ReasonableHat

u/ReasonableHat@lemmy.world
0 posts · 29 comments

Recent posts

No posts.

Recent comments

Thank you for the response! I'm not sure of the reason for the negative reaction to the question, but I was curious to see whether time had shifted opinion on non-EU arms manufacturers being allowed to benefit from the fund seeing as the prevailing sentiment some months ago seemed to be that it was a good thing that non-EU manufacturers were excluded.

Just to add, the references to Norway and Ukraine were deliberate because they are not in the EU. Also, I don't think the requirement for third countries to commit to defence pacts with the EU is inherently bad, but it should be just that - a defence pact to meet the most pressing threat Europe faces. Making a defence pact conditional on the UK granting access to its fishing waters is moronic.

It is just sad to see the same short-sighted pettiness undermining Europe's common interest. I'm not sure your specific points hold any water; obviously nobody anywhere in Europe has voted for this in a general election / referendum, and the current UK governing party (which won a large parliamentary election last year) was for remaining in the EU.

This is utter madness in relation to the UK if the EU keeps insisting on including other crap (e.g. fishing rights) in any third country defence agreement. The UK is as much a part of Europe and has as much of an interest in its defence as Norway and Ukraine, for example.

In practice there is no way non-US intelligence agencies are sharing intelligence that is critical to their agents' safety or national security with the US. I doubt they ever have shared that intelligence with anyone, save in very discrete circumstances. In public they will continue to pretend that they're sharing, as they have always done.