18 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

The Telegraph said:

David Cameron faces a looming political battle to defend Britain's veto over defence policy after France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland urged the creation of a new European Union military command "structure".



The powerful group of countries, Europe's largest, also welcomed plans to hold a special Brussels summit next year to "confirm our ambitions for security and defence policy" in a move that poses a major headache for the Prime Minister as the EU climbs the domestic political agenda.


Known as the "Weimar group", the five countries met in Paris on Thursday evening to launch a new offensive to create an EU military operations headquarters, after Britain used its veto last year to block similar proposals.


"We are convinced that the EU must set up, within a framework yet to-be-defined, true civilian-military structures to plan and conduct missions and operations," the group of countries said in a communique. "We should show preparedness to hold available, train, deploy and sustain in theatre the necessary civilian and military means."

Read more

[and then]

That little adventure of Libya that took 6 months longer than an American effort in the same situation - and THAT with American help - leading from behind and providing most of the weapons and cash must have awakened the movers and shakers in the EU that they need a strong arm of their own.  Tired of sponging off of the hated US uncle and eager to project their own power maybe now they will cough up the cash to fund their own military in a meaningful way.  As soon as they have done so to any extent I'm sure the US will be invited to remove ourselves from their sandbox totally - fine wit me!  

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Interesting in a number of ways. An endeavour to create a military alliance that doesn't have to rely on America? Poland usually seems to be one of America's most loyal allies. Evidence of ambitions by france, germany and Italy to once again become Great Powers?
Personally, I think it seems not a bad idea actually, to avoid having to rely on America all the time. Plus, does anyone really think that Prime Minister David Cameroon can really be trusted to command Britain's armed forces properly? The Germans, after all (and a while back, the French too) do seem to have some expertise in this field. (even if we have to go a while back further still for the last significant Italian expertise in that field. :-/ [about 1,500 years])









There, that'll be contraversial with the Up Yours, er, Barroso, brigade. (It doesn't have quite the same ring as Delors, does it.)

[and then]

747400, on 16 November 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Interesting in a number of ways. An endeavour to create a military alliance that doesn't have to rely on America? Poland usually seems to be one of America's most loyal allies. Evidence of ambitions by france, germany and Italy to once again become Great Powers?
Personally, I think it seems not a bad idea actually, to avoid having to rely on America all the time. Plus, does anyone really think that Prime Minister David Cameroon can really be trusted to command Britain's armed forces properly? The Germans, after all (and a while back, the French too) do seem to have some expertise in this field. (even if we have to go a while back further still for the last significant Italian expertise in that field. :-/ [about 1,500 years])









There, that'll be contraversial with the Up Yours, er, Barroso, brigade. (It doesn't have quite the same ring as Delors, does it.)

I think the Euro countries could field a VERY impressive, professional force.  They are very good weapons makers and had professional millitaries long before the US was created.  The US military budget could be trimmed by many billions if we did not assume responsibility for the protection of all our allies.  That's not a complaint, just a reality.

[spud the mackem]

Germany and France seem hell bent on controlling Europe by any means necessary,and are bound to get support from the weaker nations, Britain and America are friends and  we see no reason to change this and become a puppet of Europe because if a war started who would be 1st in the front line ,  NOT Germany or France. (the Italian tanks have just managed to reach Iraq , having 1 forward and 3 reverse gears.),and they withdrew from Afghan land when a couple of their guys were shot up.

[questionmark]

and then, on 16 November 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

That little adventure of Libya that took 6 months longer than an American effort in the same situation - and THAT with American help - leading from behind and providing most of the weapons and cash must have awakened the movers and shakers in the EU that they need a strong arm of their own.  Tired of sponging off of the hated US uncle and eager to project their own power maybe now they will cough up the cash to fund their own military in a meaningful way.  As soon as they have done so to any extent I'm sure the US will be invited to remove ourselves from their sandbox totally - fine wit me!  

just that alone is a sign that they need greater coordination,therefore a common headquarters.

[stevewinn]

this doesn't really concern us, we'll be out of the EU before long.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Quote

Plus, does anyone really think that Prime Minister David Cameroon can really be trusted to command Britain's armed forces properly?

