| European security 12:49 - Feb 15 with 769 views | SullutaCreturned |
bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgq0x30kkldo Sorry but you'll need to copy and paste.
I agree that the UK needs to do more but not by itself. With Trump now POTUS again and the noises he's already made, taken with JD Vance's speech, the whole of Europe needs to rethink.
Do we need NATO still or are we better off with our own, European version. Dowe do away with NATO and have an EDASO...European defence and security organisation.
Is it time to finally accept there is no special relationship with the USA, they treat us as useful fools and drag us into illegal wars and who knows what other dodgy actions. Isn't it time that Europe stood on its own 2 feet?
People know I am not a fan of the EU but if we had a European defence agency and the EU became what I think is all it should be, a trading organisation then it'd be happy days for me.
The USA is also saying the Ukraine won't be joining NATO, another reason to do away with it. We cannot let the USA dictate to us anymore.
The EU needs to reform and dithc the politcal shenanigans and we need a European defence agency. |  | | |  |
| European security on 13:10 - Feb 15 with 748 views | Boundy |
Well until the UK commits and I mean commits to spending 2.5 of its GDP on defence ( its in the manifesto so it must be true) then it looks like POTUS is going to be a bit more peeved towards us than he already is , the EU is playing an iffy game if it doesn't take Trump seriously and unless the member states does step up to the mark we could see ourselves in a vacuum , even combined I doubt we could take on Ivan as it stands even less so . One of the reasons for Brexit was the rumblings of the EU creating its own army, I wonder how attractive that would be right now. | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| European security on 13:18 - Feb 15 with 727 views | SullutaCreturned |
| European security on 13:10 - Feb 15 by Boundy |
Well until the UK commits and I mean commits to spending 2.5 of its GDP on defence ( its in the manifesto so it must be true) then it looks like POTUS is going to be a bit more peeved towards us than he already is , the EU is playing an iffy game if it doesn't take Trump seriously and unless the member states does step up to the mark we could see ourselves in a vacuum , even combined I doubt we could take on Ivan as it stands even less so . One of the reasons for Brexit was the rumblings of the EU creating its own army, I wonder how attractive that would be right now. |
I didn't want an EU army either but a Europe wide defence organisation, every Western European nation that wants in is in. Including Ukraine.
The war with Russia needs sorting first though.
Hindsight is great but this is something we should have done 20 years ago. | | | |
| European security on 13:27 - Feb 15 with 715 views | Kilkennyjack |
| European security on 13:10 - Feb 15 by Boundy |
Well until the UK commits and I mean commits to spending 2.5 of its GDP on defence ( its in the manifesto so it must be true) then it looks like POTUS is going to be a bit more peeved towards us than he already is , the EU is playing an iffy game if it doesn't take Trump seriously and unless the member states does step up to the mark we could see ourselves in a vacuum , even combined I doubt we could take on Ivan as it stands even less so . One of the reasons for Brexit was the rumblings of the EU creating its own army, I wonder how attractive that would be right now. |
Of course, Europe needs a European Defence force which does not rely on usa/Trump.
That much was obvious in 2016.
That European Force will be like NATO with nations working together.
European security involves us all.
Brexit looking more and more out of line with the reality of our modern world. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| European security on 13:38 - Feb 15 with 710 views | union_jack |
The issue is how much each country pays. At the moment the US are paying just short of $27bn whereas we put in $3.5bn.
I don’t necessarily blame Trump. They’re propping NATO up by themselves with us, Germany and France coming in a close second. Why should the US do that?
So the question is whether a European defence budget would be enough to keep the continent safe against a Russian invasion? |  |
| |
| European security on 14:16 - Feb 15 with 684 views | max936 |
| European security on 13:38 - Feb 15 by union_jack |
The issue is how much each country pays. At the moment the US are paying just short of $27bn whereas we put in $3.5bn.
I don’t necessarily blame Trump. They’re propping NATO up by themselves with us, Germany and France coming in a close second. Why should the US do that?
