EU army - Farage yet again seems to be right

[alfie2244]

AJL308 said:

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.

How cynical

[don4l]

Some of you have complained that Nigel hasn't turned up often enough at the EU Parliament.

You will be pleased to hear that he turned up today.

If you don't believe me, then here is the proof:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQgFdSFBtxo

Enjoy...

[E24man]

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.

No just the quoted poster above but to others who have asked the same or similar question; what do you think the rather paranoid and power-crazed gentleman in the Kremlin would make of there suddenly being a large, centrally controlled, well-funded, co-ordinated single army across from his border rather than the fragmented, largely un-co-operative, limited resourced elements he currently loses no sleep over?

A large single European Army might well send Comrade Putin into delusional overload with potentially terrifying consequences for Europe.

[alfie2244]

E24man said:

A large single European Army might well send Comrade Putin into delusional overload with potentially terrifying consequences for Europe.

Especially if the EU start some sabre rattling which would not surprise me one iota.

[b2hbm]

An article on Reuters today seems to be underling how serious the proposals for an EU military force are. The opening lines are

"The European Commission said on Wednesday it will propose plans by next year to change EU long-term budgets to try to shift resources from poor regions and farmers to new priorities, including defence and security"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-budget-idUKKCN...

I can imagine that'll go down well with all those states currently in net benefit.

[Murph7355]

RizzoTheRat said:

...
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.
....

The trouble for me with this is that the EU has a track record of being sly about how it does things. Hiding the core intent to get people on board, then when it's too late to start closing in on the original objectives once more.

Tin foil hat? Maybe. But look at the history of it. Especially our own 75 referendum, but also the other referenda that took place in the last 20yrs.

People may dismiss Juncker as an idiot. He's the class clown. Easy to dismiss as being ridiculous. But again, look at the historic path of the EU. He's an old buffoon who is in a position of power and now thinks he's beyond reproach. He wants to make a name for himself and accelerate the overall EU objectives before his presidency is up. Worst of all, he is outing the true intents of the EU and showing the disdain with which the elite in the EU treat the people of Europe.

I love him - the longer he keeps on, the more likely the sorry edifice that the EU has become will disintegrate. If it does, maybe we can then get back to it being a mutually beneficial trading arrangement rather than a Frankenstate with cretins like Juncker at the helm.

RizzoTheRat said:

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

The difficulty I have with all these "vetos" is how practical it would be to opt out and then ensure your EU subscriptions are not being used for the stuff you opted out of.

The EU does not have a good track record with its accounts. And with all the vetos allegedly out there it would very soon become very difficult on the budgeting side of life.

Much like the vetos on bail outs etc that Cameron thought he had. Yes, of course David. That would have really worked. You idiot.

What I see happening is that countries with vetos will be"encouraged" not to use them. Clearing the way for the overall objectives to be achieved. More tin foil? Perhaps. Look at the history of the EU though

Also, vetos are all well and good but in running a state policies like defence do not sit in absolute merry isolation with many other policies that need to be run. So again, I'm not sure how a veto would work in practice.

[anonymous-user]

To what end does the EU need an army other than self agrandisement? Given their track record in places like Ukraine led by complete incompetents like Ashton and Drunker it's a fvcking disaster waiting to happen.

[dandarez]

fblm said:

To what end does the EU need an army other than self agrandisement? Given their track record in places like Ukraine led by complete incompetents like Ashton and Drunker it's a fvcking disaster waiting to happen.

You just reminded me of that prat Ashton!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...

This is WHAT the EU is like and always has been. Why we needed 'OUT' of it.
That 'woman' is still raking it in even now and until next year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...

Good riddance to the EU. The sooner it collapses the better.

[CrutyRammers]

REALIST123 said:

Juncker:

"There are splits out there and often fragmentation exists where we need further effort from the union. And that is leaving scope for galloping populism and we cannot accept that because populism does not solve problems. On the contrary, populism creates problems"


Populism:

"Populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite. The word populism comes from the Latin word for "people," populous"

I guess we always knew that was his and the EU's view but now he's said it.

I say we create as many problems for him as we can.

It's actually quite impressive how the establishment has managed to make the word "populist" a negative word, while at the same time upholding "democracy" as a good one. Mendacious s.

[CrutyRammers]

Murph7355 said:

RizzoTheRat said:

...
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.
....

