, and just for once in our life do something different.

A leap in the dark, yeah right just look at the mess happening in the EU right now. Even worse another 55 million pounds has left the UK today, and our borders are still open, whilst my mum who has paid in to this system for 50 years can't see a Doctor until tomorrow, fing joke.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It's amplified because it represents the voices of 28 states rather than one. This should be obvious to even the most casual observer. We do not need EU consensus to deploy armed forces, but when we want to amplify our voice on any issue we are able to use our membership of the UN, NATO and the EU to do so.

We are able to implement unilateral sanctions on individuals and their assets. These sting more from a bigger player like the UK but we are also able to push EU-wide sanctions at the European level. We have two avenues of attack. It is not obviously rubbish it is a hard political fact. We have more sway over smaller EU states because we retain a unilateral military capability comparable only to France. Our ability to limit EU policy is greater than the EU's to curtail our own. I'm not sure this has actually happened because on foreign policy we are, by and large, pulling in the same direction to common ends. Yet I see no point in removing the option.

You were claiming it amplified OUR voice not the collective voices of 28 states. It would only do this if our voice was identical to all other nations which it never is. It amplifies a collective diluted negotiated view which could be far removed from our initial position. eg 27 other EU countries having the ability to veto policy that we want. Continually suggesting pooling sovereignty, power and decision making is a one way street which always benefits and strengthens us is disingenuous and untrue. It would be fairer to say it perhaps amplifies our view on some issues and has diluted it on others. In addition the more contentious the issue the more likely inaction and dilution of our initial goals.

I know we don't need EU consensus to deploy our armed forces which was my point . The strongest policy a government can enact in relation to international security is deploying armed forces which clearly disproves your "Outside of the EU our policy on any issue of international security is weaker " comment.

If the UK had not been in the EU 3 years ago Russia would still have annexed Crimea and still interfered in Ukraine and a wide ranging sanctions regime would still have been agreed by the EU,US and numerous independent countries including the UK. Your argument seems to be we are a powerful nation that steers the EU in our direction amplifying our voice when we're in but will be weak and marginalised if we leave. I see little evidence for the first and don't believe the second.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The EU from top to bottom is a complete and utter mess. I hope come June the voters see sense, and just for once in our life do something different.

We need someone to spell out some of the big issues in a straight forward balanced way using beautiful British common sense. Starting with the Euro crisis ..

*Strong Language*

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I'm not buying any of it, not on our security, and not on letters sent personally by our government for people and big corporations to sign, it's all bullshit the lot of it.

 

[cunning fergus]

Your theory about me bites the dust. I am not obsessed with trade, I am not a purist Tory, and everything else matters.

A couple of days ago a leading eurosceptic implied that we were more likely to get our heads cut off (etc) if we remained in the EU. This is a legitimate view which I listened to carefully. On balance I disagree with him but I respect his opinion. I hear what Mr Trump has to say but cannot respect the opinion of a strange dingbat who suggests building a colossal Mexican-financed wall to keep migrants out at the same time as banning Muslims from entering the country. I note that you characterise this as "A US president in waiting... a credible view concerning terrorism".

On the back of this I could advance a theory about the way your mind works. I am not going to do that. It wouldn't be very nice and I could be wrong. I'll just leave that sort of thing to you if I may.

The point still stands though, you agree with the views of an unelected US bureacrat that considers the UK should stay in the EU for trade reasons.

My point is respose was that there are other views from the US (e.g. Trump) that relate to how we in the UK could manage our affairs, if you are going to advocate the views from foreigners about the UK's own domestic policies let's have a level playing field.

My own view is that I dont care what these foreigners think is best for the UK, they are acting in their own interests..................THEY would want the UK to do what is best for them.

Once the US is allowing citizens from other countries to go there without a by your leave and work freely without a green card then they can tell us to stay in the EU, till then they can go swing.

 

[5ways]

You were claiming it amplified OUR voice not the collective voices of 28 states. It would only do this if our voice was identical to all other nations which it never is. It amplifies a collective diluted negotiated view which could be far removed from our initial position. eg 27 other EU countries having the ability to veto policy that we want. Continually suggesting pooling sovereignty, power and decision making is a one way street which always benefits and strengthens us is disingenuous and untrue. It would be fairer to say it perhaps amplifies our view on some issues and has diluted it on others. In addition the more contentious the issue the more likely inaction and dilution of our initial goals.

I know we don't need EU consensus to deploy our armed forces which was my point . The strongest policy a government can enact in relation to international security is deploying armed forces which clearly disproves your "Outside of the EU our policy on any issue of international security is weaker " comment.

