Discussion
jsf said:
That depends. May is signing up to the new arrangement, so it does matter. I agree in principle, if the UK is out, its none of our business, but that seems unlikely.
The big issue with this is it will p
s off the USA, if they decide to withdraw from Europe as a result that is either going to weaken Europe's defence or become very very expensive to replace.
Looking at history, they will go for the weaker defence until its too late.
You just know without the UK, they will always go down the wrong route, that was probably the only aspect of project fear that had any merit during the campaign. The counter to that is of course the future trajectory, where QMV was going to replace the individual veto, so it was going to be a lost battle anyway.
You are looking at worst-case scenarios - much like the Treasury did during the Referendum. The big issue with this is it will p
s off the USA, if they decide to withdraw from Europe as a result that is either going to weaken Europe's defence or become very very expensive to replace.Looking at history, they will go for the weaker defence until its too late.
You just know without the UK, they will always go down the wrong route, that was probably the only aspect of project fear that had any merit during the campaign. The counter to that is of course the future trajectory, where QMV was going to replace the individual veto, so it was going to be a lost battle anyway.
Until you actually know what the scope and mission is for an 'EU Army' you are just guessing and leaning towards guessing as pessimistically and negatively as you can simply because you are anti-EU generally.
Yes, it is useful to express concerns since everyone should be talking about it now that it is being discussed seriously but we should reserve judgement for at least some real details as to what 'EU Army' actually means.
psi310398 said:
Actually, while EU members remain part of an alliance of which we are members, we are entitled to a view, not least when they are freeloading in that alliance, but seem willing to commit resources to creating new capabilities.
Does the EU have a say in UK Defence matters? Being a part of NATO (I'm assuming that is what you mean, apologies if not) is a separate matter. Currently, every Member State has its own Defence Force. The EU does not dictate what each Member does and the Members are a part of NATO. However, I see nothing wrong with the EU wanting a single Defence Force - in addition to Member's individual Armies - to act for all Members. It may have similar functions to NATO but it may also include missions that are EU-specific; patrolling EU waters etc .
An EU Army described above is separate to NATO and merely, like everything else EU, a collaboration specific to EU States and therefore has nothing to do with the UK post Brexit as it will no longer be a Member.
Where the UK could cry foul is if the EU Army causes the individually participating NATO Nations to further reduce their contributions; that would be a crisis for NATO which you could be concerned about.
Edit to add: As a non-member of the EU, you have no say in whether or not it wants its own Army. None. If in having one it affects EU Members participation in NATO then the UK and the USA can penalise the EU states who individually do not pull their weight or kick them out. But no country other than EU Member States get to decide what they do as a part of their collaboration.
Edited by Coolbanana on Monday 19th November 10:59
Coolbanana said:
Does the EU have a say in UK Defence matters? Being a part of NATO (I'm assuming that is what you mean, apologies if not) is a separate matter.
Currently, every Member State has its own Defence Force. The EU does not dictate what each Member does and the Members are a part of NATO. However, I see nothing wrong with the EU wanting a single Defence Force - in addition to Member's individual Armies - to act for all Members. It may have similar functions to NATO but it may also include missions that are EU-specific; patrolling EU waters etc .
An EU Army described above is separate to NATO and merely, like everything else EU, a collaboration specific to EU States and therefore has nothing to do with the UK post Brexit as it will no longer be a Member.
Where the UK could cry foul is if the EU Army causes the individually participating NATO Nations to further reduce their contributions; that would be a crisis for NATO which you could be concerned about.
I think my point is that NATO members who contribute fully are perfectly entitled to ask those who don't to pony up for what they have already committed to before considering spending resources they don't have, or won't make available to NATO, on other defence-related things. Currently, every Member State has its own Defence Force. The EU does not dictate what each Member does and the Members are a part of NATO. However, I see nothing wrong with the EU wanting a single Defence Force - in addition to Member's individual Armies - to act for all Members. It may have similar functions to NATO but it may also include missions that are EU-specific; patrolling EU waters etc .
An EU Army described above is separate to NATO and merely, like everything else EU, a collaboration specific to EU States and therefore has nothing to do with the UK post Brexit as it will no longer be a Member.
Where the UK could cry foul is if the EU Army causes the individually participating NATO Nations to further reduce their contributions; that would be a crisis for NATO which you could be concerned about.
Why should British or American troops be exposed to more hazard because others won't do their bit? If German troops want to drive around with tanks armed with broomsticks as part of an EU force, they are welcome. But when those forces are earmarked for NATO, we are entitled to ask why the richest nation in Europe is relying on others potentially sacrificing their soldiers' lives to protect it, when it seems unwilling to do so itself. That question applies, incidentally, irrespective of whether an EU army takes off or not.
