Discussion
toppstuff said:
skyrover said:
We already have NATO.
How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
How is that different or worse than British soldiers being deployed on the whim of the United States?How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
Dr Jekyll said:
toppstuff said:
skyrover said:
We already have NATO.
How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
How is that different or worse than British soldiers being deployed on the whim of the United States?How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
Dr Jekyll said:
toppstuff said:
skyrover said:
We already have NATO.
How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
How is that different or worse than British soldiers being deployed on the whim of the United States?How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
toppstuff said:
Dr Jekyll said:
toppstuff said:
skyrover said:
We already have NATO.
How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
How is that different or worse than British soldiers being deployed on the whim of the United States?How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
He had to agree to UK involvement, just as Wilson didn't agree in Vietnam.
toppstuff said:
skyrover said:
We already have NATO.
How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
How is that different or worse than British soldiers being deployed on the whim of the United States?How would you feel about British soldiers being deployed on the whim of Brussels?
You may recall our recent refusal to get involved with Syria.
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
Who is most likely to attack europe other than europe itself?
gooner1 said:
Which then makes one ask why they need another Army at all.
Who is most likely to attack europe other than europe itself?
Isn't this the point? Who is most likely to attack europe other than europe itself?
If the EU Army (independently of NATO) is to counter potential external threats (including presumably the USA and/or UK), it will need to make significant additional, over NATO commitments, investment in e.g. a new HQ and command and control system, comms, intelligence, materiel, logistics, air and sea support (how long would any useful military unit last without organic air cover?) etc.
Failing that investment, any EU army is going to be a glorified gendarmerie, traditionally used to suppress internal threats. Potentially the sort that Salvini or Orban might pose...
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
The EU Army proposal is quite simply a means of Europe being less reliant upon US Forces which dominate NATO.
It is merely a discussion at this stage and far, far from being approved. No one knows what its scope could take, whether it is a full-fledged replacement for NATO, an EU Defence Force to work alongside NATO but much smaller - say, simply a Force as large as the UK's is currently but contributed to by all Nations.
At present Merkel and Macron are the major proponents of such a Force as is the EU Commission (which does not define EU Policy or make these decisions, it just throws out ideas for the EC) but it may never happen; both of those figures could well be gone and replaced by Politicians anti-EU Army long before it gets to approval stage.
NATO isn't keen on the idea and would rather EU Nations spend more and compete with the US stronghold over it that way. There are many powerful voices in NATO representing each EU Member who will have a big say in whether their Nation vetoes it or not should it get to a serious vote in the EU.
Whilst it is a very debatable topic and fun to mock if you disagree, you are largely doing so because you have no idea, no clue, as to what shape an EU Army might actually take so you are guessing and so may be completely wrong.
Until the 27 agree an EU Army is a good idea collectively, it ain't gonna get past the Merkel and Macron Show and let's face it, unless Germany and France intend to finance it, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy will want no part. Right now the EU have circa 3000 Defence Force members on standby who can only be used if all 27 agree to it. Perhaps that will be enlarged to a larger force and used to deter Migrants but NATO or US-size? Highly doubtful.
No, whilst I have zero issues with an EU Defence Force, it is all pie-in-the-sky Political rhetoric and wishful thinking at this stage.
It is merely a discussion at this stage and far, far from being approved. No one knows what its scope could take, whether it is a full-fledged replacement for NATO, an EU Defence Force to work alongside NATO but much smaller - say, simply a Force as large as the UK's is currently but contributed to by all Nations.
At present Merkel and Macron are the major proponents of such a Force as is the EU Commission (which does not define EU Policy or make these decisions, it just throws out ideas for the EC) but it may never happen; both of those figures could well be gone and replaced by Politicians anti-EU Army long before it gets to approval stage.
NATO isn't keen on the idea and would rather EU Nations spend more and compete with the US stronghold over it that way. There are many powerful voices in NATO representing each EU Member who will have a big say in whether their Nation vetoes it or not should it get to a serious vote in the EU.
Whilst it is a very debatable topic and fun to mock if you disagree, you are largely doing so because you have no idea, no clue, as to what shape an EU Army might actually take so you are guessing and so may be completely wrong.
Until the 27 agree an EU Army is a good idea collectively, it ain't gonna get past the Merkel and Macron Show and let's face it, unless Germany and France intend to finance it, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy will want no part. Right now the EU have circa 3000 Defence Force members on standby who can only be used if all 27 agree to it. Perhaps that will be enlarged to a larger force and used to deter Migrants but NATO or US-size? Highly doubtful.
