I’m NOT an SNP member, and find its policies as divorced from economic reality as those of ALL the UK parties.
Brexit and Covid-19 are going to force the UK to face reality soon.
For most young people, in all the UK, education has failed. Too many courses are just to provide “in training or education” statistics.
Real work rather than pretend jobs is needed.
Entry into the EU was on terms which devastated the community in which I grew up, and now live. Fortunately the oil industry developed about the same time, providing training which enables people to find employment elsewhere – Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Arabia.
In 1988, I drove through a Native American community which shocked me. Same in several years.
An open cast coal mine opened. It changed the ares completely. People had jobs and money.
Why would you say about playing a war game, to see how european citizens would react to a crisis ?
Scenario :
France would send (to me and realistically) :
UK would send about the same I guess.
What could your country do realisticaly ?
What would your government offer to build a coordinated EU response ?
If it works, it could be the beginning of an EU army.
The problem with a full-time shared/combined military force is that the participating countries need to have EXACTLY the same interests in all areas of the world.
NATO works because it is an alliance (rather than a formal combined force) formed for a single purpose – to deal with one particular interest.
The UK has stuff like the Falklands, which obviously other European countries don’t want to get involved in. Perhaps e.g. France has other interests around the globe which it might react to but would struggle to persuade its EU partners to take an interest in.
Graham wrote:
France has other interests around the globe which it might react to but would struggle to persuade its EU partners to take an interest in.
Chad & Mali to name a couple…
Graham wrote:
The problem with a full-time shared/combined military force is that the participating countries need to have EXACTLY the same interests in all areas of the world.
I agree.
As I suggested earlier, it seems to me the one biggest single danger on the flip side, is it will not prove very nibble when the chips are really down. In other words in times of serious inflamatory and wide spread aggression NATO may not be able to find a concensus quick enough and then draw together all the logistics quick enough before the fight is all over. This is the weakness I suspect a malicious advisory would seek to take advantage of, and to a limited extent we have seen this both with China and Russia where they have overrun some territories very quickly, leaving the world to tut and complain, but of course they have what they want, and its too late for much for a response.
Jujupilote wrote:
What would your government offer to build a coordinated EU response ?
If it works, it could be the beginning of an EU army.
It doesn’t! Your scenario is great to illustrate why:
Taiwan is an Island in the Pacific. France is the only country in the EU where a major part of population would feel any kind of responsibility to act at all. In all other countries people would generally agree to “that’s the other side of earth, so let US, Japan and China sort this out.”
Let’s wait a bit more for answers before we draw any conclusions 
But silence is an answer too.
The UK has left the EU. Until France leaves the EU, I cant see an “EU army” existing and functioning at all.
Most EU countries dont even want to commit to NATO budgets anymore, so I cant see how an EU army would work.
skydriller wrote:
Most EU countries dont even want to commit to NATO budgets anymore,
Are you referring to actual “NATO budget” or to that infamous 2% GDP guideline?
Direct proposed cost shares from NATO website:
ALL NATO members agreed in 2006 to contribute 2% of GDP to defence.
Currently only 9 Members of NATO do this.