So the question is whether a European defence budget would be enough to keep the continent safe against a Russian invasion? |
The russians haven't got the manpower to invade anyone, they lost 100's of thousands of their troops in fighting Ukraine.
They are re-arming at a rate of knots though. [Post edited 15 Feb 15:09]
|  |
| |
| European security on 14:59 - Feb 15 with 671 views | SullutaCreturned |
| European security on 13:27 - Feb 15 by Kilkennyjack |
Of course, Europe needs a European Defence force which does not rely on usa/Trump.
That much was obvious in 2016.
That European Force will be like NATO with nations working together.
European security involves us all.
Brexit looking more and more out of line with the reality of our modern world. |
Brexit was very much in line with what a lot of people want which is safety and security and to be in charge in their own country. What we need is better cooperation but without giving control of our laws over to non UK politicians.
Working together is not the same as politcal union as I'm sure you can agree bearing in mind how mch you want to depart from the UK union, as it is currently set up anyway. | | | |
| European security on 17:26 - Feb 15 with 629 views | Gwyn737 |
Just caught up on Vance’s speech in Munich.
Anybody care to defend him?
Feels like a bit of a moment to me because of the outrages lies told. | | | |
| European security on 19:52 - Feb 15 with 571 views | AnotherJohn |
| European security on 17:26 - Feb 15 by Gwyn737 |
Just caught up on Vance’s speech in Munich.
Anybody care to defend him?
Feels like a bit of a moment to me because of the outrages lies told. |
Vance's speech was ill judged and went down very badly. It contained exaggerated claims, and what I thought was a bad example to make a point about freedom of speech in the UK (buffer zones near abortion clinics), but it may be worth discussing whether there were some grains of truth in the midst of the hyperbole.
Is it fair to say that European politicians supported, or at least failed to regulate, mass immigration when their electorates did not want it?
Has there been a cultural shift around developments like "no platforming" and the demonisation of small-c conservative voices as "far right"?
Has there been a extension of law that regulates what people can say without facing a criminal sanction, and if, so is that a good or bad thing?
More generally, has law been increasingly used to buttress socially-liberal social policies and some not so liberal economic policies through EU-wide legislation and international courts, so that policies are implemented that national electorates cannot change? [Post edited 15 Feb 19:54]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| European security on 20:25 - Feb 15 with 545 views | SullutaCreturned |
| European security on 19:52 - Feb 15 by AnotherJohn |
Vance's speech was ill judged and went down very badly. It contained exaggerated claims, and what I thought was a bad example to make a point about freedom of speech in the UK (buffer zones near abortion clinics), but it may be worth discussing whether there were some grains of truth in the midst of the hyperbole.
Is it fair to say that European politicians supported, or at least failed to regulate, mass immigration when their electorates did not want it?
Has there been a cultural shift around developments like "no platforming" and the demonisation of small-c conservative voices as "far right"?
Has there been a extension of law that regulates what people can say without facing a criminal sanction, and if, so is that a good or bad thing?
More generally, has law been increasingly used to buttress socially-liberal social policies and some not so liberal economic policies through EU-wide legislation and international courts, so that policies are implemented that national electorates cannot change? [Post edited 15 Feb 19:54]
|
What you say there about law changes etc, that was part of the reason I voted to leave the EU.
What we have seen is a series of policies that have seen us change society and it hasn't been for the better. I admit there was too much discipline back in the day but now we have too little. The softer we have gone on kids, the more violent they have become.
When we got to the point that people were being "cancelled" because others didn't like what they had to say it was a bad move for democracy. You don't stop people with bad views and opinions by forcing them into the shadows.
I don't care which side of the political divide an idea comes from, if it's a good idea we should go with it.
Your last paragraph, that was why I found the Eu so dangerous, that EU law took primacy and what the electorate in their own country couldn't change it, that really rankled. That the people making thse decisions were not elected by the people but by other politicians was a step too much for me.
Democracy, from the Greek demokratos which means people power, it means the people decide not the politicians, we should elect the government.
