On 22 June 2016, the European Parliament, Council and Commission reached an agreement on the Commission's proposal on a European Border and Coast Guard

[bkgirl]

also known as a Euro Army!
On 22 June 2016, the European Parliament, Council and Commission reached an agreement on the Commission's proposal on a European Border and Coast Guard. The agreement was endorsed by the Council on 23 June 2016.
Today's approval by the European Parliament will be followed by a final vote on technical modifications resulting from a legal-linguistic revision. This will allow the Council to adopt the final text of the proposal.

europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-2431_en.htm

Right so anyone know the procedural next step.
Oh and before we hear the old veto argument... we have been told on another thread -
Not if they extend the competencies to defence, according to someone who was seconded to the EUMS

Also anyone consider what veto was applied when the 90% haircut was applied to to Cypriot savers (yep - none)

The defence and sovereignty veto being taken away argument on the other thread was incredibly tenuous.

And it's not 'better known as an EU Army.' Honestly, you're obsessed with this.

What's wrong with better management of the European borders and a joint Coastguard? The Refugee crisis is huge and devastating - people have been calling for over a year for a better, united, EU response.

"Whilst Member States will keep their sovereignty and national border guards will remain the key actors for managing their borders, the European Border and Coast Guard will work as a safety net'

Turkey will not be signing by the end of the year.

Bengal - you called that statement 'fascist' on another thread. It is not fascist. A federal union is just that - a union.

People are very, very confused about sovereignty.

Oh fgs.

Ok - I'm very very tired.

The last time we had conscription was for a European war. The last time our boys were conscripted to fight was WW1 and WW2 - all long before the EU.

The EU was formed as an alliance to prevent war - and indeed, ever since, peace has reigned in Europe. People who are politically allied, and have trade and political links are far less likely to go to war.

Now stop this nonsense.

No its not nonsense. It's the reality already. Dear god, you are in such denial.
Re veto:
www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/09/david-cameron-blocks-eu-treaty
Re cold war again: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35569094

and just 3 hours ago the BBC news www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36739781

Are world tin foil stocks sufficient?

Sell sterling, buy tin foil!

I look at this from the other end..

Does Europe need a coast guard with leathal capability?

Taking account of population movement affecting the poorer countries with extended coast lines which are the point of entry to Europe... Yes Europe does need a coast guard financed by everyone to serve everyone in Europe.

But once we move to establish a Europe wide coast guard the whole nature of Europe starts to change. What should coast guard set out to do. Should they pick up people from sinking boats and take them to Europe as at present? Or should they sink the boats as a "warning" ..(not actually suggesting this but the question has to be asked). Or should they pick up survivors and return them to wherever and use firepower when needed to land the survivors.. Or should all migrants be put onto an island somewhere as a processing centre for all Europe? Or should that be done in the nearest country.... Or should countries like Greece continue to struggle with migration when they are suffering crippling debt?

These are not technical questions, they are fundamental political issues.
And do we want to be part of that problem?

In related news, I see British troops are being moved into parts of Eastern Europe.

But they [Turkey] definitely will be next year, if not this year.

Bengal - exactly WHAT will Turkey be joining this year or next year?

In related news, I see British troops are being moved into parts of Eastern Europe.
As part of NATO. This is absolutely NOTHING to do with our membership of the EU.

bkgirl, I don't really know what to say to you, so determined are you to believe this.

I'll tell you what I tell my teenage dc - you need to exercise discretion about what you believe on the internet. You have linked to somebody (who does not publish their name or credentials) with the name BK007 voicing a clip on YT about a NATO operation. Not someone to be taken seriously.

None of your articles are about plans for a EU Army - they are about NATO too.

If you want to know what I find frightening - there is a lot of pressure at the moment between Europe/Putin/ME - and at the very time Europe should be pulling together, and relying on strong European political alliances, we are breaking apart.

Joint Coast Guard service sounds like a jolly good thing for EU to coordinate.
Anyway, Britain is heading out of EU, so why do you care so much?

twofingerstoGideon I know, I typed a second line about this being an example of military co-operation and asking whether this type i.e. NATO was more acceptable.

But that line disappeared and my phone threw me off Mumsnet and wouldn't let me log back in to add a correction or reply. I can only reply now because I'm on a computer. Technology, pah!

Not if they extend the competencies to defence, according to someone who was seconded to the EUMS I said dh had been seconded to the EUMS, not me.

Underthe Greenwood can think it's as tenuous as she pleases, did you read the white book proposal that I linked to?
The EU was formed as an alliance to prevent war - and indeed, ever since, peace has reigned in Europe. Strange then, that NATO predated the ECSC that was the precursor of the EEC which then morphed into the EU we have today, and that we haven't had war in Europe since NATO was formed. Article V has a lot for us to be thankful for.

Yes I did, scary. chapter 3. I think it's exceptionally tenuous. I just can't be asked to argue about a policy document, which is basically not an evil plan to force the UK into joining an EU army, at all, but seems purely to be suggestions on how they could make decision-making more efficient.

bk, can I just ask, are you confusing NATO with this mythical Euro army? Because as has been said - NATO has nothing to do with the EU, and we will still belong to NATO after/if we leave the EU.

BengalCatMum those are interesting definitions. I think the EU fits with:

"the government controls business" (preference given to large corporations with the money for lobbying, member countries unable to make own trade agreements outside the EU)

"opposition is not permitted" (referendums ignored, no opposition party, requirement for member states to accept the whole package)

"government that is centralized" (aiming for one-size fits all policies for all member countries, ultimate goal of a superstate)

"supreme power or authority" (laws which trump those of an individual country)