Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 12 2016, 07:17 PM

I see some argue for either, but what would you say are the pros and cons?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 12 2016, 07:34 PM

Sovereignty. Control over currency and border control. No brainer for me. Others may prefer the federal option of being ruled by Germany by the EU. Cos whether people want to believe it ir not Merkel is the leader of Europe.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 12 2016, 08:32 PM

The UK is of course a federation of states already with a degree of power and autonomy delegated from the UK federal government to the constituent state parliaments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and within England other powers are devolved down to local government. We are also already in a federation of sorts with the European Union in that Directives control matters such as employee rights, environmental protection, state subsidised industry, health and safety, consumer rights, and civil rights.

If the question is one of the pros and cons of formal federation with Europe you have to specify the terms of that federation because a federated Europe could look exactly as it does right now with no additional powers ceded to the federal government.

So having a guess at what might change:

A federated Europe might well organise defence at a national level. That's not really much different from now because our membership of NATO already obligates us to defend our NATO allies as we would the UK itself, and as the rest of Europe are generally more reticent than the UK to use military aggression we might not kick quite so many hornets nests if the UK military was under the supreme control of the European Federation. It would be good to think that a European Federation would also unilaterally put its nuclear weapons beyond use.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 12 2016, 08:46 PM

You make a reasoned argument Simon. Personally I have a problem with giving up a deterrent that has kept us out of another world war without discussing it with other Nuclear powers. Especially with Putin at the helm in Russia. Unilateral disarmament although a decent thing to do would put us in a very weak position.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 12 2016, 09:34 PM

Nuclear weapons have been a deterrent, but only just. We've taken a step back from the brink, I'd like to see us take a few more paces still. I don't see that as weak, I see it as pragmatic and conciliatory.

Posted by: x2lls Jul 12 2016, 10:22 PM

A European federation does not give us the chance to get shot of those at the top, whereby the UK 'federation', as you put it does.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jul 12 2016, 10:56 PM

"Speak softly and carry a big stick".Good advice, ,Corby should heed it.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 12 2016, 11:19 PM

Soverign state v Federal state is meaningless - a Federal state is a sovereign state. The issue is somewhat different - would we be better or worse off as a region in a larger state or as we are (and as the EU accepts we will stay).

Today we live in an increasingly federalised state with 4 distinct regions, 3 with regional governments - it's not perfect, but it's not so bad. Nor would a federal European state be so bad. We'd have different people in charge, but they wouldn't be so different from the lot we have at present. Who would I rather have in charge - Merkel or May - it's a bit early to tell about May but if I had to vote today I'd opt for Merkel.

People talk about getting back sovereignty - so we can decide, as if we ever get to decide.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 12 2016, 11:23 PM

There is no European, but if there was and we were in it would be run by a federal goverment elected by the people of the federation - we'd have regular chances to 'get shot of those at the top'.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 13 2016, 05:10 AM

That's all very well but it MUST be unilateral.
How that can be achieved all encompassing question to which no-one has yet found the answer.
For one major nuclear power to disarm would create a dangerous imbalance.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 13 2016, 08:55 AM

Unilateral is simple - just get rid of Trident.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 13 2016, 08:56 AM

Duplicate

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 13 2016, 10:01 AM

I guess he meant multilateral.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 13 2016, 11:18 AM

You think that Trident is our only nuclear weapon...?

Posted by: blackdog Jul 13 2016, 12:39 PM

You think it isn't??

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 13 2016, 03:15 PM

Wiki says: "The UK is thought to retain a stockpile of around 225 thermonuclear warheads, of which 160 are operational, but has refused to declare the exact size of its arsenal. Since 1998, the Trident nuclear programme has been the only operational nuclear weapons system in British service."

Posted by: On the edge Jul 13 2016, 03:40 PM

I wonder if they are stored in West Berkshire, we aren't very good at counting important things..

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 13 2016, 04:28 PM

Not really. For starters Blighty isn't a major world power and of all of the nuclear states our unilateral disarmament would hardly raise an eyebrow. Much the same with France. If Israel were to disrm that might potentially embolden Iran, though of all the nuclear powers I worry most that Israel would use them. India and Pakistan are also worryingly bellicose and I'm not sure that now would be the best time for one of the to unilaterally disarm. America could certainly disarm without destabilising anything, as could China and Russia - I don't believe they face any potential aggressor for whome nuclear retaliationis a deterrent. If South Africa hss nucs I have no idear why and they certainly don't need them. That leaves North Korea who may possibly have a weaponised nuclear war head, and while I think the US would like to invade I'm not sure they're crazy enough to provoke the world's largest standing army and their Chinese allay.