Cameron doesn't command the British Armed Forces.  The professional head of the British Armed Forces is General Sir David Richards, who is the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the ceremonial Head of the British Armed Forces is Queen Elizabeth II, who is the Commander-in-Chief.

If the EU wants its own armed forces then it's fine by me - as long as Britain plays no part in it.

In a dangerous world such as this Britain should continue to have independent armed forces run by British citizens for British interests.  There is no way on this Earth that Britain's armed forces, the best in the world, should come under the command of foreign powers, especially untrustworthy ones who have no care for Britain, such as France and Germany.

And an armed forces under the control of France and Germany will only eventually become rusty through lack of use.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 17 November 2012 - 02:19 PM.

[smurf0852]

TheLastLazyGun, on 17 November 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Cameron doesn't command the British Armed Forces.  The professional head of the British Armed Forces is General Sir David Richards, who is the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the ceremonial Head of the British Armed Forces is Queen Elizabeth II, who is the Commander-in-Chief.

If the EU wants its own armed forces then it's fine by me - as long as Britain plays no part in it.

In a dangerous world such as this Britain should continue to have independent armed forces run by British citizens for British interests.  There is no way on this Earth that Britain's armed forces, the best in the world, should come under the command of foreign powers, especially untrustworthy ones who have no care for Britain, such as France and Germany.

And an armed forces under the control of France and Germany will only eventually become rusty through lack of use.

best in the world ? best trained in the world maybe at a push .untrustworthy powers like france and germany how about the usa  we are european if you like it or not its the continent we live on..as for your implication that germany and france wont fight there are thousands of german and soviet graves that tell us otherwise .keep waving your union flag in the misconseption we are a great military power and the europeans are not .but you are wrong if the uk were to try and take either one of these nations on now we would be spanked like a naughty school kid in one of those private schools you love so much and you have your tory mates to thank for it .

[stevewinn]

smurf0852, on 21 November 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

best in the world ? best trained in the world maybe at a push .untrustworthy powers like france and germany how about the usa  we are european if you like it or not its the continent we live on..as for your implication that germany and france wont fight there are thousands of german and soviet graves that tell us otherwise .keep waving your union flag in the misconseption we are a great military power and the europeans are not .but you are wrong if the uk were to try and take either one of these nations on now we would be spanked like a naughty school kid in one of those private schools you love so much and you have your tory mates to thank for it .

wow steady now, When it comes to the UK armed forces, through the centuries the title best in the world does it apply? all depends, the British have always thrived on having the odds stacked against us, from Agincourt 1415 to the defeat of Armada 1588, World War I 1914 - World War II 1939 through to modern times The Falklands War 1982. were the United Kingdoms chances of recapturing the Islands was considered a militarily impossibility, 8,000 mile supply line, vastly out numbered in the air and on land. we overcome the odds. The UK Armed Forces have only had ONE, thats right ONE day off in the last three centuries. the experienced gained throughout this time cannot be underestimated. the current UK armed forces is battle hardened therefore more effective at fighting. hard lessons learnt through victory and defeat. are we the best in the world? let others worry about it.

[ealdwita]

Another implication concerning this 'Euro-army' (for that's what it'll amount to), is that by having an integrated Military, no soldier will be required to subdue his own countrymen in the event of mass rioting that may well take place in the not so distant future (If the sheeple ever wake up to what's being done to them, that is!). If there's riots in London - send in the French army, insurrection in Paris - the Brits will be employed - and so on. In the same way no Irish Regiments (Irish Guards/ Inniskillings etc) were deployed in NI during 'The Troubles'.  I'll stay with my Gurkhas, thank you very much!

[stevewinn]

ealdwita, on 21 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Another implication concerning this 'Euro-army' (for that's what it'll amount to), is that by having an integrated Military, no soldier will be required to subdue his own countrymen in the event of mass rioting that may well take place in the not so distant future (If the sheeple ever wake up to what's being done to them, that is!). If there's riots in London - send in the French army, insurrection in Paris - the Brits will be employed - and so on. In the same way no Irish Regiments (Irish Guards/ Inniskillings etc) were deployed in NI during 'The Troubles'.  I'll stay with my Gurkhas, thank you very much!

you are spot on, going back about three years on EU parliament channel,  what you have said was proposed. plus they discussed the expansion of the EU into North Africa, Libya was mentioned this was when Gaddafi was still alive and kicking. funny how the EU intervened in Libya by military means to 'get rid of him', and yet Syria same situation but nothing. but back to your post. nail on the head. already in the planning stage by those in the shadows you bet.

