3 ms·

Despite what you might see a lot in the media lately the EU is not a military alliance and has explicitly no involvement in the military. So joining the EU is i

Despite what you might see a lot in the media lately the EU is not a military alliance and has explicitly no involvement in the military. So joining the EU is irrelevant on these issues. The article mentions that sovereignty is a big issue. It should be because joining the EU means giving that up so that, I think, is the really crucial issue they should be thinking long and hard about (including, indeed, with respect to fisheries).

snowpid 1mo ago
EU is indeed a military alliance. They are just no integrated command structures but this is common among most military alliances across the world. SAFE credits are an EU military thing.
- broken-kebab 1mo ago
  The mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force even in case of aggression. A member can send blankets, food rations, or even just express diplomatic solidarity. Stretching definitions enough one can call it military alliance, but it is not in any practical form.
  - snowpid 1mo ago
    You are wrong https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83aca60333593f753ccbbf/kollektiver-beistand-in-der-eu-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83ac...
    - broken-kebab 1mo ago
      Looks like I'm right. I don't read in German regretfully, but what I get with machine translation fully supports my point - national discretion allows for civilian or humanitarian aid rather than an automatic military response
      - Supermancho 1mo ago
        Moving the goalpost out to "automatic military response" is not compelling.
        broken-kebab 1mo ago
        I literally started the discussion from the point that "the mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force" - quoting from the comment just 2 levels above. So which goalpost is being moved here?
        snowpid 1mo ago
        I started the discussion with the EU is infact a military alliance. You shifted the goal post by your counter argument. Talking about EU politics you have to use non English sources sometimes. Why not auto translate them?
        broken-kebab 1mo ago
        I shifted nothing, and as we are on the nets, everybody can verify it above. I said you can stretch the notion of military alliance to cover the EU, but because nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. Like if Russia lands on IS, there's no agreement to defend it even if it joined the union. >Why not auto translate them? I did, and I clearly mentioned it. And it supports what I said, isn't it? Can we please agree to read those letters in full, and not run to accuse me after finishing just the first sentence?
        snowpid 1mo ago
        " nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. " 1.) My source claims the opposite. 2.) This is the same for NATO and Mecca Pact practically. 3.) Actually a lot of lawyers see the EU article is more stricter than the NATO article. I trust them more than a goal shifting HN poster.
- mytailorisrich 1mo ago
  OK, the Treaty of the EU does have a mutual defence clause but the military is specifically out of scope. Considering the huge ramifications of EU membership in all areas it still does seem ridiculously onerous if you are "just" after security and NATO-like alliances.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
UpsideDownRide 1mo ago
Sovereignty is not a binary thing. And it's also not the case that not being a part of some structure makes you sovereign from it. In some cases it's the opposite - you need to conform anyway and have no input into the decision process. So as usual things are nuanced and not black and white.
- mytailorisrich 1mo ago
  As it happens sovereignty is a binary thing, at least when looked at domain by domain. Either you are sovereign or you are not, there is no half-sovereign. The EU is going the federalisation way. Even now member countries relinquished sovereignty on key aspects: border control and immigration, monetary policy and currency, trade policy, and then a bunch of other things. This is hugely significant for a country. This is just a referendum on talks so won't "seal their fate" but kudos to them for holding it.
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    If countries relinquished sovereignty on borders then can you explain how they are now controlling their own borders again to stop migrants?
    - mytailorisrich 1mo ago
      Well there are not. And they did relinquish sovereignty on borders: Schengen means you do not control your border and we've seen exactly that over the years. This is factual, not an opinion. Even just free movement is a big reduction of sovereign border control and certainly of immigration (in effect you no longer have control of that). We can discuss the pros and cons but not the facts.
      - inigyou 1mo ago
        Yes they are, they are checking IDs are borders again.
        1mo ago

snowpid 1mo ago

EU is indeed a military alliance. They are just no integrated command structures but this is common among most military alliances across the world. SAFE credits are an EU military thing.

broken-kebab 1mo ago
The mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force even in case of aggression. A member can send blankets, food rations, or even just express diplomatic solidarity. Stretching definitions enough one can call it military alliance, but it is not in any practical form.
- snowpid 1mo ago
  You are wrong https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83aca60333593f753ccbbf/kollektiver-beistand-in-der-eu-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83ac...
  - broken-kebab 1mo ago
    Looks like I'm right. I don't read in German regretfully, but what I get with machine translation fully supports my point - national discretion allows for civilian or humanitarian aid rather than an automatic military response
    - Supermancho 1mo ago
      Moving the goalpost out to "automatic military response" is not compelling.
      - broken-kebab 1mo ago
        I literally started the discussion from the point that "the mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force" - quoting from the comment just 2 levels above. So which goalpost is being moved here?
        snowpid 1mo ago
        I started the discussion with the EU is infact a military alliance. You shifted the goal post by your counter argument. Talking about EU politics you have to use non English sources sometimes. Why not auto translate them?
        broken-kebab 1mo ago
        I shifted nothing, and as we are on the nets, everybody can verify it above. I said you can stretch the notion of military alliance to cover the EU, but because nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. Like if Russia lands on IS, there's no agreement to defend it even if it joined the union. >Why not auto translate them? I did, and I clearly mentioned it. And it supports what I said, isn't it? Can we please agree to read those letters in full, and not run to accuse me after finishing just the first sentence?
        snowpid 1mo ago
        " nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. " 1.) My source claims the opposite. 2.) This is the same for NATO and Mecca Pact practically. 3.) Actually a lot of lawyers see the EU article is more stricter than the NATO article. I trust them more than a goal shifting HN poster.
mytailorisrich 1mo ago
OK, the Treaty of the EU does have a mutual defence clause but the military is specifically out of scope. Considering the huge ramifications of EU membership in all areas it still does seem ridiculously onerous if you are "just" after security and NATO-like alliances.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

UpsideDownRide 1mo ago

Sovereignty is not a binary thing. And it's also not the case that not being a part of some structure makes you sovereign from it. In some cases it's the opposite - you need to conform anyway and have no input into the decision process. So as usual things are nuanced and not black and white.

mytailorisrich 1mo ago
As it happens sovereignty is a binary thing, at least when looked at domain by domain. Either you are sovereign or you are not, there is no half-sovereign. The EU is going the federalisation way. Even now member countries relinquished sovereignty on key aspects: border control and immigration, monetary policy and currency, trade policy, and then a bunch of other things. This is hugely significant for a country. This is just a referendum on talks so won't "seal their fate" but kudos to them for holding it.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  If countries relinquished sovereignty on borders then can you explain how they are now controlling their own borders again to stop migrants?
  - mytailorisrich 1mo ago
    Well there are not. And they did relinquish sovereignty on borders: Schengen means you do not control your border and we've seen exactly that over the years. This is factual, not an opinion. Even just free movement is a big reduction of sovereign border control and certainly of immigration (in effect you no longer have control of that). We can discuss the pros and cons but not the facts.
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      Yes they are, they are checking IDs are borders again.
      - 1mo ago