Juncker proposes EU military headquarters

[topsy777]

Juncker proposes EU military headquarters

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196

Smallfox - just wondering your "I knew what I was doing" have foreseen this?

"relocation" should be reallocation. Sorry.

Keep finding confirmation for your bias, that's fine.

The fact is that your "facts" aren't correct.

Seriously can't be bothered to correct the Irish ref stuff, that's been done many times. Wasn't just Ireland that caused the reform to the treaty, and the Irish voted far more overwhelmingly for the treat in the second ref than against in the first.

Cameron Vetoed the EU bailout in 2011 because he didn't think the UK should have to pay for it, so therefore the EU agreed that the UK and other EU countries which are not in the eurozone, should not be part of any future eurozone bailouts.

We've only participated in 2 bailouts for 2 EU countries:
€3bn for Ireland in November 2010 and €3.5bn for Portugal in May 2011

After that we haven't participated, so the veto was respected and the rules changed. Showing our influence.

The UK has to agree to give up powers to the EU, this is seemingly something you don't understand.

You'll also probably find that there will be savings to be made by centralising current operations ( you know there are current joint operations and have been for over 20 odd years right?).

Still, my research is more further than yours, got your antennae pointing the right way?

There's no point arguing with stupid though smallfox

The point that NATO has an HQ despite not having an army has gone right over his/her head. But that's ok because..... So the EU should just continue to coordinate, on an ad hoc way, things like humanitarian aid (often delivered by armies), help with emergency reconstruction efforts (supported by armies), try to stop people smugglers/save those that they're smuggling from drowning (using navies) ..... from a broom cupboard in EU HQ

Personally, if I had to choose, I'm more comfortable with a coordinated EU approach to joint programmes (as illustrated above) where we used to have a veto than a NATO with no veto and an "attack one, attack all" treaty commitment led by a belligerent USA and kowtowing-to-the-USA UK

At least the French are proud to be "cheese eating surrender monkeys"

....although some on here might be too young to remember that particular delightful description of France by the USA when they refused to follow their lead in Iraq.

1. No - it was a fact - EU did get Ireland to run the second referendum. I said nothing about treaty reform - or comment about the result of the second vote - you said that. You do not appear to deny that second vote happened .

Treaty repackage - France and Dutch voted no on the EU constitution referendum and it got repackaged into Lisbon Treaty. Do you deny that ?

1. Fullfact disagrees with you unfortunately.

fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-pay-future-eurozone-bailouts/

OK - there is a "no loss guarantee" since 2015 but of course "money back guarantee" was invented long ago and we know that money back guarantee is not always money back guarantee.

1. Saving money... right. EU is more centralised than ever - did you ever see its budget going down?

While it looks like your research might have gone further, it looks like you might have take a wrong turn or two along the way.

I commend those interested to read the Fullfact article that topsy recommends.

Read it all the way through to the final paragraph

"So it might be technically possible, if unlikely in practice, for the EU to bypass the dedicated Eurozone bailout fund and the all-EU fund—neither of which put British money at risk—and call upon the EU budget directly."

But I'm not sure he/she read that far or fully comprehended what he/she was reading

Ha yet again Topsy is proved not to actually have read the sources she/he links to.

The second vote happened, but the vote for got a far bigger majority for the EU than the first did against. Its funny that has slipped your narrative.

You keep trying to correct me and failing, that's funny.

The EU budget is tiny compared to those of the countries that it serves btw,
In 2015 it was about 144 bn Euros, whilst the UK budget was £744 bn.

Its a fact that those that complain about the size of in convieniently forget.

It seems the big parts that contradict your claims (only 2 bailout ever) have completely fail to register. Talk about bias and selective picking of facts.

Nevermind. Time to stop wasting my time.
We are out anyway and can watch the future of EU superstate at leisure.

However as the Uk is leaving an EU army really isn't our business anymore

No it isn't, however, it just goes to show what the "leaders" had planned all along. A Federalist state - no one ever gave them the mandate to do this.

Furthermore, we SHOULD be concerned about a EU that usurps NATO.

NATO, specifically US firepower is the main reason why there has been no Soviet/Russian aggression.

An EU Army will be beyond useless, only France at the time of writing has anything list a decent military.

Therefore, we should be mightly concerned what the unelected Junker and his cohorts have up their sleeves.

prettybird

Yup. Read it through indeed. Not just deregister everything that you disagree and skip through words that does not support position.

How did you managed to miss the "dedicated bailout fund" part which we are on the hook for it and have no veto right (it is majority voting). To be fair, they do however offer a 'money back guarantee' if things go wrong. I see that guarantee on the internet all days though.

