EU army - Farage yet again seems to be right

[Mr GrimNasty]

jjlynn27 said:

But, we don't need experts, do we. What do they know after all.

Strangely, very little.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-exper...

As for the EU Army, I can't be bothered searching for all the evidence posted before, it is going to happen.

The only thing that will stop it is the collapse of the Euro triggered by Italy and the probable break up of the EU.

So perhaps it won't happen!

[AJL308]

Mr GrimNasty said:

jjlynn27 said:

But, we don't need experts, do we. What do they know after all.

Strangely, very little.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-exper...

As for the EU Army, I can't be bothered searching for all the evidence posted before, it is going to happen.

The only thing that will stop it is the collapse of the Euro triggered by Italy and the probable break up of the EU.

So perhaps it won't happen!

Agree. It absolutely categorically will happen. 100% likelihood.

The EU will ultimately become a Federal State. We all know that despite the fact that many people continually refuse to acknowledge it. A country in its own right. How many countries can we name which do not have a military?

Edited by AJL308 on Tuesday 23 August 14:10

[ChunkyloverSV]

AJL308 said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

jjlynn27 said:

But, we don't need experts, do we. What do they know after all.

Strangely, very little.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-exper...

As for the EU Army, I can't be bothered searching for all the evidence posted before, it is going to happen.

The only thing that will stop it is the collapse of the Euro triggered by Italy and the probable break up of the EU.

So perhaps it won't happen!

Agree. It absolutely categorically will happen. 100% likelihood.

The EU will ultimately become a Federal State. We all know that despite the fact that many people continually refuse to acknowledge it. A country in its own right. How many countries can we name which do not have a military?

Edited by AJL308 on Tuesday 23 August 14:10

Ahh but then the argument will be that it only happened because of brexit and that it's all the fault of a nasty brexiteers.

[ralphrj]

Welshbeef said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/eu-summ...


So from a no it's never ever going to happen and is all make believe by Farage to being actually a much much more real reality.


Hmm.

What say those who didn't believe it?

At the risk of stating the obvious, if we had voted to remain it could never have happened without:

i) the EU being given the power to create an army which needs unanimous approval from member states,
ii) the approval of the UK electorate via a referendum.

We could never have been forced into an EU army against our will.


As we voted to leave, the EU can do what it likes without us.

[fido]

ralphrj said:

We could never have been forced into an EU army against our will.

So basically it would never happen as long as we didn't vote someone like Blair who would happily sign up. Oh wait a minute ..

[Mrr T]

ralphrj said:

Welshbeef said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/eu-summ...


So from a no it's never ever going to happen and is all make believe by Farage to being actually a much much more real reality.


Hmm.

What say those who didn't believe it?

At the risk of stating the obvious, if we had voted to remain it could never have happened without:

i) the EU being given the power to create an army which needs unanimous approval from member states,
ii) the approval of the UK electorate via a referendum.

We could never have been forced into an EU army against our will.


As we voted to leave, the EU can do what it likes without us.

A military force needs more than that. It needs a command and control structure which tell it what to do, where to go, who to fight, and what are the rules of engagement. This would never be possible in the EU as it currently structured. Add to that the Germans have treaty obligations that limit the actions of their military.

So unless the EU moves to a single state it will not happen. I know team leave will now argue that this will happen next week anybody who actually knows anything about the EU knows they are now further away from integration than they where at the time of the Lisbon treaty.

[ralphrj]

fido said:

ralphrj said:

We could never have been forced into an EU army against our will.

So basically it would never happen as long as we didn't vote someone like Blair who would happily sign up. Oh wait a minute ..

Someone like Blair would still have had to convince the UK electorate to give him (or her) the power to give the EU the go ahead via a referendum.

[AJL308]

ralphrj said:

Welshbeef said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/eu-summ...


So from a no it's never ever going to happen and is all make believe by Farage to being actually a much much more real reality.


Hmm.

What say those who didn't believe it?

At the risk of stating the obvious, if we had voted to remain it could never have happened without:

i) the EU being given the power to create an army which needs unanimous approval from member states,
ii) the approval of the UK electorate via a referendum.

We could never have been forced into an EU army against our will.


As we voted to leave, the EU can do what it likes without us.

Yes, but we could have been coerced or even threatened into it.

Do you trust the likes of Jezza not to get involved in an EU army if he ever got to power? As it is we will never be part of it as we are leaving.

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that a referendum is essential. It isn't. Even the Remain/Leave one wasn't binding and Parliament could have decided that we were going to leave on its own. It is still free to ignore the result.

Yes, the EU can do exactly what it pleases and I have no problem with that.

[AJL308]

ralphrj said:

fido said:

ralphrj said:

We could never have been forced into an EU army against our will.

So basically it would never happen as long as we didn't vote someone like Blair who would happily sign up. Oh wait a minute ..

Someone like Blair would still have had to convince the UK electorate to give him (or her) the power to give the EU the go ahead via a referendum.

Like he convinced them to give him power in how many elections was it?

As I said before - where are you getting this idea that a referendum is a requirement? It isn't.

[ralphrj]

AJL308 said:

Do you trust the likes of Jezza not to get involved in an EU army if he ever got to power?

I think Corbyn would be more likely to disband the UK military than merge it with an EU army.

AJL308 said:

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that a referendum is essential. It isn't. Even the Remain/Leave one wasn't binding and Parliament could have decided that we were going to leave on its own. It is still free to ignore the result.

There is legislation that specifically prevents the UK PM from extending control over the UK military to the EU without a referendum.

The fact that the EU referendum did not bind Parliament does not mean that other referendum results are non-binding.

[ralphrj]

AJL308 said:

where are you getting this idea that a referendum is a requirement? It isn't.

