EU wants us to pay 89 BILLION divorce charges.

newnanny
The Government is wasting money on:
HS2 and Free schools

Suzie i am interested, where do you think gov is wasting money? The usual criticism is austerity so not spending enough.

These seem to be the initial proposals for discussion, launched in June.
“Under a "Security and Defence Cooperation" scenario, Member States would still decide on the need for security and defence cooperation on a voluntary and case-by-case basis, while the EU would continue to complement national efforts. Defence cooperation would be strengthened, but the EU's participation in the most demanding operations would remain limited. The new European Defence Fund would help develop some new joint capabilities but Member States would still oversee the bulk of defence capabilities' development and procurement individually. EU‒NATO cooperation would retain today's format and structure.
Under a more ambitious "Shared Security and Defence" scenario, Member States would pool together certain financial and operational assets to increase solidarity in defence. The EU would also become more engaged in Europe's protection within and beyond its borders. It would take on a greater role in areas like cyber, border protection or the fight against terrorism, and strengthen the defence and security dimension of internal EU policies like energy, health, customs or space. This would be matched by a political will to act, as well as decision-making fit for a rapidly changing context. The EU and NATO would also increase mutual cooperation and coordinate across a full spectrum of issues.
The most ambitious "Common Defence and Security" scenario foresees the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy, leading to common defence based on Article 42 of the EU Treaty. The existing provision allows a group of Member States to take European defence to the next level. Under this scenario, protecting Europe would become a mutually reinforcing responsibility of the EU and NATO. The EU would be able to run high-end security and defence operations, underpinned by a greater level of integration of Member States' defence forces. The EU would support joint defence programmes with the European Defence Fund, as well as set up a dedicated European Defence Research Agency.This would also foster the creation of a genuine European defence market, able to protect its key strategic activities from external takeovers.”
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1516_en.htm

I can't see that any of these would constitute a “European Army”.

Welsh wife

" I find watching debates in the EU Parliament can be both interesting and informative rather than relying on biased - either way - reports in papers - straight from the horse's mouth so to speak!"

Sorry you found it necessary to post that comment, I thought you were more open to debate than some posters to be honest.

Not sure if you are accusing me of relying on biased reports in the papers but I would remind you we do have the opportunity to watch the EU Parliament sittings here in the UK and I am also going on what I ' hear from the horses mouth' and by reading/listening to the media both left and right of politics.

Maizie d/Welshwife

NATO has nothing to do with the question though does it!

The question is could there be in the future a ' fully-fledged European Defence Union ', commonly described, rightly or wrongly, as a European Army .

I asked what do you think Junker means by calling for a ' fully-fledged European Defence Union '. What does a ' fully-fledged European Defence Union' mean ?

I believe for example a ' fully-fledged European Defence Union ' means total integration by all Sovereign State Members of the EU Membership and their armed forces under one control and that control would be the European Union not their Sovereign State.

Maizie you said it all - thank you.
I find watching debates in the EU Parliament can be both interesting and informative rather than relying on biased - either way - reports in papers - straight from the horse's mouth so to speak!

There is an article today - I think in the Guardian - about Lawson and his term of office. Mainly pointing out just how flawed his reasoning was.

It's strange how Leavers are confident that the UK governments spend money wisely. The current one doesn't have a great track record so far.

Do we object to our troops being used for NATO? Do we think that NATO has created an autonomous 'army' over which we have no control and into which our young men can be conscripted on the whim of, say, the US?

Because I think that the EU defence union Juncker is dreaming of would be on similar lines to NATO; NATO which no-one objects to.

It's also absurd to think that because Juncker says something today it is going to be implemented tomorrow. The EU does not jump to his will.

And, knowing a little about how organisations work, it is absolutely obvious that the more members the EU has the more difficult it will be for them to reach agreement; particularly on proposals which imply a swingeing loss of sovereignty. There are 27 other countries involved here, all fiercely nationalistic. Why on earth would they be any less resistant than the UK to the formation of an EU army?

Welsh wife

"There is no European army being planned - if you read what the Europeans say it is closer co operation and there would still be no actual army - the detail is what matters - NATO does the troops part and has done for years. I cannot give you a link as I think I heard the speeches at the EU Parliament itself."

What do you think Junker meant when he said in his State of the Union Speech:-

"A new European Defence Fund is in the offing. As is a Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of defence. By 2025 we need a fully-fledged European Defence Union. We need it. And NATO wants it."

Is money being used wisely in UK at the moment ? The EU looney is for specific areas and projects - many of which are far from London and the SE - do you think that will continue after we leave? I think most unlikely - it will go to making the UK a tax haven for millionaires who do not wish to pay the tax they owe. It is only 1% of GDP so will not go a long way at all when considered against the rest of the budget.

Welshwife in the future after we have left EU will reassess on next round of 7 year spending and decide what projects they wish to support. They will either have to support less projects, make more countries pay in, make eccomomies or use some of their billions in reserves. I don't care. I want uk to use money wisely.

The moving to and fro can't be changed because the ego's of the countries will not allow change. Cameron tried to get this changed but they laughed at him. They waste billions every year in this farce. I suggest when we ate gone the remaining 7 countries decide if they wish to continue to support projects or not. It will no longer be any of our business. That is for EU to decide. But if they stopped farce they could save a lot of money.

ww

Who Knew?
The only country to trade solely under WTO rules is Mauritania!! Every other country is in some sort of trading block.

Do we wish to join them and increase the number to 2?

No idea, newnanny, but that is one of the things that could be changed. Remainers never said everything was perfect, just that changes could be made from within the EU.
If we leave it will not matter to us, will it?

What do you think should happen to all the projects which are unfinished, gillybob?
And what do you think should happen in the two year transition period?

No one disputes the UK along with the other 27 countries gets grants from EU for various causes, but they only make up a tiny fraction of what we pay in. No reason why in future UK gov could not pay these type of grants out directly. One of reasons I dislike EU is because they ate so wasteful going between Brussels and Strasbourg every month just because the ego of one country will not allow it all to be in one place. So the travel cost of thousands of people occurs every month. Can any remainers please explain why this is beneficial?

Yes - but some projects are on going - the end of the budget period means nothing if not finished - and of course the pension contributions.
Hopefully it will all gradually become clearer exactly what it is for.

And the end of the budget period is 2020 welshwife which is the point I am trying to make .

Yes whitewave it is exactly what I mean.

Thank you

That’s to gill btw

So our liability to the end of the budget has been recognised by May in Florence. That is the 20bn etc we’ve agreed.

The rest is still under discussion and why there has been so much silly speculation as to the amount.

Is that what you mean? Sorry to be dim if I’m wrong

But the budgets are huge - so presumably the payments sound huge to us mere mortals - shown as a percentage of GDP gives a better idea -anually it is about1% for all countries. I don't think we will be paying any more than our share - as whiteW said it is the ongoing projects we signed up to. The EU is still contributing to UK for agreed projects etc until the end of the budget period.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36368792

I think this might be it ?