So for Blighty then I see nothing at all to be gained by keeping Trident as it provides no deterrent to any credible aggressor and all the while we have it attracts hostility and raises tension that is wholly unhelpful.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 13 2016, 05:16 PM

I did.
It was a bit early in the morning!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 13 2016, 05:32 PM

Yes I think the UK could get rid of its arsenal without affecting its security, but it seems unfair to leave it to others to give us a nuclear shield; however, it's that 'could' word (in bold type) that undermines your argument. Replace it with 'have', then you might have a better argument, but who's to say the world would be more peaceful with larger multilateral conventional armies carrying no nuclear threat.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 13 2016, 06:11 PM

They are manufactured in West Berkshire - perhaps that's why the number is a bit hazey?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 13 2016, 07:02 PM

I don't want a nuclear shield. I don't want any conventional armies. I don't want the army parading through my town, I don't want children going to school in combat fatigues, I don't want military parades celebrating my ceremonial monarch's birthday, I don't want battles and wars remembered, I don't want army recruitment booths at country fairs, and I don't want remembrance services normalising military aggression. I choose to believe that there will be a time when wars no longer happen. That time's not yet here, and the UK probably still needs armed services and I certainly mean no disrespect to serving and retired service personnel, but I want peace in the world and we'll only start on that journey if we begin to think of war as repugnant and unconscionable.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 13 2016, 08:24 PM

We already do, but others think differently and while that's the case we cannot abandon the 'military shield' altogether.

When at peace, prepare for war.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jul 13 2016, 08:57 PM

Yeah, and I want unicorns to poop teacakes, ain't gonna happen though.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 13 2016, 09:12 PM

No, I don't think we're quite at the stage where we could demobilise the armed forces, and that's not what I've suggested, but we don't need Trident and we don't need the protection of any other nuclear deterrent either. We should however keep our armed in the UK and begin the withdrawal from our colonial territories. A Federated States of Europe should for example make it easier for the UK to relinquish control of Gibraltar.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 13 2016, 09:26 PM

I feel that the west removing its nuclear weapons would raise the the chances of more military conflict.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 13 2016, 09:33 PM

Perhaps the US should give all of its citizens Nuclear Weapons. May stop them killing each other with guns.😞

Posted by: On the edge Jul 13 2016, 09:33 PM

Full federation would also quickly solve the Irish and Scottish problem as well as the Spanish issue with the Basques. It would also eliminate the tax havens we have. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea! On the defence issue, federation would naturally provide a far better deterrent, in military concerns size does matter. Nuclear weapons worry me greatly, but even more now we as a nation have lost our intellectual nuclear prowess and capability - these weapons are even more dangerous when you don't understand them.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 13 2016, 09:33 PM

Full federation would also quickly solve the Irish and Scottish problem as well as the Spanish issue with the Basques. It would also eliminate the tax havens we have. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea! On the defence issue, federation would naturally provide a far better deterrent, in military concerns size does matter. Nuclear weapons worry me greatly, but even more now we as a nation have lost our intellectual nuclear prowess and capability - these weapons are even more dangerous when you don't understand them.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 13 2016, 09:37 PM

Good point TDH.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 13 2016, 09:39 PM

I'm not talking about the west, I'm talking about Blighty. Who are you worried about, the Cornish?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 13 2016, 09:54 PM

Putin. Until we get a none aggressive Russian leader who is not fighting bear's (or Photoshopped) doing so and invading Crimea and the Ukraine and bombing Syria (a lot and much more indiscriminately than the west) then I'm afraid we still need them.😞 Not particularly happy about it but a necessary evil. In my view. Though Porten Down could kill us all anyway!!!!

Posted by: On the edge Jul 14 2016, 05:57 AM

I think I'd go along with that, particularly the Photoshopped aside. Perhaps that's all we need; a few realistic photos........

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 14 2016, 06:20 AM

I don't believe Russian aggression is being held in check by the UK's nuclear deterrent, and I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 14 2016, 06:47 AM

I should have made it clearer, I don't either; simply a poor attempt at irony!

I don't think Russian aggression is being held in check by our deterrent. Like it or not, we actually don't have any nuclear weapons anyway; the reality is that they are American designed, owned and operated. It's inconceivable we'd use them off our own bat; even if we knew how. If I, a simple Joe can work that out, it won't have escaped anyone else's notice. Frankly, that's an even bigger worry.

Having nuclear weapons in the UK for defence purposes is rather like letting your aggressive neighbour keep his semi starved Rottweilers in your home because you are worried the bloke at the end of the terrace might break in and nick your stamp album.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2016, 08:17 AM

Nukes aren't a defence mechanism insofar that they are are demonstration of an ability to reply. 'Star Wars' will do that and will be the thing that makes nuclear missiles redundant. That and submarine drones.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2016, 08:20 AM

Anyway, I regret this thread will 'remain' a futile nukes vs no-nukes debate.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 14 2016, 08:40 AM

I suppose at the end of the day it simply comes down to how we see ourselves; do we really think we make much difference as individuals? Then, if we do, what is the optimum size of our control span? On the face if it, as far as we are concerned individually, a nation state or a federation - marginal if any difference.

The U.K. is a federation anyway. That hasn't stopped component parts arguing the toss. Argument doesn't happen over much in the US, but Canada has no inclination to join.

Arguably a federation is just a step to World government. So what, TTIP writ large. I'm not convinced that individually it will make much difference. We'll just end up giving allegiance to our region.

As for defence, presumably just like individual law breakers, there will always be serious dissent (unless we can be medically controlled) so potentially dissent will be in the form of terrorism. You don't need army for that, simply a robust Police force.

Big brother; that so bad? I suspect that's the real question.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2016, 12:13 PM

Our army is in effect a police force, under the control of a government.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 14 2016, 03:05 PM

Simon started it in just post 3!!

Posted by: On the edge Jul 14 2016, 06:47 PM

My mum says he's a naughty boy!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 14 2016, 06:53 PM

I get that a lot.