REALIST123 said:
alfie2244 said:
s2art said:
But at least the yanks have got a damn sight more fighting experience than Brussels. (and more of just about everything)
Only because Brussels (via the EU) has been the reason there has not been any European wars since its formation.or so we are led to believe
Coolbanana said:
And?
The EU Commission throws out ideas and sees what sticks. It doesn't make the Policies merely implements them if the EC approves. Ideas from JCJ are all well and good and welcome, but not all get EC approval. Without all the Heads of State agreeing, major issues such as an EU Army are just ideas, nothing more.
Obviously if the EC approves for further investigation and then eventually signs off, then it becomes a reality. Personally, I am fine with it. But Leavers in the UK have no say in the matter if the UK's Brexit proceeds because it is an EU matter and has sod all to do with you.
Naturally, if Brexit doesn't go ahead, and you are fearful of an EU Army and think you are about to be invaded or it is a waste of money because you prefer NATO alone (albeit you should wait and find out what an EU Army actually means before jumping to conclusions) then you can request your Government vetoes it.
Seems to me that Leavers are promoting a bogeyman Project Fear of their own over the EU Army musings!
it is the drip, drip, drip method i do not like. these people are all civil servants. the emphasis should be on the word servant, there to facilitate ease of life for those that put them in their respective positions. instead they are ideologues ,promoting a future vision that as far as i can see is only shared by other bureaucrats. The EU Commission throws out ideas and sees what sticks. It doesn't make the Policies merely implements them if the EC approves. Ideas from JCJ are all well and good and welcome, but not all get EC approval. Without all the Heads of State agreeing, major issues such as an EU Army are just ideas, nothing more.
Obviously if the EC approves for further investigation and then eventually signs off, then it becomes a reality. Personally, I am fine with it. But Leavers in the UK have no say in the matter if the UK's Brexit proceeds because it is an EU matter and has sod all to do with you.
Naturally, if Brexit doesn't go ahead, and you are fearful of an EU Army and think you are about to be invaded or it is a waste of money because you prefer NATO alone (albeit you should wait and find out what an EU Army actually means before jumping to conclusions) then you can request your Government vetoes it.
Seems to me that Leavers are promoting a bogeyman Project Fear of their own over the EU Army musings!
no problem with them coming up with ideas , but put them to the people and if the people say "you can shove that idea up your arse" it should be shelved. the only person that knows what is good for me, is me. not some pissed up decrepit alky that was shown to be bent as a nine bob note when running affairs in his homeland.
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”
Lotobear said:
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”
What the hell has that got to do with an EU military?As it currently stands the EU spends collectively around $230 billion on defence and has around 1.8 million persons underarms. This is around half the budget of the US and substantially more personal, around the same as the PLA.
The actual military effects that the EU nations can manage is substantially lower than the US or China.
Simply put the EU could achieve an awful lot more if it was coordinated, there is duplication and inefficiencies. It makes sense for the EU to pool funding on certain assets that none of them can afford to purchase in numbers on their own.
The EU isn't some weird conspiracy and any concerns will be knocked about at the policy development stage. I suspect that there would be substantial restrictions on its usage in the EU I suspect it would only ever be allowed to be used in an EU country at the request of the government of said country and for a limited number of reasons e.g. little green men.
As to how such a force would operate I'd say the best way would be a secondment model for units under the EU command with a permanent Command and MoD staffed by individual secondments from nations militaries. The MoD would coordinate EU military procurement and also buy the big ticket items like AWAC's, carriers, transport aircraft, BMD which would be operated as a pooled resource. This money would come out of a general EU budget so it would be paid for based on the size of each EU country's economy.
As to how it would operate I would imagine sometimes it would operate as an EU force, sometimes to back up an EU member who would provide most of the manpower for a mission (most likely France), sometimes and EU member would simply borrow a pooled asset. It would go without saying than any member would have the right to withdraw any person or unit from a campaign they did not agree with.
Talksteer said:
The EU isn't some weird conspiracy and any concerns will be knocked about at the policy development stage. I suspect that there would be substantial restrictions on its usage in the EU I suspect it would only ever be allowed to be used in an EU country at the request of the government of said country and for a limited number of reasons e.g. little green men.
Ah the naivety I suspect that those who form the EU Army will also have those best intentions you mentioned too, yet history has proven what happens when members of a individual members of a Collective group push back against those ruling it and those ruling decide to use force, for example in the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia of 1968 or the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 where I'm sure those members of that Collective didn't think their "Collective Protection" Army would be used internally.
Now while those are extreme examples, we've no idea how the EU will react in 10-20-30+ years when member states start to push back against EU rule, the seeds of which have already seen in embryonic form in some of the Eastern European member states.
If I was one of those smaller nations I'd be looking very carefully at why the political and financial leaders of the EU, France and Germany, want to combine everyone's forces into a single entity when a politically neutral NATO already does a much better job of "looking after" them.
