A101 wrote:Loew wrote:1. EU is not a member of UN´s security council. Talking about how the "UK holds 50% of EU´s voting rights in the UN security council" is pure demagogy and I´m sure you are well aware of that.
But it’s certainly trying to grab hold of them, and has been for a number of years. It has come up a number of times I even remember the subject being up in the late 90’s with the UK-FR saying in a diplomatic way to eff off and the question again last year sometime
Loew wrote:2. UK is not a "global military power" (whatever that exactly means) and has not been one since 1945, which btw. is also one of the reasons why the British colonial system totally collapsed.
Quite wrong there, whilst it is greatly diminished and not in the league of the US, the UK still retains its unique capacity to project and extend itself around the globe and sustain it.
I think you might be getting what the difference is between a global power and a superpower
Superpower – A country with a vast national base and enormous national structure, from which to generate overwhelming national instruments and resolve to project and extend itself and its interests – often comprehensively – around the world.
Global Power – A country with a large national base and/or structure, from which to generate extensive instruments and resolve to project and extend itself and its interests – sometimes selectively – around the world.”
Regional Power- A country with a moderate national base and/or structure, from which to develop modest instruments and resolve to defend itself and its interests, primarily within its own region.
3. EU doesn´t have nuclear weapons, or army for that matter, your numbers comparing (I suppose) French and UK nuclear capability are first off, secondly irrelevant, and third strategic nuclear game is not just about number of warheads, it´s also about total destructive power, delivery capability, ability to get past enemy defences, second strike capability etc.. Honestly UK´s "nuclear deterrent" is fairly weak because of 1. questionable status of strategic nuclear warheads, 2. questionable status od delivery vehicles and 3. it gives the commanders of submarines option to simply disobey order to launch, which is something you won´t see in any US or Russian systems.
You are assuming I’m talking about numbers far from it. The 50% I’m referring to is the number of nuclear armed members in the EU which by the way is two, once the UK leave that’s 50% of nuclear armed members who have left the union.
And by the way the UK nuclear deterrence is not based on winning a nuclear war, it’s about not losing and starting a nuclear war
Bottom line is that if the EU would feel a need to full-scale deploy strategic nuclear weapons, it has the money and resources needed to achieve that goal, something that cannot be exactly said about the UK one reson being that there are very little uranium deposits in the UK which is needed to make plutonium. Now if you think that there is always Australia or USA ready to help, in this specific matter I wouldn´t be too optimistic.
No the EU is not a federal entity as yet the EU is reliant on its members to bring that expertise to the fold. If and when federalisation occours that expertise naturally becomes a part of it.In the matter of raw material Australia is always a willing partner with the UK.
Seems to me you are overthinking my post. But It’s also the reasons why I think when the EU does becomes a federation that will be the end of NATO
1. EU security council seat will not happen. France will never give it up and there is no mechanism to reform it. So pointless to talk about it.
2. Where did you get these definitions from? Couldn't find them in a small search. Would be interesting to link your information.
3. As discussed before, talking about defence is irrelevant with NATO in the picture. If anything, if NATO would be dissolved and an EU army is in its place, the case for Brexit becomes even more weak, because it will hurt the UK, all there by itself, an island off the European continent.