The trouble for me with this is that the EU has a track record of being sly about how it does things. Hiding the core intent to get people on board, then when it's too late to start closing in on the original objectives once more.

Tin foil hat? Maybe. But look at the history of it. Especially our own 75 referendum, but also the other referenda that took place in the last 20yrs.

It really isn't tinfoil when it's there in plain sight:

"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
- Junker

And they do it again and again. And each time, the useful idiots come up with reasons why they can't do the next bit, because of some treaty or other. And then they do it anyway. And laugh in our faces.

Not anymore though

[alfie2244]

CrutyRammers said:

Not anymore though

Not unless they want a peasants revolt led by Farage

[irocfan]

AJL308 said:

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.

no no no you racist - you voted leave coz of the furners like everyone else who voted leave

[MDMetal]

irocfan said:

AJL308 said:

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.

no no no you racist - you voted leave coz of the furners like everyone else who voted leave

This bit irks me I voted out due to the ever closer union rubbish and I'm glad we're out but it does mean I got the result I wanted because a sizeable number of people exercised their rights for somewhat less well thought out and probably racists reasons

[John145]

MDMetal said:

This bit irks me I voted out due to the ever closer union rubbish and I'm glad we're out but it does mean I got the result I wanted because a sizeable number of people exercised their rights for somewhat less well thought out and probably racists reasons

I believe this group of people (those that are truly racist) were a tiny proportion but the group that were driven to vote remain through the government fear mongering campaign was much larger.

For sure there was a large group of people who voted leave because they saw no other solution to an issue which affected them - uncontrolled immigration, wage suppression, rise in rental prices, etc.

The way I read the referendum question was "Do you believe the UK should continue to exist as a nation or be amalgamated into a new nation?". From this question all the contributory factors fall into place and make the decision, for me, obvious.

[Ridgemont]

CrutyRammers said:

It really isn't tinfoil when it's there in plain sight:

"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
- Junker

And they do it again and again. And each time, the useful idiots come up with reasons why they can't do the next bit, because of some treaty or other. And then they do it anyway. And laugh in our faces.

Not anymore though

He really was the gift that kept on giving to the Leave cause wasn't he?

Others:

"There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties"
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'"

In future history books when Brexit is discussed I suspect there will be a long analysis on how the EU politicians had only themselves to blame for the outcome.

[rallycross]

To see what's really going on at our borders fast forward to 14 mins in to this YouTube clip with a (crazed) lorry drivers view of the problem, scary stuff

https://youtu.be/y5R1T2BxtSc

Edited by rallycross on Saturday 17th September 11:55

[Troubleatmill]

b2hbm said:

An article on Reuters today seems to be underling how serious the proposals for an EU military force are. The opening lines are

"The European Commission said on Wednesday it will propose plans by next year to change EU long-term budgets to try to shift resources from poor regions and farmers to new priorities, including defence and security"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-budget-idUKKCN...

I can imagine that'll go down well with all those states currently in net benefit.

Article 50 now please.

[PRTVR]

BIANCO said:

ralphrj said:

Yes, for 2 obvious reasons.

1. The EU doesn't have the power to create an army. It needs to be granted that power by the member states. The UK would have had to have granted the EU that power.

2. UK law prohibits the transfer of military power to the EU without a referendum result in favour of doing so.


We could have joined an EU army willingly as long as the UK PM, UK Parliament and UK public all agreed it was the thing to do. We couldn't be "dragged in" unwillingly.

That's as long as referendum results are respected and the politicians thats we elect represent the will of the people that elect them.
Looking at what's some are saying about the leave vote that may not be the case.

When did we ever get a vote on the formation of the EU ? We were allowed a vote on the common market, then slowly over many years it evolved into the monster it is today, my view is that is how we would end up with a European army, little steps under the radar, agreements, cooperation till it is in place.

[rallycross]

PRTVR said:

When did we ever get a vote on the formation of the EU ? We were allowed a vote on the common market, then slowly over many years it evolved into the monster it is today, my view is that is how we would end up with a European army, little steps under the radar, agreements, cooperation till it is in place.

Correct but no one seem seems to realise this.

[FN2TypeR]

rallycross said:

PRTVR said:

When did we ever get a vote on the formation of the EU ? We were allowed a vote on the common market, then slowly over many years it evolved into the monster it is today, my view is that is how we would end up with a European army, little steps under the radar, agreements, cooperation till it is in place.

Correct but no one seem seems to realise this.

Slowly slowly catchy monkey!