Financial Times-EU army to be announced in July just after EU referendum

[BritBrit]

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html#axzz47WWzzGNt

Germany call for an EU army with a draft plan to be published in July calling for a joint headquarters & for military assets to be shared. It calls for European armed forces to be merged into a common army

Do you support an EU army? UK sharing our military equipment? UK armed forces being controlled by the EU?

[A4Document]

No, I don't support an EU army. I value the UK's armed forces and would not like them to be absorbed into an EU initiative, where 27 other countries also have a say in how they are deployed.

[fourmummy]

I've found the lying surrounding this concept to be particularly offensive:

"I actually so happen to think that Jean-Claude Junker and Nigel Farage are both dangerous fantasists when it comes to this issue. It's not going to happen, it doesn't matter whether Nigel Farage says it's going to happen or Jean Claude Juncker..." Nick Clegg, 2015).

[STIDW]

I've found the lying surrounding this concept to be particularly offensive:

A draft proposal is to be published for debate. For a common defense proposal to be adopted all of the EU states must consent. That isn't going to happen if the UK stays in the EU.

[fourmummy]

Clegg wasn't commenting on any draft proposal though, was he? He was categorically stating that an EU army was never going to happen. As have others.

[STIDW]

Clegg meant an EU army wouldn't happen because all 28 EU states would need to agree.

[SpringingIntoAction]

Clegg meant an EU army wouldn't happen because all 28 EU states would need to agree

But thats not true.

It depends on how the EU decides to seek endorsement of their proposal for an EU Army.

We could be out-voted - again.

We could be told we have dodgy Dave's special status.

We may find the ECJ feels differently.

We need to LEAVE the EU, stop paying into something that is not in our interests and help put an end to this nonsense. The sensible countries will follow our example and bring this pitifully undemocratic dictatorship to an end.

[fourmummy]

Personally, I don't even care anymore about the intricacies of technical reports and the minutiae of the legalities. I am so, so tired of politicians/'EU reps' saying, "No, no, no, this won't happen" and then it happens. I knew at the time, while Clegg was busy denying even the possibility of such a thing that we were being prepared for it, that it was being dropped into public consciousness in the form of news items and that 'officials' were busy working away at the details behind the scenes. Psychologically, Clegg also knows that he can say what the heck he likes and he'll never be held accountable for it by anybody. Diffusion of responsibility for decisions. A true gravy train.

[Winterbiscuit]

The sensible countries will follow our example and bring this pitifully undemocratic dictatorship to an end.

I am so, so tired of politicians/'EU reps' saying, "No, no, no, this won't happen" and then it happens.

Hear hear!

[SpringingIntoAction]

Personally, I don't even care anymore about the intricacies of technical reports and the minutiae of the legalities

Hear, hear. It's about sovereignty and self-determination and making your own laws for your own people, free from EU interference.

The rest of it is just noise.

[Winterbiscuit]

"It's about sovereignty and self-determination and making your own laws for your own people, free from EU interference."

[STIDW]

To create an EU army Article 42(2) of the Treaty on European Union relating to common defence would need to be invoked. It reads;

The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008M042&from=EN

Given the UK veto, the only way an EU armed force might emerge would be to vote to leave.

The leaked document from Germany, seen by the FT apparently floats invoking the treaty measures on EU defence between those EU countries who are willing. But German support is not enough whilst other EU states are hesitant to give Brussels such control. The prospect of the UK getting dragged into an EU army is zilch.

[SpringingIntoAction]

The problem is STDIW that

we just don't believe the EU any more

It writes rules, then it bends rules, then it breaks its own rules to suit itself.

The obvious questions is - WTF is a trading organisation doing even considering having its own Army?

Countries - not trading organisations have armies.

The EU Superstate wants a EU Superstate army.

The only sure way of controlling what happens to your country is to leave the EU and take back the power to make your own laws, in you own country's interests, by your democratically elected Government.

[lavenderdoilly]

You all know that we share navy with France already. And when on NATO duty we wear NATO colours. And we have an opt out for greater integration. But don't let that get in your way.

[STIDW]

we just don't believe the EU any more

Hardly surprising some people don't believe the EU any more, considering Eurosceptics & sectors of the press have been scaremongering ever since we joined the EEC. From taking quotes going back 50+ years out of context, misquotes & invented quotes , to accusations that joining was illegal, federal conspiracies, bent bananas being banned, accounts not being signed off etc etc.


WTF is a trading organisation doing even considering having its own Army?

As the leaflets sent from the Yes & No Campaigns & the government to every household in 1975 made clear the EU was never just a trading organisation.