You certainly haven't understood what you have read.

In fact it confirms my position, repeatedly.

"How did you managed to miss the "dedicated bailout fund" part which we are on the hook for"

We're exempt:

"In other words, the UK will not have to pay the costs of any Eurozone bailout funding provided through the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism."

As enshrined by law, according to the source you linked to.

Stupid is as stupid does eh?

smallfox

OK. I apologise for this. On digging further, there are 3 bailouts fund in operation.

(i) EFSM - EU28 provides guarantee using EU budget as collateral. Liable. Setup 2010.
(ii) EFSF - UK not liable.
(iii) EFM - UK not liable.

The EFSM was used to bailout Ireland and Portugal (loan oustanding) and Greece (repaid) - so 3 bailouts in total, 2 outstanding.

The two bailouts is factually correct.

You didn't convince anyone on here that your right so far.

Read the text you are quoting properly and you'll understand.

Funny hat your such a hypocrite on the ad hons.

Anyway. I apologise for the sniping.

I'm off to the bar to have ano illicit fag and a beer.

user what is currently proposed in terms of coordination and procurement does not usurp NATO, it compliments it as highlighted above. NATO is outdated, and there is room for the EU to fill the gaps in its effectiveness.

Of course if the sort of divisive nationalism that helped drive the Brexit vote wins out in the US they won't be part of NATO and we will have a US that wouldn't intervene in the event the USSR became more aggressive in Europe.

A Federalist state - no one ever gave them the mandate to do this.

Legally EU is an international institution. IT isn't a state, let alone a federalist one. There are no plans, & there never were any, to do away with individual national states. The clause was the "ever closer union of peoples" - not states.

European federalism is often misunderstood. When people talk about federalism in the UK we tend to think of the centralised system in the US. European federalism is like the Swiss system were decisions are taken at the lowest level possible so there is more direct democracy.

The EU has evolved with different tiers of membership reflecting the political & economic realities of individual member states. That means federalists can not impose their view on the rest. But the UK, & likeminded states, could not prevent those who have a genuine commitment to further integration from going ahead.

EU did get Ireland to run the second referendum.

Nothing wrong with more democracy. The decision to run the second referendum was taken by the elected representatives in Ireland.

An EU Army will be beyond useless, only France at the time of writing has anything list a decent military.

But an EU army isn't on the agenda. Battlegroups are on standby principally to respond to tailored or specific missions at short notice. For example conflict prevention & evacuation. They concentrate on bridging operations, preparing before a larger force relieves them such as UN peacekeepers. . Larger member states generally contribute their own Battlegroups, while smaller members create common groups eg UK/Dutch Battlegroup & the Nordic Battlegroup.

The proposal for discussion is to extend the existing cooperation & for joint command headquarters rather than HQs being in different places. At the moment they are scattered in Rome, Paris, Florence, Potsdam or wherever. There are plans to extend the Battlegroups concept to air & naval forces, although not necessarily to the extent of having a single standing force on standby, but scattered forces which could be rapidly assembled.

There is nothing wrong with a second referendum per se but there is a pattern regarding how EU regards Democracy. If we don't get the right answer than we try to achieve the same via other means (repackage of constitution into treaty, second vote, do something that looks innocent at first - such as this Military 'coordination' HQ that will morph into something else bigger over time).

Such actions are asymmetrical and once 'pass' is extremely difficult to untangle (Brexit is messy). The single currency is nearly impossible to reverse.

I do agree with you that EU does not intend to do a away with all the states. However, the Swiss Federation is a Federation where Canton has limited sovereignty. EU is certainly no longer the old EEC. The currency union is 2/3 complete, fiscal union is probably about 5% there, military union - 0.1%, Schengen - 80% done, but they are all heading in the 'ever closer union ('of people' is a mere semantic) ' direction.

Such ever closer union maybe what you want, but I do not.

ron I am genuinely interested - in what way is NATO outdated?

If Trump won and the US pulled out then I assume that would be the end of NATO. Personally, I wouldn't mind - it seems to be a Cold War organisation which has outlived any usefulness it ever had.

Topsy ou're missing out the fact that the EU made several concessions to the treaty because of the Irish referendum, it was then put to them again and they voted for it, in larger numbers than they voted against.

Just because your idea of democracy is that we have a one off vote, once and a small majority win dictates future policy, no matter what, doesn't mean that is the way it should be.

We had exemption from ever closer union, and as pointed out it doesn't mean federalism anyway.