Can the US be relied upon?

[Mr Greene]

WTF did that have to with the OP?

Agricultural subsidies have always ****ed things up as they distort the economy; Sheep have been subsidised for centuries, as a result our national flock is massively oversized compared to what we actually consume and as a result we have had to product-dump wool since at least the 18th century. Because woolen goods are exactly what you need in the steaming jungles of south east Asia.
Market forces should be applied to agriculture so that it actually provides what consumers want and not what some bunch of lobbyists can convince politicians to vote for.

The EU army is yet another dodge for the Germans to avoid paying for their own defence, again the rule of one size fits nobody applies and will be subject to all the same problems as the Delian League.

[The Grand Nudger]

Glad that we could lay aside the issue of small farms and rural communities. Yes, agricultural planners allocate subsidies in order to meet demand -and- to capture market share.

I would assume that very british agricultural planners, surveying the applied market forces of a post brexit uk would continue to serve the broader interests of the UK in such a manner?

You got somethin against sheep?

[I_am_not_mafia]

WTF did that have to with the OP?

That the UK can no longer rely on the US for military aid. Getting out of NATO and being part of an EU army would help with that.

The EU army is yet another dodge for the Germans to avoid paying for their own defence, again the rule of one size fits nobody applies and will be subject to all the same problems as the Delian League.

Please provide some evidence that the Germans want an EU army so that they can freeload on other EU countries to make up the shortfall.

[Mr Greene]

Historically it was done by the land owners, who were also the members of the House of Lords and thus reflected their own interests.
The concentration on sheep led to people being cleared from the land in Scotland and wool actually was our principle export to Asia (via the East India Co.) at below the cost to produce, by government edict.
Given we're talking about politicians I expect them to act in the interests of their own reelection, as per usual.
Beyond that it looks like the concentration might be towards investment in the North and infrastructure.

---

WTF did that have to with the OP?

That the UK can no longer rely on the US for military aid. Getting out of NATO and being part of an EU army would help with that.

The EU army is yet another dodge for the Germans to avoid paying for their own defence, again the rule of one size fits nobody applies and will be subject to all the same problems as the Delian League.

Please provide some evidence that the Germans want an EU army so that they can freeload on other EU countries to make up the shortfall.

So an EU force would have gone to the South Atlantic in '82?
Not unless Spain was offered quotas in the squid fishery...
Germany will continue to do what they have been doing since '55.

[I_am_not_mafia]

So an EU force would have gone to the South Atlantic in '82?

We don't know. Nor do we know whether Argentina would have invaded the Falkland islands if they knew it was protected by the entire EU rather than just the UK.

Germany will continue to do what they have been doing since '55.

Which is?

I find it odd how discussions with Brexiters always ends up with anti-German sentiment. It's like there is some resentment from the baby boomer generation that they didn't get a chance to fight a war like their parents.

[The Grand Nudger]

Given your stated ideological preferences and deep well of cynicism - what do you expect will be different under an independent UK when it comes to agricultural subsidy? Will they stop subsidizing wool? I gather that you think they should, but do you expect that they will?

[Mr Greene]

So an EU force would have gone to the South Atlantic in '82?

We don't know. Nor do we know whether Argentina would have invaded the Falkland islands if they knew it was protected by the entire EU rather than just the UK.

Germany will continue to do what they have been doing since '55.

Which is?

I find it odd how discussions with Brexiters always ends up with anti-German sentiment. It's like there is some resentment from the baby boomer generation that they didn't get a chance to fight a war like their parents.

The Falklands are not part of the EU so the answer is a straight no.
Besides the French were busy trying to sell Exocet.
All NATO countries commit spending 2% GDP on defence, let us know when Germany thinks it will get around to meeting its commitment.
As for what the Boomers think, dunno you'll have go find one I suppose.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So?

Of all the ships in that photo,  there is only a single one that belongs to a class which still has some members in service.

Yeah i figured when i saw the Long Beach. 

But they all have ice cream machines. Checkmate.

---

So?

Of all the ships in that photo,  there is only a single one that belongs to a class which still has some members in service.

They've all been replaced/SLEP'ed.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The Falklands are not part of the EU so the answer is a straight no.

Actually you can't say that.

An EU army could not be set up unless there was some agreement to either defend non-EU territories held by EU countries, or let countries defend them independently. So either way, an EU army wouldn't stop the UK defending the Falklands if it wanted to.

The UK is not the only country that holds territory overseas and countries are not going to join an EU army if it means that they can't somehow defend their own territory.

In fact as it currently stands these territories do enjoy special status within the EU with varying degrees of compliance to EU law.

Special member state territories and the European Union

The special territories of the European Union are 31 territories of EU member states which, for historical, geographical, or political reasons, enjoy special status within or outside the European Union.

An EU army would have meant defending the Falkland Islands would have been a far less risky endeavour and Argentina would have been less likely to have invaded. And if they did anyway then economic sanctions would have been more effective because it would have been carried out by a larger trading block than the UK, meaning war would have been less likely. An EU army would also mean that prime ministers, as with Thatcher and the Falkland islands, would be less tempted to go to war to win a general election.

Besides the French were busy trying to sell Exocet.

They wouldn't be doing that if they then had to send their own troops to fight the buyers of their Exocet missiles.

All NATO countries commit spending 2% GDP on defence, let us know when Germany thinks it will get around to meeting its commitment.

That's a NATO commitment and because America has such as a vast military force, spending 2% of GDP is actually just a waste of money.  Most EU countries spend less than 2% of their GDP on the military. If an EU army were to be formed then there could be mechanisms in place to make sure that each country met their required contributions.

NATO members’ promise of spending 2% of their GDP on defence is proving hard to keep

---

---

[Mr Greene]

They weren't exactly falling over themselves to assist at the time.
The buyers of the French Exocet stock were us, we paid top whack to ensure we were highest bidder on every missile on the market, the French had their best sales period ever because we knew they weren't keeping their word.
Of course it would have helped if the French hadn't sent the launch data the missiles as promised, but hey can't get that sort of advertising every day.
We could barely mount the op with what we had if we'd been forking out for an EU force it would have been a no-go.
If you want to think the Europeans had our back on that one, good luck.