Eg "Our trade, our jobs, our food, our defence cannot be wholly within our own control" -Yes

"Any attempt to substitute the Common Market for NATO as a defense shield would be highly dangerous for Briatin" - No

All 3 leaflets are available here;

civitas.org.uk/eu-facts/the-1975-referendum/



The EU Superstate wants a EU Superstate army.

Thats just hyperbole. EU isn't a state let alone a superstate, it's an international institution.

[Winterbiscuit]

The prospect of the UK getting dragged into an EU army is zilch.

It may seem that way at the moment, but the EU will certainly attempt to make tempting offers, in exchange for the UK agreeing to join an EU army. It is said that Merkel asked Cameron to drop his opposition to the EU army, as part of the renegotiation terms.

The UK does not have much influence in the EU and after a "remain" vote will have even less as the EU will say we've chosen to be there and have already been given enough concessions (i.e. hardly any).

Eventually greedy politicians may say to the British people as "we need to join the EU army because look how much money / how much influence etc. we'll get in return".

NATO is inconvenient for the EU.

Former defence secretary Liam Fox has said

"As one of the few countries meeting its 2% NATO commitment, British taxpayers are paying a disproportionate share of continental European defence. Far from magnifying capabilities in the potential application of hard power, our partners are increasingly taking a free ride on our substantially greater capabilities.

It is worth noting that the British and French budgets now constitute more than 50% of all defence spending of European continent."

And it seems there is a document from Berlin regarding the EU army which won't be released until after the referendum:

Germany pushes for European army

"Germany is pushing for a European army in the 28-member EU bloc, according to a white paper put forward by the German government. The army is envisaged to have a joint headquarters and shared military plans."

"The news may upset the Brexit debate in the UK ahead of the EU referendum vote scheduled for 23 June. The Leave campaign, which has been warning of the further integration with the EU, will now have more ammunition to back its claims."

EU MILITARY STAFF - "Who we are, what we do"

Let's say No to a European army (John Redwood)

"The UK wishes to avoid the creation of an EU army and navy directly under the control of the EU where member states have no say in whether to participate or not. The NATO alliance is founded on the principle that each member state decides whether to back a NATO military intervention or not, and if so with how many personnel and with how much weaponry and supplies. The EU has a habit of moving from voluntary co-operation to legal requirements in other areas. The UK is keen to avoid a situation where British troops could be put in danger against the wishes of the UK people and Parliament."

[Winterbiscuit]

EU isn't a state let alone a superstate

Where would you say "ever closer union" is taking the EU?

[STIDW]

NATO is inconvenient for the EU.

With the prospect of someone like Trump becoming president & Commander-in-Chief NATOs days are probably numbered.

[STIDW]

Where would you say "ever closer union" is taking the EU?

The Treaty of Rome enshrined the principal of the "ever closer union of people," not states. What has evolved is an EU with different tiers of membership to reflect the economics & politics of individual countries. That means those states who do not wish further integration cannot have it forced upon them. However we cannot prevent those states that want more integration from having it.

[hazelisours]

That means those states who do not wish further integration cannot have it forced upon them

Except that they can.....and they have....

[SpringingIntoAction]

That means those states who do not wish further integration cannot have it forced upon them

Every day that we remain in the EU having to implement laws passed by the EU and subject to the increasingly dominant EU ECJ is a day that we are moving towards ever closer union.

You all know that we share navy with France already. And when on NATO duty we wear NATO colours. And we have an opt out for greater integration. But don't let that get in your way.

We don't.

We exercise and share C4 with our NATO partners. That is very different from 'sharing a navy with France'.

We don't wear 'NATO" colours' at all We wear DPMs with the Union Jack on them for British armed forces personnel etc..

[scaryteacher]

You all know that we share navy with France already. And when on NATO duty we wear NATO colours. And we have an opt out for greater integration. But don't let that get in your way.

We have defence treaties with the French, and do some joint ops. Strange, dh went to work at NATO wearing his RN uniform, as he did when he was seconded to the EUMS, but what would I know?

The idea of an EU army has been floating around the bazaars in Brussels for a decade at least, and nothing has happened. NATO does the heavy lifting on defence, and neither the EU, nor the member states can afford for the EU to stand up Armed Forces for the EU from scratch.

When people talk about an EU Army - do they mean pooling and sharing as already happens with the BeNeLux arrangements, or do they mean Armed Forces answerable only to Juncker/Mogherini? Merkel may well be suggesting it...this is Germany whose contribution to a recent 4 week NATO exercise wa s curtailed after 12 days because they had reached their overtime limit! www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/german-army-forced-to-lay-down-weapons-due-to-overtime-limits This is not unusual for many EU member states/NATO nations Forces, and is no way to run defence. I wish the UK Armed Forces got overtime....we'd have paid the mortgage off years ago!