I suppose there's a lot more I could add but now it's time to walk the dogs. | | | |
| European security on 21:02 - Feb 15 with 533 views | Dr_Winston |
European Nations have spent decades skimping on their responsibilities and relying on American power to protect them, generally whilst being all snooty and critical of the US in the process.
It's one of the few things that Trump is entirely correct and justified on criticising for. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| European security on 22:01 - Feb 15 with 490 views | majorraglan |
Boundy is 100% on the money in his comments about 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence. To be honest I think it needs to be a little more to make up for the underinvestment over the last 15 to 20 years.
Another thing that needs to happen is some serious @@@@ needs to be kicked regarding our defence procurement contracts acts, a lot of them are years behind and over budget. They need sorting. | | | |
| European security on 07:44 - Feb 16 with 397 views | controversial_jack |
Save our money. Russia is no threat to us or any other European country. The biggest threat ids the US, and I don't mean militarily | | | |
| European security on 08:45 - Feb 16 with 379 views | Kilkennyjack |
| European security on 14:59 - Feb 15 by SullutaCreturned |
Brexit was very much in line with what a lot of people want which is safety and security and to be in charge in their own country. What we need is better cooperation but without giving control of our laws over to non UK politicians.
Working together is not the same as politcal union as I'm sure you can agree bearing in mind how mch you want to depart from the UK union, as it is currently set up anyway. |
Putin supported Brexit for a reason.
It similtaneously weakend both the UK and the EU.
Working closely together economically and militarily is essential in the emerging new world order.
Why do you Ukraine want both EU and NATO membership ?
Fat boy Johnson has isolated the UK at just the wrong time.
He lied and lied in the biggest act of self harm this country has ever seen.
Unforgivable. | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| European security on 09:04 - Feb 16 with 371 views | pencoedjack |
| European security on 17:26 - Feb 15 by Gwyn737 |
Just caught up on Vance’s speech in Munich.
Anybody care to defend him?
Feels like a bit of a moment to me because of the outrages lies told. |
Yes what he said was mostly correct.
Will be the next President oh to have a leader who understands what most normal (non left leaning) people think. |  | | |
| European security on 09:26 - Feb 16 with 364 views | Gwyn737 |
| European security on 19:52 - Feb 15 by AnotherJohn |
Vance's speech was ill judged and went down very badly. It contained exaggerated claims, and what I thought was a bad example to make a point about freedom of speech in the UK (buffer zones near abortion clinics), but it may be worth discussing whether there were some grains of truth in the midst of the hyperbole.
Is it fair to say that European politicians supported, or at least failed to regulate, mass immigration when their electorates did not want it?
Has there been a cultural shift around developments like "no platforming" and the demonisation of small-c conservative voices as "far right"?
Has there been a extension of law that regulates what people can say without facing a criminal sanction, and if, so is that a good or bad thing?
More generally, has law been increasingly used to buttress socially-liberal social policies and some not so liberal economic policies through EU-wide legislation and international courts, so that policies are implemented that national electorates cannot change? [Post edited 15 Feb 19:54]
|
You could say there were some grains of truth but even those grains were very much one sided.
There’s a real and sensible concern around having debate squashed by cancelling, however this isn’t just a left cancelling right thing. It’s more when the line on both sides is for extremism where legislation is appropriate.
Our version of political correctness is very much a ‘left’ thing (not always),but this isn’t the case in Russia for example where there political correctness is on the right. There is some serious irony with Vance criticising cancelling in the UK when the US is busy banning books as well as the rise of policy being driven in parts by the evangelical Christian right.
Laws have been extended but not in isolation. The evolution of language and the internet has seen legislation try to keep up. Whether it’s done so effectively is a really challenging thing to nail down as it’s down to opinion. | | | |
| European security on 10:04 - Feb 16 with 344 views | KeithHaynes |
| European security on 14:16 - Feb 15 by max936 |
The russians haven't got the manpower to invade anyone, they lost 100's of thousands of their troops in fighting Ukraine.
They are re-arming at a rate of knots though. [Post edited 15 Feb 15:09]
|
Whilst North Korean soldiers are killing Russians and legging it. |  |
| |
| European security on 11:05 - Feb 16 with 310 views | Luther27 |
| European security on 08:45 - Feb 16 by Kilkennyjack |
Putin supported Brexit for a reason.