Talksteer said:
The EU isn't some weird conspiracy
Opposite opinions are available.Talksteer said:
it would only ever be allowed to be used in an EU country at the request of the government of said country
The problem is that the EU leadership might well see themselves as the superior government of that country.IanH755 said:
Ah the naivety
I suspect that those who form the EU Army will also have those best intentions you mentioned too, yet history has proven what happens when members of a individual members of a Collective group push back against those ruling it and those ruling decide to use force, for example in the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia of 1968 or the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 where I'm sure those members of that Collective didn't think their "Collective Protection" Army would be used internally.
Now while those are extreme examples, we've no idea how the EU will react in 10-20-30+ years when member states start to push back against EU rule, the seeds of which have already seen in embryonic form in some of the Eastern European member states.
If I was one of those smaller nations I'd be looking very carefully at why the political and financial leaders of the EU, France and Germany, want to combine everyone's forces into a single entity when a politically neutral NATO already does a much better job of "looking after" them.
Worse still, it could be used to provide an alibi for an EU government - imagine the EU having had an external gendarmerie available to 'assist' Spain at the time of the Catalan crisis. How much more politically helpful would it have been to Rajoy to have outsiders cracking heads and beating up OAPs in the name of assisting democracy, people who could then be blamed for excess and lack of local understanding, while keeping Spanish hands clean? I suspect that those who form the EU Army will also have those best intentions you mentioned too, yet history has proven what happens when members of a individual members of a Collective group push back against those ruling it and those ruling decide to use force, for example in the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia of 1968 or the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 where I'm sure those members of that Collective didn't think their "Collective Protection" Army would be used internally.
Now while those are extreme examples, we've no idea how the EU will react in 10-20-30+ years when member states start to push back against EU rule, the seeds of which have already seen in embryonic form in some of the Eastern European member states.
If I was one of those smaller nations I'd be looking very carefully at why the political and financial leaders of the EU, France and Germany, want to combine everyone's forces into a single entity when a politically neutral NATO already does a much better job of "looking after" them.
psi310398 said:
I think my point is that NATO members who contribute fully are perfectly entitled to ask those who don't to pony up for what they have already committed to before considering spending resources they don't have, or won't make available to NATO, on other defence-related things.
Why should British or American troops be exposed to more hazard because others won't do their bit? If German troops want to drive around with tanks armed with broomsticks as part of an EU force, they are welcome. But when those forces are earmarked for NATO, we are entitled to ask why the richest nation in Europe is relying on others potentially sacrificing their soldiers' lives to protect it, when it seems unwilling to do so itself. That question applies, incidentally, irrespective of whether an EU army takes off or not.
Oh I'm with you 100% on that, I too think that if the EU want an Army, they need to decide where their priorities lie. If the individual Member States want to remain in NATO (and they do) then they must pony up the cash as per their existing agreements. If their contributions to NATO are less than they are obliged to pay in but they can afford to spend significant sums on an EU Army, then their continued participation in NATO has to be in question. Why should British or American troops be exposed to more hazard because others won't do their bit? If German troops want to drive around with tanks armed with broomsticks as part of an EU force, they are welcome. But when those forces are earmarked for NATO, we are entitled to ask why the richest nation in Europe is relying on others potentially sacrificing their soldiers' lives to protect it, when it seems unwilling to do so itself. That question applies, incidentally, irrespective of whether an EU army takes off or not.
Since we do not know the scope of the proposed EU Army as yet we can but speculate. Do they think it could replace their Membership of NATO? In which case, they no longer have to pay in and can focus upon a Defence Force that would possibly work alongside NATO and perhaps agree to share resources on certain UN Missions, for example.
Perhaps it would be a relatively small Force, more a Border Patrol-type effort that, collectively, does not require much individual contribution.
In the first scenario, NATO (and the US/UK) is affected only in that it will have a smaller Membership and therefore any UK troops in harms way for NATO has little to do with the EU Army.
In the second, if the contributions are not significant as to make much difference to their NATO payments, then it is, again, no concern to the UK/US.
Let's hear what they have in mind though and then we can comment better - that could be awhile yet though as different Members will have different views and all we will see initially is a lot of varying ideas.
wc98 said:
it is the drip, drip, drip method i do not like. these people are all civil servants. the emphasis should be on the word servant, there to facilitate ease of life for those that put them in their respective positions. instead they are ideologues ,promoting a future vision that as far as i can see is only shared by other bureaucrats.
no problem with them coming up with ideas , but put them to the people and if the people say "you can shove that idea up your arse" it should be shelved. the only person that knows what is good for me, is me. not some pissed up decrepit alky that was shown to be bent as a nine bob note when running affairs in his homeland.