No, whilst I have zero issues with an EU Defence Force, it is all pie-in-the-sky Political rhetoric and wishful thinking at this stage.
Coolbanana said:
The EU Army proposal is quite simply a means of Europe being less reliant upon US Forces which dominate NATO.
It is merely a discussion at this stage and far, far from being approved. No one knows what its scope could take, whether it is a full-fledged replacement for NATO, an EU Defence Force to work alongside NATO but much smaller - say, simply a Force as large as the UK's is currently but contributed to by all Nations.
At present Merkel and Macron are the major proponents of such a Force as is the EU Commission (which does not define EU Policy or make these decisions, it just throws out ideas for the EC) but it may never happen; both of those figures could well be gone and replaced by Politicians anti-EU Army long before it gets to approval stage.
NATO isn't keen on the idea and would rather EU Nations spend more and compete with the US stronghold over it that way. There are many powerful voices in NATO representing each EU Member who will have a big say in whether their Nation vetoes it or not should it get to a serious vote in the EU.
Whilst it is a very debatable topic and fun to mock if you disagree, you are largely doing so because you have no idea, no clue, as to what shape an EU Army might actually take so you are guessing and so may be completely wrong.
Until the 27 agree an EU Army is a good idea collectively, it ain't gonna get past the Merkel and Macron Show and let's face it, unless Germany and France intend to finance it, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy will want no part. Right now the EU have circa 3000 Defence Force members on standby who can only be used if all 27 agree to it. Perhaps that will be enlarged to a larger force and used to deter Migrants but NATO or US-size? Highly doubtful.
No, whilst I have zero issues with an EU Defence Force, it is all pie-in-the-sky Political rhetoric and wishful thinking at this stage.
The last sentence perfectly explains how a coal and steel common market becomes a superstate by stealth.It is merely a discussion at this stage and far, far from being approved. No one knows what its scope could take, whether it is a full-fledged replacement for NATO, an EU Defence Force to work alongside NATO but much smaller - say, simply a Force as large as the UK's is currently but contributed to by all Nations.
At present Merkel and Macron are the major proponents of such a Force as is the EU Commission (which does not define EU Policy or make these decisions, it just throws out ideas for the EC) but it may never happen; both of those figures could well be gone and replaced by Politicians anti-EU Army long before it gets to approval stage.
NATO isn't keen on the idea and would rather EU Nations spend more and compete with the US stronghold over it that way. There are many powerful voices in NATO representing each EU Member who will have a big say in whether their Nation vetoes it or not should it get to a serious vote in the EU.
Whilst it is a very debatable topic and fun to mock if you disagree, you are largely doing so because you have no idea, no clue, as to what shape an EU Army might actually take so you are guessing and so may be completely wrong.
Until the 27 agree an EU Army is a good idea collectively, it ain't gonna get past the Merkel and Macron Show and let's face it, unless Germany and France intend to finance it, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy will want no part. Right now the EU have circa 3000 Defence Force members on standby who can only be used if all 27 agree to it. Perhaps that will be enlarged to a larger force and used to deter Migrants but NATO or US-size? Highly doubtful.
No, whilst I have zero issues with an EU Defence Force, it is all pie-in-the-sky Political rhetoric and wishful thinking at this stage.
2016 - Pie in the sky, you are crazy, dangerous fantasy, you anti-EU maniacs.
2017 - Only to allow efficient resource acquisition and usage, nothing to see here, puppies and soft pillows etc.
2018 - Good idea, Trump gives us a great excuse.
2021 - We need to use our newly formed brigades / divisions to bring PEACE through suppression of political unrest in ((choose relevant country)))
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 19th November 10:14
QuantumTokoloshi said:
The last sentence perfectly explains how a coal and steel common market becomes a superstate by stealth.
2016 - Pie in the sky, you are crazy, dangerous fantasy, you anti-EU maniacs.
2017 - Only to allow efficient resource acquisition and usage, nothing to see here, puppies and soft pillows etc.
2018 - Good idea, Trump gives us a great excuse.
2021 - We need to use our newly formed brigades / divisions to bring PEACE through suppression of political unrest in ((choose relevant country)))
"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."2016 - Pie in the sky, you are crazy, dangerous fantasy, you anti-EU maniacs.
