EU army - Farage yet again seems to be right

[alfie2244]

ralphrj said:

alfie2244 said:

I dunno what happened gaffa - now will you answer mine now please?

"So if one member, Greece for example, said no to an EU army then that would be the end of that then?"

Yes. The EU doesn't have the power to create an army. The European Council must give unanimous approval to grant the EU that power and all members have a seat on the Council.

Wonder how many times Greece will be asked before they give the right answer? (only using them as an example of course).

[gooner1]

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

Make of this what you will.

[Murph7355]

ATG said:

...It's exactly the same as someone asking the goaly why he failed to save the goal and him replying "they scored so the question isn't worth asking".

tbf 99% of the time it is pointless asking the question as the goalie very rarely notes it's because he made a mistake/he's st/some other form of the truth...

[RizzoTheRat]

Murph7355 said:

Apart from the massive imbalance in investment in defence capabilities between member states?

Apart from that leading to huge discrepancies in capabilities leading to further imbalance in who contributes what?

That doesn't seem to be an issue within NATO, where each country is supposed to be spending 2% of GDP on defence (very few are yet but they're supposedly working towards it), and then each countries contribution to NATO is scaled accordingly, and tweaked to things that country is already equipped for. As a lot of EU member states are already NATO members I'd have thought they'd follow a similar model if they want to increase European military cooperation.

[ATG]

alfie2244 said:

ATG said:

It's exactly the same as someone asking the goaly why he failed to save the goal and him replying "they scored so the question isn't worth asking".

I dunno what happened gaffa - now will you answer mine now please?

"So if one member, Greece for example, said no to an EU army then that would be the end of that then?"

Yes. Big decisions require a UNANIMOUS vote by the member states. There is no way of sidestepping that. For example when the Irish initially rejected the Treaty of Nice there was a crisis. There was no way forward without Irish support. The process could only proceed when the Irish agreed to it.

If the EU was going to create anything that resembled a true EU army ... i.e. a command and control structure that was executed by the Commission, politically led by the Council and to which all members were required to contribute fighting resources ... it would require the unanimous support of all member states. Any member state could veto it.

The only way to avoid this would be to get unanimous agreement to change the EU's constitutional arrangements so that these vetos were abolished and replaced with some flavour of majority decisions. Passing that sort of change unanimously is obviously even harder than obtaining unanimous support for specific policies.

[Murph7355]

RizzoTheRat said:

That doesn't seem to be an issue within NATO, where each country is supposed to be spending 2% of GDP on defence (very few are yet but they're supposedly working towards it), and then each countries contribution to NATO is scaled accordingly, and tweaked to things that country is already equipped for. As a lot of EU member states are already NATO members I'd have thought they'd follow a similar model if they want to increase European military cooperation.

NATO is a very different construct to what Juncker is after. NATO is not an army in its own right.

A NATO type set up is fair enough - cooperation is good. But why create another one if NATO already exists and has been serving its purpose pretty well for the last 60 years?

Of course the US might get a bit tetchy on that one as it seems other members haven't necessarily been holding up their end of the bargain. They might decide its served its time. If that happens I think I'd rather we explore further/amended options with them than Greece, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Malta etc etc.

[alfie2244]

ATG said:

alfie2244 said:

ATG said:

It's exactly the same as someone asking the goaly why he failed to save the goal and him replying "they scored so the question isn't worth asking".

I dunno what happened gaffa - now will you answer mine now please?

"So if one member, Greece for example, said no to an EU army then that would be the end of that then?"

Yes. Big decisions require a UNANIMOUS vote by the member states. There is no way of sidestepping that. For example when the Irish initially rejected the Treaty of Nice there was a crisis. There was no way forward without Irish support. The process could only proceed when the Irish agreed to it.

If the EU was going to create anything that resembled a true EU army ... i.e. a command and control structure that was executed by the Commission, politically led by the Council and to which all members were required to contribute fighting resources ... it would require the unanimous support of all member states. Any member state could veto it.

The only way to avoid this would be to get unanimous agreement to change the EU's constitutional arrangements so that these vetos were abolished and replaced with some flavour of majority decisions. Passing that sort of change unanimously is obviously even harder than obtaining unanimous support for specific policies.

Genuine impressed that you took the trouble to make a lengthy reply....however you may have already guessed mine will be short sorry........IMO, gut instinct, call it what you will but if the Commission wanted an army, "true, faux or otherwise" then no member state, constitutional arrangement, Treaty or Article would stand in their way and they would get an army one way or another.

