Our children will be conscripted into a Euro army run by unelected bureaucrats controlled by lobbyists.

[bkgirl]

So here's the thing.
I can't stand Farage and his racist cronies. I do like Europe, I like the idea of a european union and us all working together . However unelected bureaucrats have more power than our MEP's so democratic - it certainly isn't. The EU definitely wants a Euro Army and controlled essentially bu these officials who we can't unelect is CRAZY. Our kids, boys and girls are likely to be conscripted to fight in wars for the benefit of the people who pay the lobbyists. It's like the biggest con in history. Our ancestors who fought for democracy would be furious.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36565036?SThisFB

Cameron also said the NHS was safe in his hands and its running a terrible deficit all over the country. :( Honestly, I just don't trust him. I worry that the might of Juncker and his buddies overpowers individual nations. Like Ireland voted in a referendum out so they got them to vote again, levelled threats galore then got an IN. They actually do scare me!

I thought you could come on here and have a reasoned debate. Instead of silly comments about 666. I think generals just like anyone else are allowed to review their decisions based on information.

No, time to think, challenge and debate.

In that case do you mind responding to any of the questions I asked?

Of course Jassy (sorry, just feeding my kids) :)
Re: If the UK government of the day doesn't want it, it can't happen & your power of veto argument

Yep, I used to believe that then I saw what happened in Greece. To be frank, the intimidation of the Greek government was appalling. They threatened them to conform. Now the greeks are facing an impossible situation. It just seems to be all based on saving the german banks at any cost.

Forgive my childish comment it made me .

As for your statements about Westminster politics, no I don't think they are ideal either!

You said
And what assurances do we have that future treaties will retain the voting arrangement for foreign policy?

We can reject a future treaty at referendum.

Look what happened in Ireland, they had a referendum and gave the wrong answer for Europe so there were made to have another one till they got the right answer for Europe!

Forgive my childish comment it made me grin.

You are forgiven! :)

Aren't we in NATO anyway?

I've hardly ever been conscripted for NATO.

The EU army thing gets bandied about every now and again, everyone bar one or two say 'well, that's a fucking stupid idea' and it gets tabled. Even if it wasn't, we have veto power.

Theoretically, the British government post-brexit could decide to have a conscription based standing army (national service anyone?). Speculating about future policies that are in no way likely to arise is foolish scaremongering.

OP, please can you elaborate on this statement regarding the Greek bailout:

It just seems to be all based on saving the german banks at any cost.

I am a cynical old woman now and a guest in your country ,so have no dog in the race.
I would urge you to find out speedily if this EU Great army could become a reality.You do not want to live this conscription and fighting in futile wars scenario...... ever. I did.
Nothing is written in stone.Who can you trust?

But we are not and will never be Greece, as we aren't in the Eurozone.

As for the Irish example - you are omitting the fact that, by rejecting Lisbon the first time around Irish voters won Ireland-specific concessions before the second referendum - on abortion, control of taxation and its neutrality.

Ireland had a second referendum (as required by their constitution) only after those concessions had been won. They weren't 'made' to do anything. If they wanted to stay in the EU they had two choices - put the treaty with concessions to the people again, showing that the EU had listened to their concerns but testing whether it had gone far enough for people to vote yes - or go into quite uncharted waters. They chose the former, and put it to the people again.

In the same way, two member states rejecting the constitution at referendum killed it dead. Curious how that is never raised in discussions of the power of member states to reject commission ideas.

Globetrotter, sure...
"Some 95 percent of the 220 billion euros disbursed to Greece since the start of the financial crisis as loans from the bailout mechanism has been directed toward saving the European banks. That means about 210 billion euros was eventually channeled to the eurozone credit sector while just 5 percent ended up in state coffers, according to a study by the European School of Management and Technology (ESMT) in Berlin."
www.ekathimerini.com/208381/article/ekathimerini/business/german-report-bailout-has-saved-banks-not-greece

Speculating about future policies that are in no way likely to arise is foolish scaremongering.