If the UK had not been in the EU 3 years ago Russia would still have annexed Crimea and still interfered in Ukraine and a wide ranging sanctions regime would still have been agreed by the EU,US and numerous independent countries including the UK. Your argument seems to be we are a powerful nation that steers the EU in our direction amplifying our voice when we're in but will be weak and marginalised if we leave. I see little evidence for the first and don't believe the second.

You misconstrue what I've said. In or out we are not marginalised in global politics. But our voice and ability to project influence undoubtedly is weakened. We don't individually steer EU policy but we we do use that platform to amplify our position. The EU largely agrees on FP so this is to the benefit of everyone. Those who do not agree can be brought into line. The UK, with its independent power is not subject to this pull like a smaller power is. As such we have the best of both worlds. We can use the EU platform when it benefits us, or not.

Moreover I cannot think of an example where being part of the EU has diluted our own position. Take a hypothetical example, Gibraltar or Northern Ireland even. If Spain or Ireland escalated a disagreement up to the EU level and we were outside we would have to lobby our partners bilaterally to speak on our behalf. I'm not saying this wouldn't work but I'd rather retain our veto power. We gain many benefits in terms of foreign policy, and as far as I can see there are zero downsides.

Finally a point not mentioned yet is that our biggest and most important security partner, the United States, has made it very clear that they want us to remain in the EU for foreign policy reasons.

There are lines of argument take for Brexit, foreign policy is not one of those.

 

[Czechmate]

You misconstrue what I've said. In or out we are not marginalised in global politics. But our voice and ability to project influence undoubtedly is weakened. We don't individually steer EU policy but we we do use that platform to amplify our position. The EU largely agrees on FP so this is to the benefit of everyone. Those who do not agree can be brought into line. The UK, with its independent power is not subject to this pull like a smaller power is. As such we have the best of both worlds. We can use the EU platform when it benefits us, or not.

Moreover I cannot think of an example where being part of the EU has diluted our own position. Take a hypothetical example, Gibraltar or Northern Ireland even. If Spain or Ireland escalated a disagreement up to the EU level and we were outside we would have to lobby our partners bilaterally to speak on our behalf. I'm not saying this wouldn't work but I'd rather retain our veto power. We gain many benefits in terms of foreign policy, and as far as I can see there are zero downsides.

Finally a point not mentioned yet is that our biggest and most important security partner, the United States, has made it very clear that they want us to remain in the EU for foreign policy reasons.

There are lines of argument take for Brexit, foreign policy is not one of those.

**** What the US thinks , who gives a sh-t what they think . They are only in it for themselves , remember there some saying the US should break of friendship with the UK because we joined the Chinese world bank . I trust the Russians more than the US .

 

[GT49er]

That's a fascinating clip but I have no idea what you mean by dirty campaign. I remember 1975 very well and, while it may have produced the wrong result, there was nothing underhand about the campaign to stay in. I think that this time round, things won't be quite so decorous

Perhaps you missed the cartoon, totally typical of the whole campaign, where those who didn't conform to the establishment's 'In' were labelled as racist, fascist, commies or bigots, or fellow travellers with such undesirables.

 

[GT49er]

Correct me when if I'm wrong but the Civil Service at a GE prepares briefs and policy papers for all major parties based on their manifesto commitments. Depending on who wins the GE those papers are then put into the CS machinery. This is not a GE, the CS serves the democratically elected government and the policy it has won a mandate from the public to implement.

I think you are referring to sensible administrative preparation for the post election period, not for being used to support one side of the other. Their active participation in the campaign would be illegal; if it is not strictly illegal for them to support one side of the EU debate, it is certainly immoral, although as they will be helping the campaign you believe in, you probably won't see the immorality; some of us do.

 

[5ways]

I think you are referring to sensible administrative preparation for the post election period, not for being used to support one side of the other. Their active participation in the campaign would be illegal; if it is not strictly illegal for them to support one side of the EU debate, it is certainly immoral, although as they will be helping the campaign you believe in, you probably won't see the immorality; some of us do.

If the government position is in, the CS has to abide by that. If the government position is everyone gets a banana on Friday, the CS task then is to support that policy. If the govt position is to stay in the EU, it is the CS task to support that too. They are constitutionally unable to do anything else, nothing to do with morality or even politics. I can see why it would be frustrating though for those on the other side of the argument.

 

[drew]

The EU from top to bottom is a complete and utter mess. I hope come June the voters see sense, and just for once in our life do something different.

A leap in the dark, yeah right just look at the mess happening in the EU right now. Even worse another 55 million pounds has left the UK today, and our borders are still open, whilst my mum who has paid in to this system for 50 years can't see a Doctor until tomorrow, fing joke.

We get it. You don't like the EU and no matter what is put in front of you, you have already made up your mind. The EU isn't perfect but it certainly isn't a complete mess as you describe. Of all the EU countries, we have control of our borders. Close our borders to everyone then perhaps you'll find your mum wont see a doctor for even longer.