Well, given that Brexit is the main reason I no longer live in the UK, I’d jump at the chance. Whether the sort of people that thought Polish builders are the reason that they don’t have suitable housing would want to go back in is another matter.
Realistically, rejoining the EU is a somewhat more complicated process than restarting a Netflix subscription (which is what many pro-EU people seem to give the impression of). However, joining the Customs Union and even the Single Market are more easily achievable and would have most of the benefits.
Military co-operation is an interesting one, because it would be in everyone’s interests and it is an area where the UK still has a fair bit of leverage and couple ease any accession process.
The UK was the major reason there was no military co-operation in Europe before Brexit. I can not see the UK changing that stance above all after their recent sucking up to Trump.
A joint Franco-anglais command might have alleviated some of the worries about a France led force.
Try 800-5000. Not the entire army obviously.
The idea, forced by the US decision to leave Europe in a very rapid and hostile manner and serve all the poker cards to Russia, is to set up a European joint force. It’s not realistic yet, but this is to get the snowball rolling. I am skeptical, because neither the UK populace nor the general European populace has woken up and smelled the coffee yet. Severely increased defence budgets and rearmament is needed, but there will be (as seen in the UK labour party now, clinging to unrealistically low 2.5 % gdp spending despite the critical events of the last few weeks and the chasm staring at us) much opposition and I am pessimistic.
In short, I think not enough will actually materialise and that we are close to fucked. Well, some of us at least.
The likelyhood of that increases in parallel to time spent with the head in the sand.
But of course, one can do nothing, ignore the US and Trump, let Russia just win, and then face a revitalised revanchist imperial Great Power alone in 3-5 years without proper rearmament to deter it. That sounds like suicide for Europe to me though.
I’m quite pessimistic, but clinging to some minor hope.
The actions of European governments in the next couple of months and their ability to get their head out of the sand and rapidly enact highly politically unpopular crisis solutions, will reveal much of the future in terms of geopolitics and security for our continent.
Sending troops to guard cease fire in UKR for instance, will be very unpopular because it carries a real risk of entanglement. Continental Rearmament will be met by screaming protests and lots of “everyone should pay but us”.
I don’t think either the UK, France or Germany are able to pay these monitary, political and economical costs really.
For one, any decision to send troops to UKR must have cross party mandate. No more Cons against Labour or visa versa, but unified policy. Any serious action requires deep rooting in parliament and for political games to cease. You cannot play political games with something so important, you need true madate from governance parties (such as a deal/pact between Labour, Cons and Lib Dems). As an example. You cannot do anything like this with a threat of an election changing the policy. See US for example of the opposite. So it must have mandate from parties normally hostile to each other, like in the 30s.
I agree. but forgive me, because I am not optimistic. We have already wasted 3 years, with people like me screaming into the void, warning about the impending, rather to me, obvious danger. But little has happened and now we are almost out of time
I think a vote to return to the EU would pass comfortably now, but the Elephant in the room is whether the EU would have us back.
They have been clear that there is no return for us until the argument is resolved for at least a generation. They don’t want us acting like it’s the Hokey Cokey.
I thought the uk defence budget was already forecast to increase 10-20% over the next couple of years?
Noises are that Starmer is trying to push higher spending through but the challenge for the government is that the narrative around its finances are such that doing so will be difficult - although justifying the breaking of a manifesto commitment (not increasing income tax) to fund it could be an interesting gamble.
That’s what I am talkng about. The narrative should obviously change when the premise change, but no. I read about Labour MPs saying loudly “No! We were elected on 2.5% so no more!”, totally ignoring the events after Trump won.
Absolute Head in Sand. The very definition of it. These people lack so much knowledge and do not understand that this is deeply serious.
Which MPs though? Some will argue against because they claim to be anti war. Others will be following a line (perhaps temporarily) on ‘sound finances’ until Starmer can find a way to fund that spending that will not play badly with the media and or voters.
To be honest, I don’t give a fuck who gets criticised for what. As long as someone does what is necessary today and not tomorrow, I don’t care. In the Norwegian upcoming election, I will vote accordingly. I don’t give a flying fuck if I then have to vote conservative or theoretically further to the right. I will vote for whoever I am convinced will act. This is a single issue, much more important than everything else and I am absolutely willing to be poorer. I myself, I am not important in this context. I, my own needs, no longer really matters when its the very security for all of my fellow citizens and all Europeans, at stake.
Then naturally, I personally would LIKE to vote Norwegian Labour, but given political positions, I expect myself to have to vote the Liberal Party. I know how to hold my nose. And that vote will (if many vote for them) lead to many Norwegians getting poorer, but in the macro context, that should not matter.