And making nation-changing decisions on the back of that scaremongering is quite irresponsible.

We are making the decision about whether to remain in the EU we currently have. We should not be drawn into alarmist scaremongering of what might happen in a range of unlikely scenarios with mechanisms for us to extract ourselves if they became more likely.

Anything else has the whiff of desperation and dishonesty.

Why did you switch 'European' for 'German'?

And do you see similarities with our own bailouts?

Well spotted Jassy

Speculating about future policies is relevant since we have a democratic deficit.

"Now, it is widely believed that Greece’s bailout by the troika, to the tune of 226 billion euros, was mainly aimed at keeping the bankrupt Greek state afloat, maintaining its basic operations and paying the salaries of its overpaid, skiving public workers. Given that the lion’s share of the loans came from the rich countries of the core (first and foremost Germany)"
www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/thomas-fazi/troika-saved-banks-and-creditors-%E2%80%93-not-greece

The EU army has been a work in progress with Junker pushing for it in the past two years. Since there has been a push for an EU army the UK has made deliberate attempts to reduce military spending plus the size of the British armed forces.

Nothing has been published linking the two but it's not hard to put this together. I've said it on another thread and I was laughed off. Apparently we have NATO and the UN so no need for an EU armed forces. When the EU say they need an armed forces you know the plans are in place to do it and as a signed up member our veto won't count for anything.

Anyone who thinks that we will have our own armed forces in a decade from now if we vote remain are very much mistaken IMO.

I concur Want2bSupermum , there is a clear move towards this euro army and no doubt if we Remain, plans will go ahead .
"The plans include new European military and operational structures and the EU's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, has apparently spent a year and a half preparing the defence document for a 28 June summit."
As for a veto, I don't trust them not to intimidate lil old blighty! Cameron goes over with demands, gets his @rse kicked and comes back with crumbs. It just doesn't inspire me as to his power to veto anything.
www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referendum-plans-eu-army-kept-secret-until-after-brexit-vote-1562327
Also well seen the neutral, war disliking Switzerland has pulled out its application to join.

My view is that the time to leave based on Euro membership or a European army would be when a treaty change creates a referendum on same in this country.

Voting out now on the basis of scenarios that are unlikely and ignore what our government and political parties have actually said on the Euro, the European army, Turkish accession and the other suite of maybe-one-day-if-we-squint ideas being wheeled out, without proper context, by Leave in an attempt to scare people is ignoring (and sometimes deliberately obscuring) the fact that we'll get a chance to vote on those things should they become a little less pie-in-the-sky.

The good thing about the IBT article is that it points out that the last time the EU proposed a European army, it was vetoed. By the UK.

Don't want a European army? Want a strong and unimpeded NATO? Stay in the EU, we'll prevent it.

We are more likely to be lead into war, without getting public support, on the request of the USA, than as part of a European army. We didn't get to vote on that!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36565036

There's a feeling that those backing the European army are doing it for political reasons rather than military ones. They want to be able to boast, 'Look! We've got a European army'. That is dangerous."

Lord Guthrie said foreign policy "needs to be backed up by defence", and added: "It would be a signal disaster to have a European army as rivals to Nato."

"I am concerned that the Army which I was in for 45 years could become very damaged and therefore less useful to our country."

^ I would listen to him, he more credibility in my eyes because he has changed his mind.

Veterans for Britain, a campaign group set up by serving and former military personnel including General Sir Michael Rose, a former director of special forces and a commander in Bosnia, has argued that the UK's national interest would be best served outside the EU

We are making the decision about whether to remain in the EU we currently have. No we are not. We are making a decision to remain part of an institution that has all sorts of things coming down the track that are being put off until after the referendum. There is no such thing as the status quo here and to pretend that there is, is disingenuous, considering that more countries will accede in the next five years. That's not 'the EU we currently have' is it?

Standing up and saying no now also puts in a very strong position to renegotiate our relationship with the EU. That's what happened with Ireland and I don't see Germany being willing to carry the cost of Europe without the UK picking up some of that burden.