The European Union Act 2011 is explicit that the UK Government cannot transfer power on foreign or security policy (i.e. the military) from Westminster to the EU without calling a referendum.

Edit: I should add that the Act also sets out that:-

1. in the event of the public voting in favour of transferring our military to the EU, this could be blocked by Parliament.
2. Parliament cannot overrule the public voting against transferring our military to the EU.

Edited by ralphrj on Tuesday 23 August 16:00

[marshalla]

ralphrj said:

The European Union Act 2011 is explicit that the UK Government cannot transfer power on foreign or security policy (i.e. the military) from Westminster to the EU without calling a referendum.

Makes for interesting reading : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/sectio...

[Ridgemont]

Mrr T said:

A military force needs more than that. It needs a command and control structure which tell it what to do, where to go, who to fight, and what are the rules of engagement. This would never be possible in the EU as it currently structured. Add to that the Germans have treaty obligations that limit the actions of their military.

So unless the EU moves to a single state it will not happen. I know team leave will now argue that this will happen next week anybody who actually knows anything about the EU knows they are now further away from integration than they where at the time of the Lisbon treaty.

Weren't there moves in this direction? EUNavFor is based out of Northwood if I recall correctly precisely to provide unified EU C&C?

This is one of those areas I suspect you can't really comment on as a lay person but it's one of the reasons I've always been somewhat sceptical of the 2011 European Act; the UK was moving along quite nicely with Joint HQ establishments with the French, and it surely would have only been a matter of years before various honourable General Staff members would have asked for a quiet word in the SecOD to say that 'economies of scale... Interoperability... Extensibility etc etc' and next thing you know you have an EU triforce command, with somewhat dotted lines into the MoD..

[AJL308]

ralphrj said:

AJL308 said:

where are you getting this idea that a referendum is a requirement? It isn't.

The European Union Act 2011 is explicit that the UK Government cannot transfer power on foreign or security policy (i.e. the military) from Westminster to the EU without calling a referendum.

Edit: I should add that the Act also sets out that:-

1. in the event of the public voting in favour of transferring our military to the EU, this could be blocked by Parliament.
2. Parliament cannot overrule the public voting against transferring our military to the EU.

Edited by ralphrj on Tuesday 23 August 16:00

I didn't know that. You learn something new every day!

[768]

Derek Smith said:

It seems that they want closer cooperation to combat the terrorist attacks. There were a couple of digs against the UK for blocking these moves, which we could then do. We can't now of course.

Can't see the problem with sharing information and intelligence.

We could then block the EU from forcing us into an intelligence sharing system. Now we don't have to of course and can continuing sharing when we decide it's appropriate.

There'd be no problems sharing intelligence, we just wouldn't have any to share after everyone else turns off the taps who doesn't want their intelligence going to Latvia, Romania or whoever else ends up on the list. Like Erdogan in the year 3000.

[PH XKR]

jjlynn27 said:

PH XKR said:

It is amazing to watch you remainers deny what is right in front of their eyes. You claim it is not an official announcement so it cannot be true and yet you then claim we must have had a veto, how did we have a veto if it wasn't happening and isn't true?

And Derek, you of all people will understand the issues with intelligence sharing. When the French interior cannot even share information internally, likewise the Belgian, the Dutch, the Germans and lolz the Italians, how do you see this as working? It will become very much a clandestine effort seen by national services as a bd love child. Intel will flow at the same speed as it does now and the UK will be no better or worse off for being out of the EU.

PH XKR with all of his experience knows that UK, intel-wise, will be no better or worse off out of the EU.
Dearlove, the head of MI6 at the time of infamous Iraqi dosier, thinks that UK will be better off (wrong on ECHR but that's for another thread).
On the other hand, Nigel Inkster, David Omand, Lady Manningham-Buller, John Sawers and John Scarlett all think that UK will be worse off. But, we don't need experts, do we. What do they know after all.

Quite what do you think being in or out of the EU means to intelligence? Intelligence is shared outside of the parameters of the EU, always has been, the EU has zero impact on the ability (or lack of) to share intel between governments.

[Mothersruin]

Mrr T said:

...the Germans have treaty obligations that limit the actions of their military.

They've had stuff like that before. That went just peachy.

[anonymous-user]

Farage & seems to be right in the same sentence !! good joke Glad the liar has gone

[don4l]

Derek Smith said:

It seems that they want closer cooperation to combat the terrorist attacks. There were a couple of digs against the UK for blocking these moves, which we could then do. We can't now of course.

Can't see the problem with sharing information and intelligence.

I'm surprised that you wrote the highlighted bit.

We share loads of intelligence with the USA because we feel that the information will be secure. The USA is not in the EU.

If we had evidence of an imminent attack in Brussels, then we would alert the Belgians. Our EU membership has nothing at all to do with this. At the most basic level, we could simply have a little chat with the Belgian ambassador.

However, if we had intelligence about how ISIS were communicating with cells in Belgium, we might not be quite so keen to share this. I suspect that we would be incredibly stupid to share this kind of information with many of the former East European countries.

Given your background, I am sure that you already know, and understand, this.

One other reason that Britain would not want military integration with Europe is that we have the strongest military. Why should spend the most per capita and give up control?

[230TE]

Mrr T said:

A military force needs more than that. It needs a command and control structure which tell it what to do, where to go, who to fight, and what are the rules of engagement. This would never be possible in the EU as it currently structured. Add to that the Germans have treaty obligations that limit the actions of their military.

It also needs troops who are prepared to risk dying for their country. Aside from a couple of PHers, finding people prepared to die for the EU might not be all that easy. Maybe they could use mercenaries.