4 ms·

> 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 m

> 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

> 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.