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

God the leave campaigners are really getting desperate.

It's not desperate at all. The armed forces issue is not my primary reason for voting out. For me the primary reason is the lack of democratic process and transparency/ accountability. The armed forces issue is a symptom of that issue. It's also something I've not liked to talk about because I have close family members in the military.

As there are only 3 countries in favour and not one of them has conscription even if you accept that Merkel saying that an EU army is a long term aim (in her view which at the moment quite a number of countries have clearly stated that they aren;t in favour of) then why would you assume EU army = conscription.

Neither Merkel nor Junkers will be around by the time this is seriously mooted again (if ever).

I understand you're worried about it but its not even close to being imminent - even Merkel accepts its a long term project. Long term by EU standards is 20+ years.

For those who understand these things better then I, why is an EU army so much bigger a threat to the UK than NATO?

I have asked many times on these threads, why is the EU keeping the new military plans secret until the day after the referendum in order to avoid scaring people into voting out. What on earth is in these plans? I want to see them before I vote.

So secret that a draft was circulating in May, and there are endless pages of discussion on here.

Anna be honest - you're hardly a wavering leave voter whose vote could be changed by sight of the proposals. I don't believe that there is any EU document that would change your mind.

NATO has members who are not in the EU. How can you say NATO is a European defence union Look very closely at the NATO nations. Not many are not EU member states:
'Albania, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Turkey, and the United States, which are members of NATO but not of the EU, participate in all NATO-EU meetings. So do Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and since 2008, Malta, which are members of the EU and of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme.'

Norway has an EEA arrangement with the EU. Iceland has rejected the EU. Albania is an accession country to the EU, as is Turkey.

It's also enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty that founded NATO:
Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 1

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

<strong>on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe</strong> or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
<strong>on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea</strong> or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

Kewcumber It's a problem for me because we already have NATO, and duplicating structures (which is what already happens in terms of the EUMS) is a waste of time and money. NATO works, has been proven to work, has funding from the US, and we all sit under the nuclear umbrella of the UK, the US and France.

NATO works on the basis of unanimity; the EU doesn't, and whilst NATO is collaborative and concentrates on defence, the EU seems to be taking to itself the trappings of a state. The ECJ is effectively it's supreme court, or Star Chamber and this from Barosso:
The EU is not just any old international organisation, nor is it a superstate, but it might just be an "empire," according to European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.

Veering into uncharted naming territory after being asked on Tuesday (10 July) by a journalist what kind of a structure the 27-nation bloc is, Mr Barroso said "We are a very special construction unique in the history of mankind,"

"Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empire. We have the dimension of empire," he said.'

I know it was said in 2007, but he wasn't wrong. Empires arm themselves, and I haven't seen much in the last 9 years to change my view that the EU is getting too big for its boots.

There are lots of FB pages that state FACTS. Try:
British Sovereignty & Heritage Magazine
Anti EU - Pro British
Get Britain OUT of the EU!
England where my Heart lies.
Laurie B Hughes‎
to
Join This Group if you Think David Cameron Should Resign
Vote Leave
British Sovereignty & Heritage Magazine

scary so its the waste of money that bothers you - you don't think like OP that its because an EU army will conscript your children?

As my son wouldn't make it into the Brit military, no I'm not worried. Furthermore, dh works for the defence opposition to the EU iyswim, and he isn't concerned about it either; once the cost becomes apparent the squealing will start, just as it does when they are asked to stump up their 2% towards NATO.

What bothers me are the trappings of statehood that the EU is taking to itself. Why should a loose federation of trading states (which is what my Mum remembers being sold in 73) need the EEAS, the EUMS, the ECJ that can override the sovereign wish of a national parliament, want to impose direct taxes on its members, have the right to crucify a country as they have Greece, need a staff of several thousand fonctionnaires, need two parliament buildings in different countries, get rid of elected PMs in Italy and Greece, have inveigled itself into NATO meetings, G8 meetings, and want our seat on the UN Security Council?

That is why I have already voted leave.

What bothers me is that with an EU Army who is in charge and what say will we have?

Given how everything else has gone we won't be in control and we won't have a say but we will have a bill to pay that is larger than our current military bill.

Well this is a fifty or even hundred year question.

Without a shred of accountability how can we guarantee than an EU army isn't controlled by a far right nutcase?

Can we even guarantee that in ten years time, never mind fifty?

That is possibly the most farcically hysterical and wrong headed thread title I have ever read.

Conscription? You really believe that?

Lord Bramall has come out for Remain. It's his view that the European Army would never happen, and the benefits of membership outweigh the negatives.

Lord Guthrie (who was CDS after Brammall iirc) has come out for leave.

When I clicked on this thread I honestly thought it was another ironic thread title from BertrandRussell.

BitOutOfPractice
Yep I think at the very least we are heading towards a national service/euro service.
The hawks in Brussels are in the ascendancy, they are determined to take out Russia. Russia is no push over, it will be a long war and start in cyber space. The russians will cut the internet lines in the sea but Blairs old favourite "boots in the ground" will happen. I just don't want my kids or grandkids filling those boots.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34639148

They won't. The countries in the EU are no keener on conscription than we are. And the EU has played a massive part in maintaining peace in Europe. I simply don't share your horribly dystopian vision of our future

Yep, there doesn't seem to be a consensus among retired military leaders.

Nato has kept our peace but they are pulling away from it.As for war, arms dealers have a very big influence on governments and yes war makes some powerful people very wealthy. National service has been common in many countries, it's not a big jump to expect conscription in times of war. Just because my view may be dystopian, sadly doesn't mean it isn't realistic. It would be foolhardy not to look ahead and see where we could be headed. The fact the EU commission is unelected is the most disturbing part of all this. It simply means can't unelect/sack them, that is blatantly undemocratic. As for Juncker it's head - even Merkel feels he is out of control.

Jassy none of us know the future. Just because one side or the other sells an idea better than another, it doesn't mean to say we are getting the best advice. Too much is being withheld from the public. There are a raft of announcements that have been held back by the EU till after the referendum. That is misleading and duplicitous at best. I just wish we had more transparency and honesty with this whole process - on all sides.

It's not really true that the President of the European Commission is not elected.

There are no direct elections, but it is voted by the European Parliament, and based on a recommendation by the main European political group in Parliament. So, it is indirectly voted in, although some political groups have started disclosing who their candidate was, but not all.
It's not particularly more or less democratic than a constituency system, as in the UK, or an electoral college, as in the USA, which mean that a PM/president with a minority of votes could be elected.

There is also a recent second figure, the President of the European Council, which can balance power.

The Commissioners are proposed by the government of each member state, so they reflect the current elected majority in those states.
And the entire Commission can be dissolved by the European Parliament.

The countries in the EU are no keener on conscription than we are Thought some of them do still have it, which surprised me. Will check with dh which ones when he is home tonight.

How to we unelect him Lweji?
You were asking elsewhere who was paid to work on this Euro Army thing...
There is a guy Felix or something who worked on it for a year and a half, I will try and find the link..but have a look at these
next.ft.com/content/e90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd217

www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/back-off-nato-there-s-a-new-army-in-town/517495.html