Here we go -
'UK approves £4bn US takeover of defence company Cobham
'.....In September the government intervened in the takeover, citing national security concerns.
But in a statement on Friday, Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said she was satisfied the risks that had been identified had been mitigated "to an acceptable level" - and allowed the deal to go ahead.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50874181
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@biffo-konker saidWell, at least it's not Brussel that will be running England from now on...
Here we go -
'UK approves £4bn US takeover of defence company Cobham
'.....In September the government intervened in the takeover, citing national security concerns.
But in a statement on Friday, Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said she was satisfied the risks that had been identified had been mitigated "to an acceptable level" - and allowed the deal to go ahead.'
@shallow-blue saidI hate this myth.
There's only one country - England - and three domestic colonies - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Only Wales was conquered.
The parliaments of Scotland & Ireland voluntarily joined the United Kingdom.
England has no special part of the UK, it is one of 3 members ... albeit the largest.
-Removed-If this is the case, why did the government intervene in the first place?
Secondly; what’s wrong with an EU army?
It saves resources, freeing up cash to bolster other things like healthcare, infrastructure and education.
As with most EU projects of this scale, national decision making and control structures would remain in place; opting at the strategic level to participate on a case to case base.
The main benefit being that centralized investment can guarantee better quality at lower costs. With less resources (people and material) needed on stand-by.
However, anything above the already existent co-op agreements is a very long-term project.
For example, how do you anchor safety against national-abuse: say Spain wants to use the army to keep Barcelona within Spain; how do you safeguard against such actions, but allow the army to be used against, say, ETA or the IRA?
I’m not saying an EU army should be allowed for those purposes... but it’s an example of the problems faced when one would wish to implement such a transition.
(You’d probably see an EU army existing besides national guard-like forces, I would presume; but that’s a whole other subject for a whole other thread).