It similtaneously weakend both the UK and the EU.
Working closely together economically and militarily is essential in the emerging new world order.
Why do you Ukraine want both EU and NATO membership ?
Fat boy Johnson has isolated the UK at just the wrong time.
He lied and lied in the biggest act of self harm this country has ever seen.
Unforgivable. |
Are you saying at this moment in time EU is united? Really?
Brexit threw the light on accountability of our politicians….and they are truly woeful with nowhere to hide. The same can be said with Trump basically with drawing US support for Europe which is again high lighting the total incompetence of Brussels. | | | |
| European security on 11:55 - Feb 16 with 286 views | AnotherJohn |
| European security on 09:26 - Feb 16 by Gwyn737 |
You could say there were some grains of truth but even those grains were very much one sided.
There’s a real and sensible concern around having debate squashed by cancelling, however this isn’t just a left cancelling right thing. It’s more when the line on both sides is for extremism where legislation is appropriate.
Our version of political correctness is very much a ‘left’ thing (not always),but this isn’t the case in Russia for example where there political correctness is on the right. There is some serious irony with Vance criticising cancelling in the UK when the US is busy banning books as well as the rise of policy being driven in parts by the evangelical Christian right.
Laws have been extended but not in isolation. The evolution of language and the internet has seen legislation try to keep up. Whether it’s done so effectively is a really challenging thing to nail down as it’s down to opinion. |
Many of these bones of contention can be argued both ways, but I want to focus on something in the last paragraph that I think misunderstands what is happening. It isn't just that laws are expanding to deal with changing circumstances and technologies, but rather that there is a change in the relationship between national legislative bodies and judiciaries. Traditionally Parliaments made laws and judges determined whether laws had been broken, if necessary interpreting their meaning. However, what is happening now is that interpretation has moved on to extrapolation, in effect re-making laws without seeking consent from the governments that put them in statues or treaties. Former Supreme Court judge, Jonathan Sumption, has discussed this in a recent Spectator article, which gives several examples where the ECoHR has applied law in new ways.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/judgment-day-the-case-for-leaving-the-echr/
Sumption writes that "in 1978 the Strasbourg judges proclaimed what they called the ‘living instrument doctrine’. According to this, the court claims the right to develop the convention by recognising new rights thought to be in the spirit of the original treaty although never envisaged in it." Specific examples, include applying ECHR law outside European territories, moving from the traditional doctrine that governments are bound only by the final decision of a court to impose binding interim orders (as happened with the Rwanda flights), and extending Article 8 of the ECHR, which pertains to right to a family life, to include almost anything that intrudes upon an individual’s personal autonomy.
More widely, this is about a process of "juridification", whereby law start to invade other domains of social life, especially politics. Anybody interested can read classic literature about this by Jurgen Habermas and Gunther Teubner, and lots of recent stuff on judicial activism. It is a trend that has accelerated in recent years, on both sides of the Atlantic, and, as you say, is one that may be used by both Left and Right. Europe and the EU in particular have taken it further than any other international trading block. | | | |
| European security on 12:33 - Feb 16 with 273 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| European security on 07:44 - Feb 16 by controversial_jack |
Save our money. Russia is no threat to us or any other European country. The biggest threat ids the US, and I don't mean militarily |
I can take you word for it or I can consider what Russians people with clout saying like Medvedev the ex Leader. He may have been drunk at the time. |  |
| |
| European security on 12:41 - Feb 16 with 266 views | max936 |
| European security on 10:04 - Feb 16 by KeithHaynes |
Whilst North Korean soldiers are killing Russians and legging it. |
That's no a bad thing, Trump is gonna sell out Ukraine without a shadow of doubt and probably europe to, we're approaching very dangerous times. | |
| |
| European security on 14:33 - Feb 16 with 228 views | SullutaCreturned |
| European security on 08:45 - Feb 16 by Kilkennyjack |
Putin supported Brexit for a reason.
