Discussion
toppstuff said:
Without cliches about WW2 could someone with a brain explain the pros and cons of the European continent being able to defend itself without depending on the US please ?
I’d like to hear it.
Nobody is saying the continent shouldn't be able to defend itself. The point is that a trade agreement doesn't need tanks and guns. If EU countries are so keen on defence why not meet their NATO commitments?I’d like to hear it.
Dr Jekyll said:
Nobody is saying the continent shouldn't be able to defend itself. The point is that a trade agreement doesn't need tanks and guns. If EU countries are so keen on defence why not meet their NATO commitments?
Because, as with the EU membership itself, the majority are freeloaders. toppstuff said:
Without cliches about WW2 could someone with a brain explain the pros and cons of the European continent being able to defend itself without depending on the US please ?
I’d like to hear it.
The main reason is because it is not needed.I’d like to hear it.
When you appreciate this then you can question why do they want it?
From there you realise their reasoning holds only 1 ultimate outcome.
Finally there is the question of the democratic accountability of such an army.
This series of causes and effects will result in an army under the control of the European Commission committing to some kind of military action. Whether that is to the East, West or within is anyone's guess.
Whichever way it goes though will not be in the interests of the UK.
esxste said:
Warnings of an EU Army were used in Leave campaign materials, as a reason to leave.
Leave won the referendum and our Prime Minister has committed us to leaving the EU.
After March 29th, we no longer have a veto on it.
Just one of the chickens coming home to roost.
How long do you honestly believe the UK could hold back the EU? Try and be honest...Leave won the referendum and our Prime Minister has committed us to leaving the EU.
After March 29th, we no longer have a veto on it.
Just one of the chickens coming home to roost.
Wouldn't a single European Army benefit from economies of scale and thus cost savings?
The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
Helicopter123 said:
Wouldn't a single European Army benefit from economies of scale and thus cost savings?
The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
NATO is the cheapest deal in history for Europe and yet the majority of Europe don't want to pay their measly 2%.The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
You clearly don't understand just how much money the USA pumps into its military power if you think the EU countries could replace that.
Helicopter123 said:
Wouldn't a single European Army benefit from economies of scale and thus cost savings?
The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
Who buys who's kit?The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
Look how inefficient our MOD is then times that by the member states, then add in the pressure from Germany & France, for example, to use their stuff - there's already STANAG and even a cup of tea can be made to 'NATO Standard'...
Helicopter123 said:
Wouldn't a single European Army benefit from economies of scale and thus cost savings?
The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
My answer above gives clear reasons we should all be concerned. Economic expediency is not a good enough reason for the change in command structure being put forward The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
Helicopter123 said:
Wouldn't a single European Army benefit from economies of scale and thus cost savings?
The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
Maybe the simple fact that you, unlike others here including me, haven't had family members murdered by Germans in army uniform, within living memory?The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
It may sound somewhat dramatic, but I could see an EU Army moving into a member state who didn't fulfil their obligations and decided to do their own thing, all under the guise of stability etc...
Had Greece the courage of it's convictions when it all went tits up and they'd refused to accept the economic bail out conditions, reintroduced their own currency and written of the debts to the EU, I have no reservation that troops would have been sent in to secure institutions and arrest those deemed responsible.
Same if Italy did the same.
Had Greece the courage of it's convictions when it all went tits up and they'd refused to accept the economic bail out conditions, reintroduced their own currency and written of the debts to the EU, I have no reservation that troops would have been sent in to secure institutions and arrest those deemed responsible.
Same if Italy did the same.
Mothersruin said:
It may sound somewhat dramatic, but I could see an EU Army moving into a member state who didn't fulfil their obligations and decided to do their own thing, all under the guise of stability etc...
Had Greece the courage of it's convictions when it all went tits up and they'd refused to accept the economic bail out conditions, reintroduced their own currency and written of the debts to the EU, I have no reservation that troops would have been sent in to secure institutions and arrest those deemed responsible.
Same if Italy did the same.
Exactly. The EU's army's raison d'etre would be the preservation of the EU.Had Greece the courage of it's convictions when it all went tits up and they'd refused to accept the economic bail out conditions, reintroduced their own currency and written of the debts to the EU, I have no reservation that troops would have been sent in to secure institutions and arrest those deemed responsible.