2017 - Only to allow efficient resource acquisition and usage, nothing to see here, puppies and soft pillows etc.
2018 - Good idea, Trump gives us a great excuse.
2021 - We need to use our newly formed brigades / divisions to bring PEACE through suppression of political unrest in ((choose relevant country)))
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 19th November 10:14
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
"I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries."
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
"There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU's powers, there is Charter of Fundamental Rights."
"Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup [...] I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious [...] I am for secret, dark debates."
"We feel we need a Capital Market Union, Energy Union, Economic and Monetary Union but we also think we need security union"
all courtesy of jcj via wiki quotes.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
The last sentence perfectly explains how a coal and steel common market becomes a superstate by stealth.
2016 - Pie in the sky, you are crazy, dangerous fantasy, you anti-EU maniacs.
2017 - Only to allow efficient resource acquisition and usage, nothing to see here, puppies and soft pillows etc.
2018 - Good idea, Trump gives us a great excuse.
2021 - We need to use our newly formed brigades / divisions to bring PEACE through suppression of political unrest in ((choose relevant country)))
I have no problems with it - if the EU wants a Defence Force of note, I support it. I'm not afraid it at all and see how it has merits. 2016 - Pie in the sky, you are crazy, dangerous fantasy, you anti-EU maniacs.
2017 - Only to allow efficient resource acquisition and usage, nothing to see here, puppies and soft pillows etc.
2018 - Good idea, Trump gives us a great excuse.
2021 - We need to use our newly formed brigades / divisions to bring PEACE through suppression of political unrest in ((choose relevant country)))
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 19th November 10:14
If you want to remain in the EU and do not want a large EU Army (remember, no one knows the scope or mission as yet so it is all guesswork), you campaign for your Government to instruct your Head of State to veto it. Job done.
If you want to remain in the EU and have no issues with an EU Army or actually want one, then let them get on with it.
If you are leaving the EU, then it has nothing at all to do with you and your opinion means diddly squat.
Coolbanana said:
I have no problems with it - if the EU wants a Defence Force of note, I support it. I'm not afraid it at all and see how it has merits.
If you want to remain in the EU and do not want a large EU Army (remember, no one knows the scope or mission as yet so it is all guesswork), you campaign for your Government to instruct your Head of State to veto it. Job done.
If you want to remain in the EU and have no issues with an EU Army or actually want one, then let them get on with it.
If you are leaving the EU, then it has nothing at all to do with you and your opinion means diddly squat.
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.If you want to remain in the EU and do not want a large EU Army (remember, no one knows the scope or mission as yet so it is all guesswork), you campaign for your Government to instruct your Head of State to veto it. Job done.
If you want to remain in the EU and have no issues with an EU Army or actually want one, then let them get on with it.
If you are leaving the EU, then it has nothing at all to do with you and your opinion means diddly squat.
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.
wc98 said:
"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."
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
"I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries."
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
"There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU's powers, there is Charter of Fundamental Rights."
"Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup [...] I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious [...] I am for secret, dark debates."
"We feel we need a Capital Market Union, Energy Union, Economic and Monetary Union but we also think we need security union"
all courtesy of jcj via wiki quotes.
And? "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
"I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries."
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
"There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU's powers, there is Charter of Fundamental Rights."
"Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup [...] I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious [...] I am for secret, dark debates."
"We feel we need a Capital Market Union, Energy Union, Economic and Monetary Union but we also think we need security union"
all courtesy of jcj via wiki quotes.
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!
Coolbanana said:
I have no problems with it - if the EU wants a Defence Force of note, I support it. I'm not afraid it at all and see how it has merits.
If you want to remain in the EU and do not want a large EU Army (remember, no one knows the scope or mission as yet so it is all guesswork), you campaign for your Government to instruct your Head of State to veto it. Job done.
If you want to remain in the EU and have no issues with an EU Army or actually want one, then let them get on with it.
If you are leaving the EU, then it has nothing at all to do with you and your opinion means diddly squat.
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.If you want to remain in the EU and do not want a large EU Army (remember, no one knows the scope or mission as yet so it is all guesswork), you campaign for your Government to instruct your Head of State to veto it. Job done.
If you want to remain in the EU and have no issues with an EU Army or actually want one, then let them get on with it.
If you are leaving the EU, then it has nothing at all to do with you and your opinion means diddly squat.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff