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

The bigger danger of an eu army would be ever getting everyone to agree. We could be invaded ten times over before the bureaucrats acted. Internationally though that might be better - no invading iraq type scenarios.

(The german loan/greek debt scenario is pretty well known i thought?)

For anyone desperately trying to separate fact from fiction, I would recommend the Full Fact website. Here is a description of Full Fact taken from its website:

"Full Fact is the UK’s independent, non-partisan, factchecking charity. We check claims made by politicians, the media, pressure groups, and other voices in public debate, and push for corrections where necessary. We also work with government departments and academic research institutions to improve the quality and communication of technical information at source, and campaign for greater transparency in the public arena.

"We don’t support any view or political party. Our mission is to improve the quality of public debate, and to equip the public with the best information possible to make up their own minds. We provide links to all our sources so that you don’t have to take our word for anything – you can also check for yourself.

"Our commitment to transparency extends to our funding – find out more here."

This is what to say on the issue of whether there will be an EU army fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/

Its summary conclusion on the issue is, "EU member countries work together on military matters, but the EU doesn't have its own military capabilities. At least a few European politicians do support the creation of an EU army, but that would need unanimous approval. "

So in other words, the creation of an EU army would require the agreement of the UK government as well as the governments of all other EU member states. If you're interested in reading more detail on the issue, it's there on the Full Facts website.

Scary, you're right. I should have said 'the EU it is currently possible to have without further treaty change (requiring UK referendum) or policies change that could not be enacted without UK veto'.

That's a sensible basis on which to make a decision, and avoids scaremongering on things that we would have a say on down the track.

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.

There's no guarantee there will be another referendum at any time. It has been 41 years since the last referendum, and a great deal has changed since then, including several new treaties. E.g.

Schengen Agreement (1985)
Single European Act (1986)
Maastricht Treaty (1992)
Amsterdam Treaty (1997)
Treaty of Lisbon (2007)

My vote has already been cast Jassy...my Mum sent my postal proxy off last week, with a cross for leave.

As for how much of a say we would have once QMV comes in next year, your guess is as good as mine. I don't like the sound of the group Monti is chairing to see how the EU can raise tax on electricity, petrol and air passenger duty; nor the move to revisit the VAT exemptions. There is a reason that electricity is very expensive in Belgium- a 16.5% difference in the rates of VAT to us for example.

I think this thread title wins the "brexit hysteria bingo" prize .

I can only assume it was intended as irony?

As for how much of a say we would have once QMV comes in next year, your guess is as good as mine.

Well, no, we both have exactly the same idea because it's written down in law. For foreign policy, any MS can veto. To change that requires treaty change.

QMV has been in existence for some areas since the start. It was increased by Lisbon, and those changes are already made. The only thing I'm aware of being 'brought in' next year is that individual member states will lose the ability to request that a vote takes place under Nice rather than Lisbon voting rules.
I don't like the sound of the group Monti is chairing to see how the EU can raise tax on electricity, petrol and air passenger duty; nor the move to revisit the VAT exemptions. There is a reason that electricity is very expensive in Belgium- a 16.5% difference in the rates of VAT to us for example.

Fortunately taxation is another of those areas that still require unanimity. Would a reminder help of what some of them are?

• membership of the EU
• taxation
• social security harmonisation
• foreign policy
• defence policy
• security policy
• some justice/home affairs policy where relevant
• rights for EU citizens
• quite a lot of other stuff.

How you vote or have voted is up to you, I'm just tired of reading lies on the internet.

Former defence chief Lord Guthrie has switched sides to the Leave campaign in the EU referendum, saying he is worried by the prospect of "a European army". Yes, he has obviously had access to more information - no doubt he has spoken to other military. A good commander has the ability to assess information and make the necessary change. His opinion I would take seriously.
General Sir Michael Rose, the former commander of the SAS, has also suggested that Britain is less safe inside the European Union.

Jassy I am intrigued to see how you stand on TTIP.

I don't really understand his reasoning, I'll be honest. An EU army would undermine NATO - so we should remove ourselves from having the ability to veto it?

Jassy I am intrigued to see how you stand on TTIP.

Are you now. Why?

My understanding is that there are many many pages of the current draft, so I suspect my stance on it would be quite wobbly.

This point of member states being able to veto things can't be relied upon to do what we'd hope.

If a pro-EU government in this country chose not to exercise the veto, then we'd still end up the same as if we hadn't had a veto at all.

The only way out of this and be sure we won't be involved is to leave the EU.

The one thing that has most convinced me to vote leave is the threats coming from the Remain campaign, and from within the EU.

If a pro-EU government in this country chose not to exercise the veto, then we'd still end up the same as if we hadn't had a veto at all.

Reflecting the the will of the people who elected them? The fuckers.

Col Bob Stewart has written the following, it's worth a read...
"Personally, I am very wary of the rise of an EU Army for many reasons. Let me rehearse some of them. First, I want the UK to retain absolute control over all its armed forces, and I utterly reject the notion that we should cede such powers to Brussels. Second, NATO works, and has proved itself as a European defence treaty. That is self-evident. Thirdly, I cannot see any need for duplication. It is pandering to European aggrandisement and wishful thinking. Fourth, NATO is perfectly adaptable and can deploy in a European configuration if necessary, as it has done on several occasions. Fifthly, and quite candidly, I very much want to keep the United States, which has saved Britain twice in the 20th Century, involved militarily in Europe through NATO. Sixth, many of our European Union partners are very ‘wobbly’ on paying for Defence. They don’t contribute their proper dues to NATO already and I certainly don’t think they would do so properly for any EU Army. Finally, I believe any EU Army would be a ‘Trojan Horse’ in the drive to reach a European Union superstate, which I certainly do not want.

I am thus increasingly worried to see Brussels-centric politicians and bureaucrats, using cover provided by Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty, continually pushing for substantial military integration within the institutional framework of the European Union. Implicitly, this can only be at the expense of NATO.

The moves to do this are quite blatant. For instance, during March this year Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, told the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag that he would like to see the introduction of an EU army. He argued that it was needed to combat growing Russian aggression, claiming ‘a common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union.’ What did he think that NATO, of which he made scant mention, has been doing for the last 66 years?"
www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/12/bob-stewart-nato-should-beware-of-the-european-army.html

I have a question for those worried about the impact of an EU army on NATO.

Do you think an EU army is more likely to happen if the UK is a member of the EU, or if we are not?

I guess it comes down to blind faith - can the UK stand up to the powers of the EU. I have real doubts.

"David Cameron's last-ditch talks in Brussels have been overshadowed by a row over the legality of the prime minister's renegotiation settlement with the EU. The PM is yet to seal the reform deal with EU grandees, but Number 10 has apparently already admitted that the settlement will not be legally binding on the European Parliament.

Downing Street reportedly told the press lobby that MEPs could make significant changes to the EU renegotiation package. Vote Leave, one of the groups vying for the Electoral Commission's official Brexit campaign designation, has also published an apparently damning analysis on the issue.

The Eurosceptic organisation claimed the settlement would have the legal weight of an unsigned contract. "The only way to obtain 'legally binding and irreversible' change to the UK's relationship with the EU is to Vote Leave," said Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Vote Leave.

"Cameron is asking voters to sign up to hand more money and powers to Brussels on the back of supposed reforms that will have the legal weight of an unsigned contract."
www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referendum-doubts-over-legality-renegotiation-deal-cameron-visits-brussels-1544125

Reflecting the the will of the people who elected them? The fuckers.

You think our elected politicans always keep their promises to do/not do things?

You think our elected politicans always keep their promises to do/not do things?

No, but I would rather have the power of veto - held by politicians who know that the electorate will hold them accountable if they go against an election pledge people feel strongly about - than to watch from the sidelines and be affected anyway.

Jassy the problem is Juncker and Merkel are unquestionably pushing towards an EU army and will no doubt get it. The UK if In would be effectively blackmailed not to use it's veto.
That is why we have to vote leave to to retain absolute control over our armed forces, and as Bob Stewart said "I utterly reject the notion that we should cede such powers to Brussels."

Army veterans have also agreed. A letter from 270 retired Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air troops expressed major concerns over meddling Brussels interfering in the UK’s defence policies.
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/677457/Armed-forces-veterans-troops-vote-out-leave-European-Union-EU-brexit-swing-result

No conscription in this EU country on the continent, it was phased out in the early 70's and there's no way it would come back into force. Because simply, none of the men would turn up!

So much scare mongering going on in this debate....

And if we leave the EU our kids could be conscripted by the UK army to join the US in an invasion of China. Or maybe we'll be invaded by aliens and our kids will be conscripted either way.

Let's stick to what is likely to happen if we leave or stay, not speculate randomly.

Jassy the problem is Juncker and Merkel are unquestionably pushing towards an EU army and will no doubt get it.

I don't accept the second part of that statement at all. And what 'blackmail' do you think would be effective?

I can see that if your priority is not being involved in one no matter what any government in the future might decide to do, then out makes more sense. If preventing one at all - and safeguarding NATO - is the priority, the in is more rational. It's a matter of priority and balancing risk,

On TTIP - I think it is vanishingly unlikely to happen in its current form, if at all. But again, even if it did get beyond the talks phase, better to have influence than be subject to its terms without having a say (if we had an EEA style deal) or have our government sometime down the track trying to do a deal with the US with even less negotiating power behind us. But that's all theoretical - I think it's unlikely for a very long time.

Sorry - unfinished sentence.

'It's a matter of priority and balancing risk, just like just about everything in the referendum debate.'

Is anyone else detecting a slight contrariness to some of the pro-Leavers' arguments? On the one hand, they tell us that the EU needs the UK far more than we need them, so on a Brexit we are sure to be able to negotiate a brilliant trade deal in no time at all. On the other hand, the UK is so weak that will be "effectively blackmailed not to use its veto" on the issue of an EU army. So the UK is simultaneously in both a very strong and incredibly weak position in the EU