You want the EU to put their ideas to the People? How would that work on such a large scale? no problem with them coming up with ideas , but put them to the people and if the people say "you can shove that idea up your arse" it should be shelved. the only person that knows what is good for me, is me. not some pissed up decrepit alky that was shown to be bent as a nine bob note when running affairs in his homeland.
I mean, as things are now, you vote for your MP, right? After that, if the Party they represent wins the Government, you are out of the loop in terms of general law-making and ideas being passed or rejected. You have voted for an MP who you trust to work within Government on your behalf and that the Government as a whole makes good - you hope - decisions, on your behalf.
One of those trust functions is that they send good - you hope - MEP's to Brussels and, on your behalf, vote for Policies, Regulations etc. within the EU.
The EU has 5 different Branches. one of which comes up with ideas and also implements approved ideas. But the acceptance of all the ideas and Policies is voted for by the EU Parliament, with elected MEP's from each Member country which works on a strict democratic vote that is weighted according to each Member country's population size, or, in the case of major ideas and Policies, by the Heads of State for each Member country where they each have the power to veto.
I think, for such a large collective, the EU does pretty well overall. If it had to send every big decision to the People, every Referendum would take years and hardly anything would ever actually get done. Similarly, if the UK Government held a Referendum every time instead of going to Parliament, the UK would grind to a halt.
You can't expect to be able to vote on everything. It isn't a Dictatorship and undemocratic for the UK or the EU to not include you personally in every big decision they make. You get one vote, your MP. After that, you have entrusted that MP to work for you within Parliament. You cannot accuse the EU of being unfair in not consulting you on all matters any more than you can accuse the UK Government of the same.
As for JCJ, he is nothing more than a Facilitator, he arranges and Chairs meetings, no real power whatsoever when it comes to anything more than ensuring the decisions made by the other Branches are carried out. An old soap who gets the discussions going amongst the really important people; he throws a good wine & dine, that's his job.
Coolbanana said:
wc98 said:
it is the drip, drip, drip method i do not like. these people are all civil servants. the emphasis should be on the word servant, there to facilitate ease of life for those that put them in their respective positions. instead they are ideologues ,promoting a future vision that as far as i can see is only shared by other bureaucrats.
no problem with them coming up with ideas , but put them to the people and if the people say "you can shove that idea up your arse" it should be shelved. the only person that knows what is good for me, is me. not some pissed up decrepit alky that was shown to be bent as a nine bob note when running affairs in his homeland.
You want the EU to put their ideas to the People? How would that work on such a large scale? no problem with them coming up with ideas , but put them to the people and if the people say "you can shove that idea up your arse" it should be shelved. the only person that knows what is good for me, is me. not some pissed up decrepit alky that was shown to be bent as a nine bob note when running affairs in his homeland.
I mean, as things are now, you vote for your MP, right? After that, if the Party they represent wins the Government, you are out of the loop in terms of general law-making and ideas being passed or rejected. You have voted for an MP who you trust to work within Government on your behalf and that the Government as a whole makes good - you hope - decisions, on your behalf.
One of those trust functions is that they send good - you hope - MEP's to Brussels and, on your behalf, vote for Policies, Regulations etc. within the EU.
The EU has 5 different Branches. one of which comes up with ideas and also implements approved ideas. But the acceptance of all the ideas and Policies is voted for by the EU Parliament, with elected MEP's from each Member country which works on a strict democratic vote that is weighted according to each Member country's population size, or, in the case of major ideas and Policies, by the Heads of State for each Member country where they each have the power to veto.
I think, for such a large collective, the EU does pretty well overall. If it had to send every big decision to the People, every Referendum would take years and hardly anything would ever actually get done. Similarly, if the UK Government held a Referendum every time instead of going to Parliament, the UK would grind to a halt.
You can't expect to be able to vote on everything. It isn't a Dictatorship and undemocratic for the UK or the EU to not include you personally in every big decision they make. You get one vote, your MP. After that, you have entrusted that MP to work for you within Parliament. You cannot accuse the EU of being unfair in not consulting you on all matters any more than you can accuse the UK Government of the same.
As for JCJ, he is nothing more than a Facilitator, he arranges and Chairs meetings, no real power whatsoever when it comes to anything more than ensuring the decisions made by the other Branches are carried out. An old soap who gets the discussions going amongst the really important people; he throws a good wine & dine, that's his job.
You may just want to ask the Greeks about that benign non authoritarian EU schtick or the Italians or Hungarians or Austrians or Poles lately.
I don't know about an EU army..there's a French minister wishing for an entire European Empire FFS.
" a federal European empire as “European sovereignty” he told the conference that whilst it should be built “brick by brick,” “rapid progress” is needed. “We should be looking at weeks and months much more than years.”
Bruno Le Maire
" a federal European empire as “European sovereignty” he told the conference that whilst it should be built “brick by brick,” “rapid progress” is needed. “We should be looking at weeks and months much more than years.”
Bruno Le Maire
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff