Opening gambits in EU / UK exit negotiations;

[bee]

13 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Germany, France and up to 21 other countries will give an ultimatum to Hungary and Poland this year demanding that they accept their quota of migrants or get out of the EU.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/take-in-migrants-or-leave-eu-tells-hungary-and-poland-rscwfgtwn

 

Good job the German lead EU doesn't have an Army (yet) - or they would probably just send the troops and tanks in to 
ensure that Hungary and Poland do as they're told - 

gulp 

deja vous anyone,,?

 

[stevewinn]

12 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

You take this seriously, don't you? The most stupid, suicidal move the UK has made in it's history, and you think it's worth arguing the pros and cons?

Shakes head in bewilderment.

 

A suicidal move was to join WWII when Poland was invaded, a Suicidal move was to continue fighting when the Continent of Europe had fallen and Herr Hitler offered the United Kingdom on three separate occasions that if she became neutral Germany would guarantee Britain and its empire would not be attacked. now that was suicidal. Leaving a political Union of treaties in comparison c'mon man get things in perspective.

3 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

sorry Steve, are you saying you think that's good or a bad thing? 

Im saying, it is what it is. Geopolitics more than anything else. there are those who shape the world and those who are shaped by it. for the record we've been shaping the world since 1588.

1 hour ago, bee said:

 

Good job the German lead EU doesn't have an Army (yet) - or they would probably just send the troops and tanks in to 
ensure that Hungary and Poland do as they're told - 

gulp 

deja vous anyone,,?

 

I've posted on here many moons ago, probably about 2010 - i watched a debate in the EU parliament where they we discussing an EU army, one of the proposals by a MEP was to base troops in different states. IE: you'd have Italian troops in the UK, German troops in Spain etc....

In my mind you only do that for one reason and one reason alone, - and that's if the need ever arose for the Federation to quell an uprising in one of its provinces troops from a different state will be more willing to follow orders. 

Edited August 5, 2017 by stevewinn

[godnodog]

6 hours ago, stevewinn said:

 

I've posted on here many moons ago, probably about 2010 - i watched a debate in the EU parliament where they we discussing an EU army, one of the proposals by a MEP was to base troops in different states. IE: you'd have Italian troops in the UK, German troops in Spain etc....

In my mind you only do that for one reason and one reason alone, - and that's if the need ever arose for the Federation to quell an uprising in one of its provinces troops from a different state will be more willing to follow orders. 

Although I understand your opinion, one of the reasons for that proposal was to help create a sense of unity, you watch my back I watch yours.

Personnaly, I am in favor of an EU army for strickt defense purposes, complely independent from Nato but compatible with Nato (logistic reasons)

I can now see that happening with the UK out, not immediatly of course, but the biggining of discussions of a framework.

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I've posted on here many moons ago, probably about 2010 - i watched a debate in the EU parliament where they we discussing an EU army, one of the proposals by a MEP was to base troops in different states. IE: you'd have Italian troops in the UK, German troops in Spain etc....

Is this situation envisaging that the Americans (who already have troops stationed absolutely everywhere all over the world) would stand back and let such a hypothetical situation happen, or does this envisage that some mad President would have pulled all American forces out of Europe out of some mad isolationist impulse or something, or perhaps that the EU would have forced America to pull all its forces out?? 

[keithisco]

The only reason for an EU Army to be raised is to set in stone the domination of the stronger states through a Federal States of Europe-a full Political Union as well as a Unitary Economic Union. The mooted "Tax Harmonisation" strips the weaker nations of the ability to attract foreign investment and the flow of money will continue to The French and German States.

There is no foreseeable strategic imperative for such an Army, relative peace is and always has been, ensured by membership of NATO. It will simply mean a duplication of NATO structures when the majority of NATO members do not even meet their financial obligations. Will countries really pay for both an EU army AND NATO membership?

Ireland is a self-declared neutral country but that neutrality is negated if they contribute to a EU Army-how will Eire square that particular circle...by NOT paying towards a EU Army?? Would that even be allowed by an increasingly autocratic EU Commission?

I believe, and it is just my opinion, that the setting up of an EU Army is the pre-cursor to the total subsuming of all nation states to the God of Federalism.

Is this whole development little more than a deceitful move to dis-assemble NATO for whatever nefarious reasons the EU may have, perhaps even to weaken the power of the USA??

[Space Commander Travis]

10 minutes ago, keithisco said:

There is no foreseeable strategic imperative for such an Army, relative peace is and always has been, ensured by membership of NATO. It will simply mean a duplication of NATO structures when the majority of NATO members do not even meet their financial obligations. Will countries really pay for both an EU army AND NATO membership?

Ah but once again that depends on the goodwill of the Americans. And even though the current President was persuaded to go back on his talk of NATO being obsolete, we all know how unpredictable any current and any likely future American administration is likely to be, and you do have to wonder since the price of America's continued support seem to be for Europe to go along with whatever idiotic belligerent bluster the White House comes out with next. Would you want war with Iran if that was the price for America's 'protection'? 

[keithisco]

3 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Ah but once again that depends on the goodwill of the Americans. And even though the current President was persuaded to go back on his talk of NATO being obsolete, we all know how unpredictable any current and any likely future American administration is likely to be, and you do have to wonder since the price of America's continued support seem to be for Europe to go along with whatever idiotic belligerent bluster the White House comes out with next. Would you want war with Iran if that was the price for America's 'protection'? 

I do not pursue War with Iran. A war on Iranian soil will not automatically trigger Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

[Space Commander Travis]

Just now, keithisco said:

I do not pursue War with Iran. A war on Iranian soil will not automatically trigger Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

But any current or future American administration might insist on support for such a thing (or with anywhere else that takes their fancy) as a price for America continuing to support NATO, just hypothetically, although by no means utterly implausibly. 

[keithisco]

Any American administration can REQUEST support at anytime. It has never been conditional on the US continued support of nATO. Such a move would never be passed by Congress

[Space Commander Travis]

Oh for goodness sake Keith, you're not that naive. America can demand whatever it likes of anywhere it likes whenever it likes. And what does Congress want? It wants the freedom to impose Military Action wherever it likes whenever it likes. 

[eugenonegin]

On ‎31‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 8:59 PM, keithisco said:

I wasnt aware that the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway etc (you get my drift) have infinitely lower wages than the UK. You have fallen into the obvious Remoaner trap of believing that there will be absolutely NO trade with the EU27 after Brexit-this is a basic error and the income from tariffs we would place on BMW(for example) are worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the exchequer. As the Pacific nations expand their economic muscles then yes, they will want to put some of their new wealth into the UK, and even more so will want access to the City of London unique trading facilities and capabilities.

Moving on: we will be able to buy on the world commodities markets which will reduce prices for the UK consumer and at the same time support those 3rd world nations that are currently "locked-out" of selling into the EU because of protectionist tariffs, which we would not be obliged to levy. Instead of paying inflated French, German, Spanish, Italian prices for produce because of CAP subsidies, we would buy on the free market.    

Vince Cable's view:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764278/Lib-Dem-leader-Vince-Cable-blasts-hardliners.html

[Space Commander Travis]

he's becoming something of a troll isn't he, old Vince. he's obviously decided on his niche corner of support and he doesn't care who else he insults.

[eugenonegin]

48 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

he's becoming something of a troll isn't he, old Vince. he's obviously decided on his niche corner of support and he doesn't care who else he insults.

I think you are right. Since Brexit is a reality, it is a bit Fifth Columnist to keep undermining it.

[stevewinn]

22 hours ago, godnodog said:

Although I understand your opinion, one of the reasons for that proposal was to help create a sense of unity, you watch my back I watch yours.

Personnaly, I am in favor of an EU army for strickt defense purposes, complely independent from Nato but compatible with Nato (logistic reasons)

I can now see that happening with the UK out, not immediatly of course, but the biggining of discussions of a framework.

There is a massive capability gap between NATO and any would be EU army.

As it stands today any EU army cannot defend itself. - Russia would have fun.

A credible EU Army would need a substantial rise in spending. somewhere in the region of 6 to 8% GDP. and that's before we'd have to factor in € contributions to NATO IE: conform to NATO standards. 

If that was all met, eyebrows would certainly be raised when Germany going from a level of being a defensive force to one of offensive/expeditionary.

The secret is no-more, the EU is to become a Federation. EU passport, Single EU currency, EU central bank, all the powers of a united states of Europe, they cannot accomplish that without hard power, hard power in the form of a single EU army, for security and to project power beyond its borders any such Federation would naturally challenge and push up against global powers. including the United States.

now that the UK is leaving, I hope the Europeans go on and achieve it all. good luck to them, they'll need it.

 

 

[Essan]

A  credibte EU army needs the British Army .....   With it they may have a slight chance.   Without it ......  

Just one of the reasons the EU are ****ting pants, whatever they may be saying.


(That said, if Russia rolled into  Potand or the Baltics*,  which they wont, the UK woutd be against them regardless)


* remembering that the Baltics States are members of the JEF- and we still remember 1939-45 and how we failed our friends.  Never again!

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sweden-and-finland-join-uk-led-response-force

[Grey Area]

36 minutes ago, Essan said:

A  credibte EU army needs the British Army .....   With it they may have a slight chance.   Without it ......  

Just one of the reasons the EU are ****ting pants, whatever they may be saying.


(That said, if Russia rolled into  Potand or the Baltics*,  which they wont, the UK woutd be against them regardless)


* remembering that the Baltics States are members of the JEF- and we still remember 1939-45 and how we failed our friends.  Never again!

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sweden-and-finland-join-uk-led-response-force

Lets be realistic, an EU Army would simply be a German tool, extended slightly for any favours for France.

I also think it would be more of an internal police force than anything else.

[FLOMBIE]

3 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Lets be realistic, an EU Army would simply be a German tool, extended slightly for any favours for France.

I also think it would be more of an internal police force than anything else.

A tool for what? Internal? What do you mean?

[Grey Area]

41 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

A tool for what? Internal? What do you mean?

Unsure what part of 'German tool' and 'internal police force' you are unclear about?

One thing is abundantly clear within the EU, Merkal does what she wants and the EU bosses roll over for her.  Any EU army would be at her beckon call, and it would be used to keep members in check, no doubt under the guise of peacekeeping and security.

[stevewinn]

4 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Unsure what part of 'German tool' and 'internal police force' you are unclear about?

One thing is abundantly clear within the EU, Merkal does what she wants and the EU bosses roll over for her.  Any EU army would be at her beckon call, and it would be used to keep members in check, no doubt under the guise of peacekeeping and security.

The €uro would be the soft power to keep the rebels in check.

The EU Army the hard Power for when soft power fails.

Post-Brexit France will have the most capable Army in Europe, and the one which most reflects the British military in ability and reach. The French dream of a European Army led by them. - The French after all left NATO's military structure, They've never liked the idea of NATO, stating its dominated by the USA and lesser extent the UK. So a New EU army would suit them fine. Its strange the French position, because they after all could be classed as Americas oldest ally playing a pivotal role in American independence, for without the French American independence doesn't happen. But, the French have since rejoined NATO's military structure (2006/08) because they were left out of decision making in Afghanistan (ISAF) even though involved in the mission itself a move which was highly criticised by many French politicians and still to this day, Atlanticism as they call it, people will remember French opposition to the Iraq war 2003.

The background to all this, and must be remembered is French desire to stop Germany dominating the continent, first it was the European Coal and steel community, this was to prevent Nations (read Germany) building its military and so stop any potential war, This worked well, while Germany was split East / West, Then the Cold War reared its ugly head with Russia now posing a threat it was decided Germany must be allowed to unify, the French where against this, as was the British as this was yet another mechanism to stop Germany dominating, But with pressure from the USA and others the French agreed only because the blue print of the Euro currency was on the table, and with German membership of the EEC Germany was considered contained. 

Along came the euro designed to keep the French and Germany economies locked together, like a ship on a ocean both rising and falling on the same wave. one not allowing the other from diverging. (economically strong/weak) but as we've seen this is now falling apart as the French and German economies are diverge, so what next for the French, the fear is a strong economic Germany with an equally strong military, the Germans might not have the desire, but the geopolitics means the French do have the desire to be the lead nation in any new EU army, an EU army with the combined force of 27 nations means Germanys military need not increase in size or scope. Something the French will be happy with, that means the French can sustain its status as the biggest and most capable military in the EU, bringing them a sense of security as they can prevent Germany from dominating totally, Its why the French will be pushing for a EU army as all other options, barriers or mechanism put in place to date to stop Germany dominating have failed, the ECSC, EEC, EU, EURO, and it follows in time so will any potential EU-Army at the end of the day Germany will take its place as the dominant power in the EU and wield the power that comes with it, we've seen it already in areas where Germany dominates, IE: Economic might/ Eurozone. - the EU couldn't bail anyone out without German permission, Germany bankrolled most of it, and the same of a European Army, the French might start off leading a EU army but will soon find themselves under the jackboot/playing second fiddle.

Now people might read that and think, Fourth Reich, I'd say no, it wasn't planned like this by the Germans, what's simply happened is since the end of the War Germany as been constrained to the path ahead the only path available, where the French and British could take paths left and right (global commitments after the war) Germany didn't have these external commitments, so focused on internal rebuilding and constrained Germany simply had to grab what lay ahead with both hands and make the most of it, and that's what they've done, grabbed the EEC, EU and Eurozone with both hands, where Germany concentrated on its own focus, the French where busy concentrating on limiting Germany, and the British were unsure if we should go all in or stay out, that's why we've always been one foot in, one foot out. not part of schengen or Euro currency etc..

Its funny how things turn out, institutions made to prevent future wars from an aggressor will ultimately lead to that aggressor and loser being the Victor in the end, by peaceful means what happens thereafter is unknown.

[Grey Area]

9 hours ago, stevewinn said:

The €uro would be the soft power to keep the rebels in check.

The EU Army the hard Power for when soft power fails.

Post-Brexit France will have the most capable Army in Europe, and the one which most reflects the British military in ability and reach. The French dream of a European Army led by them. - The French after all left NATO's military structure, They've never liked the idea of NATO, stating its dominated by the USA and lesser extent the UK. So a New EU army would suit them fine. Its strange the French position, because they after all could be classed as Americas oldest ally playing a pivotal role in American independence, for without the French American independence doesn't happen. But, the French have since rejoined NATO's military structure (2006/08) because they were left out of decision making in Afghanistan (ISAF) even though involved in the mission itself a move which was highly criticised by many French politicians and still to this day, Atlanticism as they call it, people will remember French opposition to the Iraq war 2003.

The background to all this, and must be remembered is French desire to stop Germany dominating the continent, first it was the European Coal and steel community, this was to prevent Nations (read Germany) building its military and so stop any potential war, This worked well, while Germany was split East / West, Then the Cold War reared its ugly head with Russia now posing a threat it was decided Germany must be allowed to unify, the French where against this, as was the British as this was yet another mechanism to stop Germany dominating, But with pressure from the USA and others the French agreed only because the blue print of the Euro currency was on the table, and with German membership of the EEC Germany was considered contained. 

Along came the euro designed to keep the French and Germany economies locked together, like a ship on a ocean both rising and falling on the same wave. one not allowing the other from diverging. (economically strong/weak) but as we've seen this is now falling apart as the French and German economies are diverge, so what next for the French, the fear is a strong economic Germany with an equally strong military, the Germans might not have the desire, but the geopolitics means the French do have the desire to be the lead nation in any new EU army, an EU army with the combined force of 27 nations means Germanys military need not increase in size or scope. Something the French will be happy with, that means the French can sustain its status as the biggest and most capable military in the EU, bringing them a sense of security as they can prevent Germany from dominating totally, Its why the French will be pushing for a EU army as all other options, barriers or mechanism put in place to date to stop Germany dominating have failed, the ECSC, EEC, EU, EURO, and it follows in time so will any potential EU-Army at the end of the day Germany will take its place as the dominant power in the EU and wield the power that comes with it, we've seen it already in areas where Germany dominates, IE: Economic might/ Eurozone. - the EU couldn't bail anyone out without German permission, Germany bankrolled most of it, and the same of a European Army, the French might start off leading a EU army but will soon find themselves under the jackboot/playing second fiddle.

Now people might read that and think, Fourth Reich, I'd say no, it wasn't planned like this by the Germans, what's simply happened is since the end of the War Germany as been constrained to the path ahead the only path available, where the French and British could take paths left and right (global commitments after the war) Germany didn't have these external commitments, so focused on internal rebuilding and constrained Germany simply had to grab what lay ahead with both hands and make the most of it, and that's what they've done, grabbed the EEC, EU and Eurozone with both hands, where Germany concentrated on its own focus, the French where busy concentrating on limiting Germany, and the British were unsure if we should go all in or stay out, that's why we've always been one foot in, one foot out. not part of schengen or Euro currency etc..

Its funny how things turn out, institutions made to prevent future wars from an aggressor will ultimately lead to that aggressor and loser being the Victor in the end, by peaceful means what happens thereafter is unknown.

And of course France has the ultimate military bargaining chip, being the only nuclear armed nation in any EU army.  

I wonder how much weight that would carry in the formation of an EU army?

[Space Commander Travis]

12 hours ago, FLOMBIE said:

A tool for what? Internal? What do you mean?

Angela Merkel is the New Hitler. So's Vladimir Putin of course, but you'll have to work out how that works for yourself.  

[Space Commander Travis]

20 Godwin points to Steve for "under the jackboot" there, by the way. I don't think they wear them now, it's probably NATO standard combat boots, although I suppose they might retain them for ceremonial purposes. 

[Space Commander Travis]

I was just looking up the relative strengths of the German, British and French armies. In terms of AFVs it seems about equal; Britain has 249 main battle tanks while Germany has 244 Leopard 2 on strength (although only about 130 of them seem to be actually operational). France, meanwhile, has no fewer than 400 Leclerc, although only about half are in service at any one time. Aircraft, meanwhile? well, in terms of front line aircraft, France has about 85 Mirage 2000 and nearly 100 Rafale (while the Navy has 45 more, although the Charles de Gaulle is rarely at sea for more than a couple of days at a time before she breaks down again). The Luftwaffe, meanwhile, apparently hopes to have 140 Eurofighters (which I'm not sure whether they call Typhoon), along with about 64 Typhoon IDS. The Royal Air Force, meanwhile, has about 130 Typhoon, plus nearly 100 Tornado still in service in the strike role. There are 138 Lightning II supposedly on order, but we'll probably have to wait a while for them. 

 

Hope that was of interest. 

[stevewinn]

3 hours ago, Grey Area said:

And of course France has the ultimate military bargaining chip, being the only nuclear armed nation in any EU army.  

I wonder how much weight that would carry in the formation of an EU army?

plus, the French seat at the UN, veto, - The EU currently have mere; observer status. but have argued they should have a permanent seat. in fact they applied in 2011, and where told to feck off, by the UK, France and US.

[Grey Area]

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I was just looking up the relative strengths of the German, British and French armies. In terms of AFVs it seems about equal; Britain has 249 main battle tanks while Germany has 244 Leopard 2 on strength (although only about 130 of them seem to be actually operational). France, meanwhile, has no fewer than 400 Leclerc, although only about half are in service at any one time.

Yes but all British armour comes with a kettle as standard (the only MBT's and AFV's in the world).  That makes each Tank worth 3 of any other nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_vessel

Edited August 7, 2017 by Grey Area