Furthermore had we stayed in, which we won't, we would have been dragged in one way or another also.

But hey ho guess what? It's all irrelevant now is it not? At the whole saga unravels over the next year or so I wouldn't be surprised if many that voted to remain, will be thinking thank god we got out before it was too late....maybe not publicly though

eta why did the Irish change their stance? - you do know one of their objections was "The Irish also fear that the creation of a European army - the rapid reaction force - contradicts the country's neutrality." - the irony!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/18/eu.p...

Edited by alfie2244 on Wednesday 14th September 16:49

[steveT350C]

ATG said:

Yes. Big decisions require a UNANIMOUS vote by the member states. There is no way of sidestepping that.

The 'Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence' can be adopted by qualified majority voting and does not require unanimity from all member states.

Who is to say that the 'Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence' is not an army?

If the EU want their army, this will be how they do it.

[Hosenbugler]

BMRuss said:

Hosenbugler said:

BMRuss said:

What a surprise Farage called it correctly, again.

I would like to see Farage and Verhofstadt be the chief negotiators - it wouldn't take too long to get the deal done

Is Verhofstadt theclown who threw an eppy in the EU "Parliament" concerning the news of Brexit?

Eppy that's the chap, Farage has torn him apart on a number of occasions and quite rightly so.

I'm really looking forward to our exit

I well recall watching him on TV , I near PMSL utterly hilarious, he was acting as though he had just found out somebady had shat on his dinner. In fact, its bound to be on youtube, I must go and find it !

As for our exit, easily one of the most celebratory occasions in my life. The EU is an autocratic , unnacountable, undemocratic tool for dictators, Junckers recent spoutings prove that beyond doubt, thank fk we are going through the out door.

[RizzoTheRat]

Murph7355 said:

NATO is a very different construct to what Juncker is after. NATO is not an army in its own right.

A NATO type set up is fair enough - cooperation is good. But why create another one if NATO already exists and has been serving its purpose pretty well for the last 60 years?

Of course the US might get a bit tetchy on that one as it seems other members haven't necessarily been holding up their end of the bargain. They might decide its served its time. If that happens I think I'd rather we explore further/amended options with them than Greece, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Malta etc etc.

True but I don't honestly think Junker will get an army directly under the control of the EU, and if he does it would be pretty much useless because any of the member nations could easily stall any deployment if they didn't like it. At least with the NATO construct individual countries can take a back seat in an operation without significant impact because it's pretty modular.

More likely they'll head towards better cooperation, interoperabilty and information sharing, allowing operations to be carried out jointly between multiple countries, but possibly with the political ambition/goals/aims being set by the EU parliament rather than the individual governments.

I can see NATO might get a bit tetchy if it impacts on nations commitments to NATO, but then again it would reduce the need for NATO to get involved in European issues that don't directly effect the likes of USA and Canada so they might be happier. Trump has already indicated he'd not want to support some NATO members if he gets in (presumably he doesn't like the fact that some are predominantly Muslim), and migration issues in Europe aren't much concern to the Americans.

steveT350C said:

Who is to say that the 'Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence' is not an army?

Presumably any country that doesn't want to contribute to or be a part of an EU army.

[don4l]

ATG said:

Yes. Big decisions require a UNANIMOUS vote by the member states. There is no way of sidestepping that. For example when the Irish initially rejected the Treaty of Nice there was a crisis. There was no way forward without Irish support. The process could only proceed when the Irish agreed to it.

Did the Irish successfully exercise their veto?

I think that you have managed to prove yourself wrong.

[RizzoTheRat]

don4l said:

Did the Irish successfully exercise their veto?

They got it amended to keep themselves out of any common EU defence policy and require their own government to vote any proposed enhanced co-operation didn't they?

[don4l]

RizzoTheRat said:

don4l said:

Did the Irish successfully exercise their veto?

They got it amended to keep themselves out of any common EU defence policy and require their own government to vote any proposed enhanced co-operation didn't they?

That's a "No" then.

[pim]

What is so wrong with a European army?

At least Europeans wouldn't be killing each other anymore, after two world wars originating in Europe.

If we won't be part of that fair enough let them get on with it.

[RizzoTheRat]

Depends what they were trying to veto, if they wanted to veto involvement in a common EU defence policy then it sounds pretty successful to me.

Edited by RizzoTheRat on Wednesday 14th September 17:33

[London424]

pim said:

What is so wrong with a European army?

At least Europeans wouldn't be killing each other anymore, after two world wars originating in Europe.

If we won't be part of that fair enough let them get on with it.

It depends on how much tinfoil you'd like.

Some might allude to the fact that Germany is in defacto control of the EU and giving them an army might have 'interesting' consequences

[rallycross]

The reason I was in favour of leaving the current EU agreement is that the loonies in charge at Brussels are on a one way path to creating an EU super state - ruled out of Brusssels (with ever more jobs for the boys.)

No one in the UK ever requested this, voted for it or even debated this (thanks Gordon and Tony for signing us up to this nonsense).

We are starting to see more of the facts now hopefully people will read more about what the unelected loonies in Brussels are aiming for and see why we need to reduce our financial and legal ties to madness that is doomed to fail in the next 10 years.

[AJL308]

ralphrj said:

Welshbeef said:

The remainders said there will never be an EU army stop telling lies. .... Hmm really. Seems to have turned out just as he said.

Please stop taking comments out of context.

The UK could never, ever, have been forced into an EU army against our will.

Now we are leaving the EU the remaining members may decide to form an EU army but that does not change the fact that if we had remained:

1. The EU could not create an army without our permission,
2. The UK could not have been forced into it.

It wouldn't have been "against our will" though. It would have ended up being a case of us being taken into in due to the Federalists making things so difficult for us that it would be easier to take part. That is how politics works and is certainly how people who want to make sweeping changes to the status-quo work.

Anyone who thinks that we would never have had anything to do with it and would be completely divorced from it were we to stay in is being incredibly naive. We would have been dragged in to some degree sooner or later.

[AJL308]

don4l said:

The opening words of his speech reiterated the opening words of the Treaty of Rome.

Jean Claude Junker said:

Mr President,

Honourable Members of the European Parliament,

I stood here a year ago and I told you that the State of our Union was not good. I told you that there is not enough Europe in this Union. And that there is not enough Union in this Union.

The very first sentence of the Treaty of Rome said:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe

And that is precisely the reason I voted "leave".

The words "ever closer" only have one logical end result - the many become the one. A Federal state.

[AJL308]

alfie2244 said:

ATG said:

alfie2244 said:

ATG said:

It's exactly the same as someone asking the goaly why he failed to save the goal and him replying "they scored so the question isn't worth asking".

I dunno what happened gaffa - now will you answer mine now please?

"So if one member, Greece for example, said no to an EU army then that would be the end of that then?"

Yes. Big decisions require a UNANIMOUS vote by the member states. There is no way of sidestepping that. For example when the Irish initially rejected the Treaty of Nice there was a crisis. There was no way forward without Irish support. The process could only proceed when the Irish agreed to it.

If the EU was going to create anything that resembled a true EU army ... i.e. a command and control structure that was executed by the Commission, politically led by the Council and to which all members were required to contribute fighting resources ... it would require the unanimous support of all member states. Any member state could veto it.

The only way to avoid this would be to get unanimous agreement to change the EU's constitutional arrangements so that these vetos were abolished and replaced with some flavour of majority decisions. Passing that sort of change unanimously is obviously even harder than obtaining unanimous support for specific policies.

Genuine impressed that you took the trouble to make a lengthy reply....however you may have already guessed mine will be short sorry........IMO, gut instinct, call it what you will but if the Commission wanted an army, "true, faux or otherwise" then no member state, constitutional arrangement, Treaty or Article would stand in their way and they would get an army one way or another.

Furthermore had we stayed in, which we won't, we would have been dragged in one way or another also.

But hey ho guess what? It's all irrelevant now is it not? At the whole saga unravels over the next year or so I wouldn't be surprised if many that voted to remain, will be thinking thank god we got out before it was too late....maybe not publicly though

eta why did the Irish change their stance? - you do know one of their objections was "The Irish also fear that the creation of a European army - the rapid reaction force - contradicts the country's neutrality." - the irony!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/18/eu.p...

Edited by alfie2244 on Wednesday 14th September 16:49

And the Irish did, after all, give the EU what it wanted eventually. So, whatever requires unanimity will get it eventually because the EU will not tolerate any other result. It will be spun and re-spun in such a manner that it will be passed eventually. That's how politics works.