Hacker News Reader

Comment by mytailorisrich | Hacker News Reader

Despite what you might see a lot in the media lately the EU is not a military alliance and has explicitly no involvement in the military. So joining the EU is irrelevant on these issues.

The article mentions that sovereignty is a big issue. It should be because joining the EU means giving that up so that, I think, is the really crucial issue they should be thinking long and hard about (including, indeed, with respect to fisheries).

View on HN

Sovereignty is not a binary thing. And it's also not the case that not being a part of some structure makes you sovereign from it. In some cases it's the opposite - you need to conform anyway and have no input into the decision process. So as usual things are nuanced and not black and white.

As it happens sovereignty is a binary thing, at least when looked at domain by domain. Either you are sovereign or you are not, there is no half-sovereign.

The EU is going the federalisation way. Even now member countries relinquished sovereignty on key aspects: border control and immigration, monetary policy and currency, trade policy, and then a bunch of other things. This is hugely significant for a country.

This is just a referendum on talks so won't "seal their fate" but kudos to them for holding it.

If countries relinquished sovereignty on borders then can you explain how they are now controlling their own borders again to stop migrants?

Well there are not. And they did relinquish sovereignty on borders: Schengen means you do not control your border and we've seen exactly that over the years. This is factual, not an opinion. Even just free movement is a big reduction of sovereign border control and certainly of immigration (in effect you no longer have control of that). We can discuss the pros and cons but not the facts.

Yes they are, they are checking IDs are borders again.

Well, no they are not. And some very punctual, limited measures like Italy is doing right now for the show obviously does not mean they have control, as already said (and obvious).

Why don't you think they have control?

EU is indeed a military alliance. They are just no integrated command structures but this is common among most military alliances across the world.

SAFE credits are an EU military thing.

The mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force even in case of aggression. A member can send blankets, food rations, or even just express diplomatic solidarity. Stretching definitions enough one can call it military alliance, but it is not in any practical form.

You are wrong https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83ac...

Looks like I'm right. I don't read in German regretfully, but what I get with machine translation fully supports my point - national discretion allows for civilian or humanitarian aid rather than an automatic military response

Moving the goalpost out to "automatic military response" is not compelling.

I literally started the discussion from the point that "the mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force" - quoting from the comment just 2 levels above.

So which goalpost is being moved here?

I started the discussion with the EU is infact a military alliance. You shifted the goal post by your counter argument.

Talking about EU politics you have to use non English sources sometimes. Why not auto translate them?

I shifted nothing, and as we are on the nets, everybody can verify it above. I said you can stretch the notion of military alliance to cover the EU, but because nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not.

Like if Russia lands on IS, there's no agreement to defend it even if it joined the union.

>Why not auto translate them?

I did, and I clearly mentioned it. And it supports what I said, isn't it? Can we please agree to read those letters in full, and not run to accuse me after finishing just the first sentence?

" nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. " 1.) My source claims the opposite. 2.) This is the same for NATO and Mecca Pact practically. 3.) Actually a lot of lawyers see the EU article is more stricter than the NATO article. I trust them more than a goal shifting HN poster.

1. You are welcome to cite exact wording. 2. That's literally the first normal argument you expressed in the thread. I'm so delighted! NATO is practically very much different, cause it has tried-and-proven structures, drills, and more importantly American military behind it. Given the current state of affairs we of course can have our doubts, but during its existence there always has been a wide consensus, that the USA considers NATO members its area of responsibility, and are ready to act. And the alliance's Article 5 is way more obliging. Once agreed it forces members to regard themselves to be in conflict. 3. Good ones, bad ones, imagined ones? Care to show them?

Ad hominem doesn't make anybody look smart. Dishonest ad hominem, I guess, even worse?

I think a point is to be made that international treaties and alliances work on trust. They don't "oblige" a country in the sense that you may be obliged to do something.

Now the EU is not a military alliance per se and Article 42.7 (which was essentially sneaked in by the Lisbon Treaty) is a bit fuzzy so members will consider all aspects and offer some assistance, sure, but scramble their whole military because that's "all the means in their power", no unless they see that the threat to themselves is critical not least because the article also states that it "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States". So basically some help will be sent but calibrated by all the usual political and self-interest considerations.

The relevant quote in the document is actually in English though.

So it does say required by all that is in their power. Whether that is enforceable is another measure, but that is true for a lot of rights.

OK, the Treaty of the EU does have a mutual defence clause but the military is specifically out of scope.

Considering the huge ramifications of EU membership in all areas it still does seem ridiculously onerous if you are "just" after security and NATO-like alliances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com