It similtaneously weakend both the UK and the EU.
Working closely together economically and militarily is essential in the emerging new world order.
Why do you Ukraine want both EU and NATO membership ?
Fat boy Johnson has isolated the UK at just the wrong time.
He lied and lied in the biggest act of self harm this country has ever seen.
Unforgivable. |
Your third line is exactly what I said, work together on trade and defence but without the political shenanigans.
NATO is dying, the USa is killing it. If tey leave it falls apart because none of the other members put enough money in. So we need a European version with no USA interference. Then we need a trade block so we caneconomically protect Europe from the USA and China.
Putin won't stop if he thinks Ukraine will be allowed into the EU or NATO, Trump says Ukraine won't be allowed in NATO, he sems to be supporting the Russians more than his NATO allies, I wonder why?
Ptuin didn't invade Ukraine because of Brexit. NATO keeps the peace in Europe not the EU. The EU is hardly united right now either.
Intead of bleating about events 8 years ago, ask what Starmer is doing today. | | | |
| European security on 14:50 - Feb 16 with 221 views | Gwyn737 |
| European security on 11:55 - Feb 16 by AnotherJohn |
Many of these bones of contention can be argued both ways, but I want to focus on something in the last paragraph that I think misunderstands what is happening. It isn't just that laws are expanding to deal with changing circumstances and technologies, but rather that there is a change in the relationship between national legislative bodies and judiciaries. Traditionally Parliaments made laws and judges determined whether laws had been broken, if necessary interpreting their meaning. However, what is happening now is that interpretation has moved on to extrapolation, in effect re-making laws without seeking consent from the governments that put them in statues or treaties. Former Supreme Court judge, Jonathan Sumption, has discussed this in a recent Spectator article, which gives several examples where the ECoHR has applied law in new ways.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/judgment-day-the-case-for-leaving-the-echr/
Sumption writes that "in 1978 the Strasbourg judges proclaimed what they called the ‘living instrument doctrine’. According to this, the court claims the right to develop the convention by recognising new rights thought to be in the spirit of the original treaty although never envisaged in it." Specific examples, include applying ECHR law outside European territories, moving from the traditional doctrine that governments are bound only by the final decision of a court to impose binding interim orders (as happened with the Rwanda flights), and extending Article 8 of the ECHR, which pertains to right to a family life, to include almost anything that intrudes upon an individual’s personal autonomy.
More widely, this is about a process of "juridification", whereby law start to invade other domains of social life, especially politics. Anybody interested can read classic literature about this by Jurgen Habermas and Gunther Teubner, and lots of recent stuff on judicial activism. It is a trend that has accelerated in recent years, on both sides of the Atlantic, and, as you say, is one that may be used by both Left and Right. Europe and the EU in particular have taken it further than any other international trading block. |
That’s interesting.
It also further challenges Vance’s rhetoric when he kept taking about governments when really it’s about the judiciary. | | | |
| European security on 15:32 - Feb 16 with 202 views | AnotherJohn |
| European security on 14:50 - Feb 16 by Gwyn737 |
That’s interesting.
It also further challenges Vance’s rhetoric when he kept taking about governments when really it’s about the judiciary. |
Well, that is a question I don't know the answer to. The anti-globalists will mutter about elites or Western liberal establishments, but it is probably also the case that relational networks form within legal circles that promote particular interpretations or approaches. | | | |
| European security on 16:35 - Feb 16 with 188 views | Gwyn737 |
| European security on 15:32 - Feb 16 by AnotherJohn |
Well, that is a question I don't know the answer to. The anti-globalists will mutter about elites or Western liberal establishments, but it is probably also the case that relational networks form within legal circles that promote particular interpretations or approaches. |
Agreed. That’s probably a whole new thread, though! | | | |
| European security on 16:42 - Feb 16 with 176 views | Kilkennyjack |
| European security on 09:04 - Feb 16 by pencoedjack |
Yes what he said was mostly correct.
Will be the next President oh to have a leader who understands what most normal (non left leaning) people think. |
Vice President Musk will have something to say about that. | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