More to the point is what are they diverting attention from by floating this canard yet again? Also, why rock the NATO boat, (and all the money sunk into the swish new HQ by the NATO nations), when the US picks up the tab for most of it?

[Winterbiscuit]

The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover (Telegraph 27 April)

Some quotes from the above:

"Brexiteers should have been prepared for the shattering intervention of the US. The European Union always was an American project."

"It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations."

"Nor are many aware of declassified documents from the State Department archives showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project."

"one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency."

"A memo dated June 11, 1965, instructs the vice-president of the European Community to pursue monetary union by stealth, suppressing debate until the “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”.

campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/category/referendum/

"as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard points out in today’s Telegraph, it has been US Government policy for decades to build up the EU in the context of the Cold War and America’s European policy generally. It was President John F. Kennedy who pushed Prime Minister Harold Macmillan into applying to join the then EEC in 1961. This remains US policy, as reiterated by President Obama, and the policy of the major Western Governments today. In that connection one can expect that if the referendum vote looks like being close as 23 June approaches, the intelligence services of the major Western Powers are likely to do all they can to influence the referendum outcome in favour of “Remain”.

[SpringingIntoAction]

We have defence treaties with the French, and do some joint ops.
We've had treaties with the various foreign powers in Europe for centuries. Many of the countries in Europe are in NATO. NATO conducts joint exercises with all its member armed forces.

Strange, dh went to work at NATO wearing his RN uniform, as he did when he was seconded to the EUMS, but what would I know?

Other places may be different but the Navy, Army and Air Force are all supposed to wear the same Tri-service DPMs in some UK establishments. I saw a Colonel told off for coming into work nor wearing DPMs.

The idea of an EU army has been floating around the bazaars in Brussels for a decade at least, and nothing has happened.

Because until the signing of the Lisbon Treaty a few years ago the EU was only an umbrella organisation whose powers were vested in its member countries. The Lisbon treaty gave the EU legal entity - in effect it could then be a country in its own right and now it wants its own Army.

NATO does the heavy lifting on defence, and neither the EU, nor the member states can afford for the EU to stand up Armed Forces for the EU from scratch.

No.It would be unaffordable to start from scratch. It's not just a matter of procuring the capabilities - they also have to be integrated with all the other member state armed forces.

When people talk about an EU Army - do they mean pooling and sharing as already happens with the BeNeLux arrangements, or do they mean Armed Forces answerable only to Juncker/Mogherini?

There are entire documents on 'progressing towards a common defence'. It would have to be under someone's control. The idea of a nuclear-armed EU Army being under undemocratic EU control terrifies me. Why on earth does a trading organisation need an army?

Merkel may well be suggesting it...this is Germany whose contribution to a recent 4 week NATO exercise wa s curtailed after 12 days because they had reached their overtime limit! //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/german-army-forced-to-lay-down-weapons-due-to-overtime-limits This is not unusual for many EU member states/NATO nations Forces, and is no way to run defence. I wish the UK Armed Forces got overtime....we'd have paid the mortgage off years ago!

The British Armed Forces get the X Factor which is supposed to be in lieu of overtime - but I know what you mean.

More to the point is what are they diverting attention from by floating this canard yet again? Also, why rock the NATO boat, (and all the money sunk into the swish new HQ by the NATO nations), when the US picks up the tab for most of it?

Power.

The EU is an empire. All empires seek to get bigger. No empire ever says - I think I'm big enough now, I'll stop growing.
No, the EU empire needs to grow to find more markets for its goods. It is currently giving millions of Euros to countries like Ukraine to try to groom them into wanting to join the EU. the only problem is that Russia would see the Ukraine joining the EU as a threat. That's why the EU needs an army. And that's what makes it scary - it will use that EU army to defend and enlarge its empire.

The US via its NATO membership also getting fed up having to sort out the squabbles in Europe that the EU cannot resolve -like Serbia, Bosnia etc.

[BornFreeButinEUchains]

It doesn't surprise me that Germany is pushing for a blended army. There are connotations surrounding the German army after all.

Germany also knows, we do not know what the future holds. Maybe things will peter out on the migration front, but then again, it could get much worse and an EU army could be deployed to guard the external borders.

Germany is trying to implement polices which are simply rejected by other member states. For instance the distribution of migrants among all EU countries. Should things come to an unpleasant pass, it would be much easier to call on a blended EU army than individual states who wont play ball.


I couldn't access the actual article.

[BornFreeButinEUchains]

The idea of an EU army has been floating around the bazaars in Brussels for a decade at least, and nothing has happened

No galvanizing events to cause it to be progressed, there are now.