4 ms·

I think what you're saying is technically true, but it is practically very difficult or impossible to achieve because of political realities within the EU. Hung

I think what you're saying is technically true, but it is practically very difficult or impossible to achieve because of political realities within the EU. Hungary has blocked $54B of aid for Ukraine for almost three months now with no end in sight. The EU has to bribe countries like Hungary just to make something happen after months of delay. Meanwhile, the UK delivers aid how and whenever they like (including many firsts like western battle tanks, cruise missiles, etc.). The UK would be under a lot of pressure not to act unilaterally, and many more people in Ukraine would likely have died as a result. Either that, or some other non-EU country (e.g., the U.S.) would have to pick up the slack. It is pretty difficult to argue that in the case of Ukraine, UK's autonomy has come in very handy indeed and was one of the promised benefits of Brexit. The EU has been consistent in it's messaging, but it's deeds have not always lived up to when and what they've said they'll deliver.

skissane 3y ago
> Hungary has blocked $54B of aid for Ukraine for almost three months now with no end in sight. Hungary is blocking aid out of the EU budget. It has zero power to block other EU countries from giving aid out of their own budgets. Big member state national budgets are each several times larger than the EU budget. > Meanwhile, the UK delivers aid how and whenever they like (including many firsts like western battle tanks, cruise missiles, etc.). Which it could still do in the EU. Many EU member states provide military and other aid to Ukraine outside of the EU framework, and the EU has done nothing to stop them > The UK would be under a lot of pressure not to act unilaterally, Not true. EU member states have been giving independent aid to Ukraine - for example Poland - and the EU has not done anything to stop them. In fact, the biggest obstacle to Polish military aid has not been the EU, it has been Germany and the US - Poland buys military equipment from both, and the contracts said they couldn’t re-export it to a third country without permission, and both Germany and the US were dragging their feet in giving Poland that permission. The EU had no real input into that dispute, since it was outside of its competence - its only real role was to provide another forum in which Poland could exert political and diplomatic pressure on Germany (and more indirectly the US), but it had no power to make any of those countries do anything
- infamia 3y ago
  > Hungary is blocking aid out of the EU budget. It has zero power to block other EU countries from giving aid out of their own budgets. This is mostly making my point. Money that the UK would send to the EU would no longer be under their control and unavailable to send to Ukraine -- which is being held up by intransigent member states like Orban/Hungary. All of the UK's funds are presently within the UK's discretion to send to Ukraine. If they were a member of the EU, less funds would be available to even consider sending to Ukraine. It is quite a lot harder fiscally speaking. > Not true. EU member states have been giving independent aid to Ukraine - for example Poland With all due respect to Poland and it's people (whom I admire), you can't really compare the political gravity and the pressures of the UK vs. Poland. The UK was one of the leaders in within the western EU and had to act in coordination with the rest of the EU. Also, Poland is in a very different political situation (i.e., Eastern Europe, border state, former Soviet Block, etc.). If London would have spent the same amount of it's GDP as Poland, there would have been a lot of concerns and raised eyebrows in Brussels for sure. If the UK were in the EU, they would be feeling the pressure not to get too far out in front of the slow-footed Germans. Poland doesn't exert the same pressures on Germany as the UK would while in the EU (again nothing but respect to Polish folks). Re-export agreements are standard in all arms agreements, so that's a different matter (which I agree with you about).
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Money that the UK would send to the EU would no longer be under their control and unavailable to send to Ukraine Government budgeting is not a zero-sum game. The UK as an EU member could still have given the exact same amount as they have given outside of it. They could have done that either by cutting spending in other areas, raising taxes or borrowing more. Whether or not they would have is a very hypothetical/speculative counterfactual which nobody can know either way with any great confidence. > The UK was one of the leaders in within the western EU and had to act in coordination with the rest of the EU There is no hard requirement to "act in coordination with the rest of the EU". In the area of foreign policy, the EU has no enforcement mechanism. In other policy areas, if a member state disobeys EU rules, the Commission can take them to the European Court of Justice; however, foreign policy has been explicitly excluded from the Court's jurisdiction. So if the UK really wants to do their own thing on foreign policy, there is nothing the EU (or its other members) can do to stop them.

skissane 3y ago

> Hungary has blocked $54B of aid for Ukraine for almost three months now with no end in sight. Hungary is blocking aid out of the EU budget. It has zero power to block other EU countries from giving aid out of their own budgets. Big member state national budgets are each several times larger than the EU budget. > Meanwhile, the UK delivers aid how and whenever they like (including many firsts like western battle tanks, cruise missiles, etc.). Which it could still do in the EU. Many EU member states provide military and other aid to Ukraine outside of the EU framework, and the EU has done nothing to stop them > The UK would be under a lot of pressure not to act unilaterally, Not true. EU member states have been giving independent aid to Ukraine - for example Poland - and the EU has not done anything to stop them. In fact, the biggest obstacle to Polish military aid has not been the EU, it has been Germany and the US - Poland buys military equipment from both, and the contracts said they couldn’t re-export it to a third country without permission, and both Germany and the US were dragging their feet in giving Poland that permission. The EU had no real input into that dispute, since it was outside of its competence - its only real role was to provide another forum in which Poland could exert political and diplomatic pressure on Germany (and more indirectly the US), but it had no power to make any of those countries do anything

infamia 3y ago
> Hungary is blocking aid out of the EU budget. It has zero power to block other EU countries from giving aid out of their own budgets. This is mostly making my point. Money that the UK would send to the EU would no longer be under their control and unavailable to send to Ukraine -- which is being held up by intransigent member states like Orban/Hungary. All of the UK's funds are presently within the UK's discretion to send to Ukraine. If they were a member of the EU, less funds would be available to even consider sending to Ukraine. It is quite a lot harder fiscally speaking. > Not true. EU member states have been giving independent aid to Ukraine - for example Poland With all due respect to Poland and it's people (whom I admire), you can't really compare the political gravity and the pressures of the UK vs. Poland. The UK was one of the leaders in within the western EU and had to act in coordination with the rest of the EU. Also, Poland is in a very different political situation (i.e., Eastern Europe, border state, former Soviet Block, etc.). If London would have spent the same amount of it's GDP as Poland, there would have been a lot of concerns and raised eyebrows in Brussels for sure. If the UK were in the EU, they would be feeling the pressure not to get too far out in front of the slow-footed Germans. Poland doesn't exert the same pressures on Germany as the UK would while in the EU (again nothing but respect to Polish folks). Re-export agreements are standard in all arms agreements, so that's a different matter (which I agree with you about).
- skissane 3y ago
  > Money that the UK would send to the EU would no longer be under their control and unavailable to send to Ukraine Government budgeting is not a zero-sum game. The UK as an EU member could still have given the exact same amount as they have given outside of it. They could have done that either by cutting spending in other areas, raising taxes or borrowing more. Whether or not they would have is a very hypothetical/speculative counterfactual which nobody can know either way with any great confidence. > The UK was one of the leaders in within the western EU and had to act in coordination with the rest of the EU There is no hard requirement to "act in coordination with the rest of the EU". In the area of foreign policy, the EU has no enforcement mechanism. In other policy areas, if a member state disobeys EU rules, the Commission can take them to the European Court of Justice; however, foreign policy has been explicitly excluded from the Court's jurisdiction. So if the UK really wants to do their own thing on foreign policy, there is nothing the EU (or its other members) can do to stop them.