[keithisco]

stevewinn, on 21 November 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

the current UK armed forces is battle hardened therefore more effective at fighting. hard lessons learnt through victory and defeat. are we the best in the world? let others worry about it.

Best trained? Possibly, Worst equipped? almost certainly. Best in the World? Doubtful, because many other nations have also been involved in the modern conflicts of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya..Do not decry the contributions of our Allies

Sorry, can find no reference to including North African States (Including Libya) into the EU. Perhaps you have a reference or link???

Edited by keithisco, 22 November 2012 - 05:34 PM.

[stevewinn]

keithisco, on 22 November 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Best trained? Possibly, Worst equipped? almost certainly. Best in the World? Doubtful, because many other nations have also been involved in the modern conflicts of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya..Do not decry the contributions of our Allies

Sorry, can find no reference to including North African States (Including Libya) into the EU. Perhaps you have a reference or link???

in answer to your question (bold) at the time i posted it on here, which included a youtube link of the debate. going off memory, and were going back more than two years, but the EU Parliament were having a debate about Neighbouring countries. - remember these are only proposals from members from the floor. but in the debates Martin Schultz Germany MEP stood up at one point and was banging on about how the EU could not only encourage non EU neighbours to adapt EU basic laws but eventually the EU could with time encourage these countries to reach such a standard they could apply to become EU members. They were then arguing back and Fourth about the possibilities of encroaching into North Africa - and how far would be considered to far. i remember the socialist group going on about it was the EU's duty to spread the ways of the EU. i do remember Russia wasnt invited, because i was pushing the notion of Russia joining the EU - welcoming them in from the cold.

I did find a policy by the EU. - was the debate i witnessed on about this? was it this policy? its too far back for me to remember, how long do the records on this site last

The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is a foreign relations instrument of the European Union which seeks to tie those countries to the east and south of the EU into the EU. These countries, primarily developing countries, include many who seek one day to become either member states of the European Union itself, or generally more closely integrated with the economy of the European Union.

Its rather Funny that the Countries who experienced a 'Arab Spring' are those on the EU hit list. EU influence at work? find it rather strange the countries on the list, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Jordan Syria, have all succumb to a mystery force. i dont like coincidences do you?

What you have to keep in mind is this is a long term strategy of possibilities by the EU not something achieved over night. Its taken 30 plus years for the EU to let the genie out of the lamp with regard to a Federal Union, something you yourself always denied in the numerous post we've exchanged. every time i said the Ultimate aim of the EU was a Federal Union you said no and argued the toss yet you remained silent when the the EU commissioner Barrosso admitted this was the goal. future goal of the EU.

[smurf0852]

stevewinn, on 21 November 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

wow steady now, When it comes to the UK armed forces, through the centuries the title best in the world does it apply? all depends, the British have always thrived on having the odds stacked against us, from Agincourt 1415 to the defeat of Armada 1588, World War I 1914 - World War II 1939 through to modern times The Falklands War 1982. were the United Kingdoms chances of recapturing the Islands was considered a militarily impossibility, 8,000 mile supply line, vastly out numbered in the air and on land. we overcome the odds. The UK Armed Forces have only had ONE, thats right ONE day off in the last three centuries. the experienced gained throughout this time cannot be underestimated. the current UK armed forces is battle hardened therefore more effective at fighting. hard lessons learnt through victory and defeat. are we the best in the world? let others worry about it.

my point was dont slag off our european neigbours armed forces because they didnt follow us into totally unjustified and pointless wars because the usa wanted them to .if anything those nations showed more backbone by telling the usa to pissoff than our piss weak country did and all we have to show for it are hundreds of dead young soldiers . yep waving flags at queenie and all the other fools will never repair the broken families who lost there loved ones for the love of oil and nothing else.