Report by German and French foreign ministers calling for an EU superstate, complete with an EU army, integrated border controls and common taxation.

[bkgirl]

www.corbettreport.com/eu-unmasked-after-brexit-plans-for-full-eu-superstate-revealed/

Didn't take long. :( I am fed up with politicians. This was well known before the EU ref. To not inform is to mislead.

This is terrifying bkgirl
I'm scared even with the U.K. out of the EU of the consequences of such a superstate to the world.

This was mostly known before the referendum and it's not a surprise - it's the logical conclusion of the federal project. Whether they will achieve it with an increasingly eurosceptic all populace in many countries remains to be seen.

.

They're proposals that's all.

We've had NATO military forces for over 60 years, and the Allied forces were in WW2 were basically a very large European, US and Commonwealth army.

Not terrified about the US and Russia, both busy bombing and droning the Middle East, creating chaos that spills over to us ?
Not bothered that our army in recent decades has just been cannon fodder for US presidents ?

BigChocFrenzy It doesn't cancel out. They are both wrong.

Why are people not 'terrified' of NATO military forces then?

Because NATO is an alliance, not a state. It is only able to operate unilaterally within very, very specific defensive conditions and at all other times is subject to the divided authority of it's independent members. A state can act without the support of another state, whereas NATO can only act if all the states within it agree. It's what's guaranteed the peace in Europe for the last 50 years.

The EU, as a large, powerful state with it's own military, would be capable of unilateral actions that NATO is not.

Of course, those states remaining in the EU have pathetic militaries and a culture that undermines effective military action, so it's not a massive concern. But this is further evidence of the direction the EU was always intending to go.

Your link calls the Paris attacks a false flag operation - why should I bother reading any further?

The EU is not a state. It's a union of member states.

It can only act on either a majority vote of its member states or by consensus. (In practice 90% of EU decisions are taken by negotiation and consensus.)

If there were ever to be an allied EU army, which is highly unlikely, it would be subject to exactly the same kind of conditions as the Nato forces.

In any case, the British government determines UK defence policy, that is not going to change whether in the EU or out.

Dreadful piece of journalism.

Of course, those states remaining in the EU have pathetic militaries and a culture that undermines effective military action, so it's not a massive concern. That would be France then, who has a pathetic military?

Whilst I agree that the majority of European militaries aren't brilliant, let's not forget that the majority of EU member states are either full members of NATO, or partner countries, so their 'pathetic militaries' are considered good enough for that (and I think NATO does for the most part know their stuff).

Awwww, that's nice. That sweet Corbett Report website also tells us that

• Vaccines are purposely designed to cause cancer
• Lots of extra details all about the well-known conspiracy to kill JFK
• Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

Golly gosh gee, of course I believe every word they write about the EU. It must be true because it's there in black and white.

Your link calls the Paris attacks a false flag operation - why should I bother reading any further?

FFS - conspiracy theories everywhere, and we're meant to accept it as hard evidence? Very poor, OP.

The EU army thing has been debunked so many times, I can barely be arsed.

The only thing that is terrifying about that piece of 'journalism' is that people believe it.

The thing about Poland leaking this report has also been in the Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph

I know that doesn't make it true but it is more widely reported than just a conspiracy theory website

I dont like conspiracy websites either. I only read the link to the report, as the website looked pretty rubbish, but it now seems as per PP the report has been in other newspapers....It's the first I've seen of it but if it's true it does raise questions...

The thing with the EU is that it needs 28 countries to agree before doing anything and it debates so long over everything that any conspirators would die of old age before they could put their master plan into action.
The idea that they could get organised enough to integrate 28 armies, speaking different languages to even march in the same direction ...
That's why all the countries plan to keep their armed forces separate, so they can actually be effective.

That is a good point BigChocFrenzy, even if they wanted to, it'd be a pretty impossible task...

The EU army thing has been debunked so many times, I can barely be arsed. Mogherini's presentation to the EP last week, and this: www.politico.eu/article/eu-global-strategy-we-must-be-ready-to-go-beyond-nato-foreign-policy-security-policy/

The idea that they could get organised enough to integrate 28 armies, speaking different languages to even march in the same direction ...
That's why all the countries plan to keep their armed forces separate, so they can actually be effective. NATO does it though - common language English. Not all the countries do keep their militaries separate - there's the BeNeLux agreement; the Dutch work with the Germans, and we work very closely indeed with the US amongst others.

This is what Michael Dougan, lecturer at Liverpool University says about it:

"Defence decisions are agreed by unanimity, between all of the member states. Nothing can happen in the field of defence without the agreement of every member state and if the EU were ever to propose a common defence policy, it would require not just the unanimous agreement of the member states, but also domestic ratification of that agreement through their own constitutional system. SO in the UK, the EU Act 2011 would have required another National Referendum in order to approve any proposal for a common European Defence."

UndertheGreenwoodTree However, there are moves afoot to extend the competencies into Defence, and thus it would move to QMV as opposed to unanimity. Op Atalanta would point to the EU being able to run a successful military operation, even if they did have to borrow space in a UK/NATO HQ to achieve this.

EU treaties are very clear that Britain could veto.