Same if Italy did the same.
John145 said:
How long do you honestly believe the UK could hold back the EU? Try and be honest...
This is the thing. The UK was with France and Germany, one of the biggest influencers of EU policies. Very little was forced on the UK. And what was forced on us, often came with sweeteners in other areas. That's just politics at any level. An EU army... assuming the Tories didn't see it as a way to further lower public spending, could have been opposed/delayed by us for a long time. Certainly the EU would have planned any defence force with the UK at the forefront, along with France for the obvious reasons that the UK and France have the biggest and most effective armed forces. To leave the UK out, while it was still a member of the EU would have been politically unacceptable... the increased costs that the EU countries will now face would have been unacceptable when someone can pipe up and say... "why are we doing this without the UK?, We should get them involved instead!".
I really do love the logical consistency I sometimes see, that the UK was somehow in thrall to the EU, a pitiful slave dictated to by others... but unshackled we're somehow going to be able to demand favorable trade deals around the world and be a power to be reckoned with.
Helicopter123 said:
Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war,
at what point was that ?The EU was a trading bloc
for sometime the UK was outside of it and indeed was not wanted
at the point where those in Europe knew they could not deliver their agenda without the UK we were 'invited' to come into a Common Market - thats has evolved into where we are today. Look how well The Common Market and the EU commission did the last time there was war in Europe around 1992 ish
Edited by Ziplobb on Wednesday 14th November 11:17
Mothersruin said:
It may sound somewhat dramatic, but I could see an EU Army moving into a member state who didn't fulfil their obligations and decided to do their own thing, all under the guise of stability etc...
Had Greece the courage of it's convictions when it all went tits up and they'd refused to accept the economic bail out conditions, reintroduced their own currency and written of the debts to the EU, I have no reservation that troops would have been sent in to secure institutions and arrest those deemed responsible.
Same if Italy did the same.
nail, headHad Greece the courage of it's convictions when it all went tits up and they'd refused to accept the economic bail out conditions, reintroduced their own currency and written of the debts to the EU, I have no reservation that troops would have been sent in to secure institutions and arrest those deemed responsible.
Same if Italy did the same.
Harry H said:
Helicopter123 said:
Wouldn't a single European Army benefit from economies of scale and thus cost savings?
The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
Trouble is with a single European Army comes a united Foreign Policy as well. Notice how the German Chancellor instantly called for a ban on exporting weapons to Saudi over the latest Journalist death shenanigans. Fine for Germany with a small arms industry not so good for Blighty. Didn't see her calling for the cancellation of exporting cars. The ability to share expensive kit across borders and cut out replication?
Surely this makes good economic sense?
The only reason not to do so, would be if you felt you were likely to fall out with your neighbour in the EU? Given the whole premise on with the EU is built on is to avoid another European war, I can't see why some are so concerned?
esxste said:
Warnings of an EU Army were used in Leave campaign materials, as a reason to leave.
Leave won the referendum and our Prime Minister has committed us to leaving the EU.
After March 29th, we no longer have a veto on it.
Just one of the chickens coming home to roost.
A remain campaigner warning us of the need to veto a European army.Leave won the referendum and our Prime Minister has committed us to leaving the EU.
After March 29th, we no longer have a veto on it.
Just one of the chickens coming home to roost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ruu-4f6ugA
Ziplobb said:
at what point was that ?
The EU was a trading bloc
for sometime the UK was outside of it and indeed was not wanted
at the point where those in Europe knew they could not deliver their agenda without the UK we were 'invited' to come into a Common Market - thats has evolved into where we are today. Look how well The Common Market and the EU commission did the last time there was war in Europe around 1992 ish
You need to go back further.The EU was a trading bloc
for sometime the UK was outside of it and indeed was not wanted
at the point where those in Europe knew they could not deliver their agenda without the UK we were 'invited' to come into a Common Market - thats has evolved into where we are today. Look how well The Common Market and the EU commission did the last time there was war in Europe around 1992 ish
Edited by Ziplobb on Wednesday 14th November 11:17
European Coal and Steel Community
1951
Treaty of Paris
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff