Juncker proposes EU military headquarters

[topsy777]

Juncker proposes EU military headquarters

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196

Smallfox - just wondering your "I knew what I was doing" have foreseen this?

[prettybird]

I didn't realise that as a member of NATO, there is a NATO Army

I was aware that we contributed personnel on occasion.

Ditto with the UN.

I'm shocked at these undemocratic armies.

[STIDW]

There are already soldiers deployed from EU counties cooperating on EU missions eg Bosnia since 2004. These are battlegroups not armies. The proposal is for joint command headquarters for EU military missions & greater defence cooperation which is a long way from an army with soldiers employed by the EU.

A few people in the EU want an army but any decision for one would require unanimous agreement & some countries are heavily opposed. So there isn't going to be one anytime soon, if ever. However as the Uk is leaving an EU army really isn't our business anymore. If we wanted influence to oppose an EU army we should have stayed in the EU.

[SapphireStrange]

However as the Uk is leaving an EU army really isn't our business anymore. If we wanted influence to oppose an EU army we should have stayed in the EU.

ABSOLUTELY this.

And I agree with everything else STIDW and pretty say. It's scaremongering, ironically enough from those that encouraged the howls of 'Project Fear'.

[topsy777]

SapphireStrange

How far away are we now from the 1973 common market (and the 1951 ECSC)? When they started to talk about single currency, it too started with a peg.

One small step at a time and the frog won't know the water is boiling.

[SapphireStrange]

The British frog DOES (or did, anyway) know. That's why we've always stood against the idea of an EU army. We always have/had the option. Just like we always had the option to be or not be in the Euro, or Schengen.

[WhatWouldCoachBombayDo]

This is going to irritate the bollocks of Russia, it doesn't bode well long term.

But as were no longer in the EU, we haven't a soap box to stand on. Oh well....

[whatwouldrondo]

This is exactly the sort of fact that got misinterpreted and spun into some of the silly threats that were spun by the leave campaign, and are now being spun as validation. The whole point of the EU is that there are 27 different voices, some want an army, but all for different reasons. Border control? Defence? Peacekeeping? Underlying that is the fact that NATO is a bit outdated and given current joint activities there are certain coordinating functions the EU could undertake which make their activities more efficient and cost effective (including joint procurement) and would compliment it. Those common sense bits will be what gets agreed and the rest will be more hot air. Though that will not stop the leave campaign trying to complain it validates their threat of an EU army that could transcript your children......


So now let's here somebody alidade the claim Turkey is about to join the EU and their citizens to flood here......

[time4chocolate]

the whole point of the EU is that there are 27 different voices, some want an army, but all for different reasons

that is what a lot of people have an issue with, anyone who thinks that by us being in the EU this gives us the ability to veto anything/everything that could or would be detrimental to this country (and I'm not just talking about this issue) they are being misled. We are just one small country out of 27. Currently, well pre 24/6/16, we may have had a veto on certain aspects, however, that's not to say that would have remained the case in the future, who knows. Pretty much anything and everything can be up for renegotiation at any point.

this HQ could (or of course it could not) be the beginning of a bigger plan which is pretty much how the EU started originally ......from little acorns and all that but, only time will tell.

I didn't for one minute think there would be conscription for our children/grandchildren in the future - that in my mind is ridiculous.

Too true this is going to piss off the Russians - that sounds like a really good plan (not!!).

[prettybird]

Don't let a bit of common sense and desire for efficiency get in the way of a good conspiracy theory WhatWouldRonDo

And while we're about it, we never voted to be part of NATO. It was just a loose alliance when it started. Why are we paying out for its HQ? Why aren't we clamouring to dismantle it? Surely it would be more efficient for all the member countries to make ad hoc arrangements to coordinate their activities

[whatwouldrondo]

We were one big country out of 27 with highly preferential terms and a lot of influence and also by far the greatest influence in terms of our military capability.

[time4chocolate]

If we were so big and had so much influence then we would have got what David Cameron wanted and what he saw as best for this country when he met with Juncker et al just before the referendum. We were put in our place quite firmly and now find ourselves where we are.

[whatwouldrondo]

Time 4 chocolate. However if we are really so weak we could not have influenced the future of the EU to be as favourable to us as it had been in the past, it does not look good for our economy in the upcoming negotiations when we sacrifice all our single market privileges at the alter of controlling immigration (which by the way DC did get concessions on) .

I voted to remain because we had more power to negotiate within, and to withstand the forces of global competition (some of which are the stuff of my day job). What we have done will substantially reduce our power not just in terms of the future of the EU bout in negotiations with the rest of the world. Ask China.

[smallfox2002]

Hi! Thanks for including me in the header :)

I concur with the others on here, that the proposals are not an army.

Oh and our weakness in the EU? Why were there so many concessions for the UK then?

How does it feel to have your argument completely dismantled, and I don't even have to bother topsy, a worthy opponent you are not.

Do try harder.

[smallfox2002]

The article you linked to gives much more balance than your Daily Mail type conflation too.

Really, try to be a worthy opponent if your going to have a go, it doesn't make it true if you keep repeating it.

Tin foil hat firmly on eh?

[topsy777]

Typical of resorting to ad hom smallfox.

Clearly you do not understand political strategy of one small step at a time towards a super state.

The good thing is that we can watch this from across the channel.

I am afraid you are not worth my time nor the cost of obtaining a tin foil hat.

[time4chocolate]

I didn't say we were weak, I just said we were not as big and influential as we like to think we are.I don't disagree that to date we have had concessions and yes, of course we have been influential over the years. I voted not on the here and now but on the basis that this is highly unlikely to continue and we will likely be looking at a very different animal in ten years time.

[smallfox2002]

Oh dear... you already have one dear
If you'd ever managed a coherent or decent argument you'd be worth more than an ad hom. But as you haven't...

Tell me what you think you voted for again. It's fucking funny.

[Mistigri]

The UK was a very influential and privileged member of the EU.

This is a weird argument - if Britain cannot be influential on the EU scale, how the fuck is it going to negotiate all those favourable agreements on an international scale, where it will be woefully out-gunned (both physically and metaphorically) by countries like the US and China? In comparison, out of the EU-27, only Germany has more clout in economic and political terms, and only France can rival the UK's military influence.

[topsy777]

smallfox

Can't believe I am wasting more time with you. Nevermind.

Ad hom - doubling down
Useful argument (coherent or otherwise) - can't see any.

Of course I voted to get out of the 'ever closer union'.

[smallfox2002]

Which we had exemption from.

I see you did your research well.v

[time4chocolate]

Not sure which PP you are referring to small but suffice to say I have my opinion and I have read nothing on this whole board since June 24th that would make me change my mind - have a nice day y'all.

[smallfox2002]

You can have an opinion, but it's links to.facts are what give it validity.

Outside the post brexit world some of us actually like to look at them to.get true picture of what is going on.


This is not creating an EU army but centralising current EU operations.

You are the poster who doesn't know if we'd keep.our veto on defence depite there being no sign that could ever happenen.

[Peregrina]

What would make you change your opinion time4chocolate? It's a genuine question, not meant to be goady.

With a DD working for a University heavily engaged in Scientific research now making plans to relocate, and living in an area where the major industries are scientific research and a German car factory, it's a matter of some concern to me.

[time4chocolate]

Peregrina, honestly I really don't know and I have just been thinking about this very thing since my last response. I started to post something but it turned a bit waffly and I abandoned it - I have to go to work now but will try and come back later as there was something I would also like to ask people in a genuinely interested way.

[topsy777]

smallfox

It looks like your research isn't as comprehensive as you think it is.

Starting with facts:
(i) When 'EU Constitution' was rejected, it was repackaged into Lisbon Treaty. And when Lisbon treaty was voted down by the Irish, EU had that voted again until they got a yes.
(ii) When Mr Cameron veto the EU bailout fund in 2011, the rest went around UK and went ahead anyway.

Now, the projected stuff:
(i) Given the above, do you think when the EU wants the next power transfer, it is going to let the UK's 'referendum needed for power transfer act' get in its way? If there was a no vote, it will either repackage the power transfer or just do a repeat, vote until result=yes.

(ii) You said "centralising current EU (military) operations" - so it this going to be a relocation of existing budget and reuse of existing desk space or squeezing into the empty broom cupboard th EU HQ?

Of course not, this is going to be a new building, new budget, new personnel. And from the humble start, it will grow. If say Denmark don't agree, they will water it down a little, package it into some sort of joint-op centre and take over a floor at the HQ and then when people don't notice, expand it.

As for NATO, has NATO started a NATO Central Bank, a NATO open border schemes, a NATO economic redistribution unit or NATO single market? No - NATO was for defence 65 years ago and it is still for defence today.

EC though, is no longer EC.