EU to integrate military forces

[Unusual Tournament]

Remaining EU countries agree to plan to integrate their military forces after Brexit

Theresa May arrived in Brussels on Thursday in time to see the official launch of the programme under which European states will integrate their defences, something Britain had avidly pressed for during the 1990s, but will not be a part of as it searches for its post-Brexit future.

Read more:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-latest-eu-military-pesco-nato-integrate-army-a8111311.html

[Unusual Tournament]

to understand the importance of British membership (for the Americans and themselves), in the EU one only has to look no further than this impending united European army. NATO will diminish as a result and so will British influence in Europe. Whilst the British were in the EU such grandiose ideas were stymied and defeated. Europe will defend itself from here on in and make alliances and pacts independent of America and GB.  

[Likely Guy]

I believe that you were still away when this was discussed.

 

[Unusual Tournament]

Just now, Likely Guy said:

I believe that you were still away when this was discussed.

 

thanks for the heads up. I was aware of that post you're referring to but it seems to late for me to enter and its deviated so i created this one. of course the moderators can merge/delete if they like but until then i welcome all that want to have a chat. 

[+and-then]

European military unification and the formation of a Federal government has been predicted by Bible-types for at least the last 50 years or so.

[Unusual Tournament]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

European military unification and the formation of a Federal government has been predicted by Bible-types for at least the last 50 years or so.

the EU project is definitely the birth of a superpower, one that goes against the interests of the USA, Russia and every other regional power that borders Europe. little wonder that Obama tried his best to stop the UK exit and why Trump has all of a sudden gone cold on brexit. after his advisers brought out the picture book.  

[Space Commander Travis]

11 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

to understand the importance of British membership (for the Americans and themselves), in the EU one only has to look no further than this impending united European army. NATO will diminish as a result and so will British influence in Europe. Whilst the British were in the EU such grandiose ideas were stymied and defeated. Europe will defend itself from here on in and make alliances and pacts independent of America and GB.  

Very best of luck to them. Wasn't that originally what the good Mr. T  wanted, before he was nobbled by the Establishment into supporting the military-industrial industry? I think "NATO will diminish" is a bit paranoid; are you envisaging that Britain would stand aside as Putin's tanks rolled into Poland? If only they had done in 1939, rather than making an utterly pointless "commitment" to Poland that they could never possibly keep. Or are you worried that the EU Army (centered, of course, around the Germans) will itself want to exert its power and expand the European empire by force? Who do you envisage they would try to exert force against?

[RoofGardener]

8 hours ago, and then said:

European military unification and the formation of a Federal government has been predicted by Bible-types for at least the last 50 years or so.

Yeah, but they probably all invested in Betamax as well !  

[RAyMO]

I am probably an outlier here, but me thinks such plans for a European Integrated force is sensible and desirable. Europe needs to be able to stand on its own feet and not be totally reliant on the US.  

Future Superpowers - US / Europe / Russia-China?

[Black Monk]

Didn't the Leavers say during the EU referendum campaign that the EU planned to build its own military force but the Remainers dismissed it as nonsense and scaremongering?

Thank God we voted to leave and the Leavers were proven right.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Black Monk

[Black Monk]

10 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

the EU project is definitely the birth of a superpower 

The EU won't be around in the next five to ten years. Britain is merely the first country to secede, not the only one.

[stevewinn]

The piece says the remaining EU members sign up. - There was three countries which refused to sign up originally, Malta, Ireland and Denmark. i guess they've now signed up. but the devil will be in the detail. what opt-outs will the likes of Ireland choose within the programme. It's well known Ireland pride themselves on neutrality and some commentators have said that if Ireland was forced into any EU army it could result in Irexit. - Its one to watch. 

When you consider that 22 out of 28 EU members are also members of NATO of this EU 22 only four meet the 2% of GDP spending on Defence.

• United Kingdom. 2.21%
• Greece 2.38%
• Estonia 2.16%
• Poland 2%

Now lets consider that any EU Military if it's to rival or surpass NATO, like some posters are dreaming. it will have to match similar spending by NATO. That's going to be a seven fold increase in spending by the EU. then the members are going to have to purchase the assets, military equipment. etc..

The USA is the muscle of NATO in both terms contributing to the Budget and also assets. The USA contributes 22.4% of NATO's budget, The United Kingdom 9.8%. The USA spends $650 billion a year on its military that's more than the rest of NATO combined. the second largest Defence spender in NATO is the UK at £60Billion.

So the EU Army, where are they getting all the extra money from to form and rival NATO. Its going to cost them at least $600Billion. Current NATO members who are also EU members will have to decide if they can fund dual membership of both NATO and any EU defence force. - Many if not all EU members will have to leave NATO due to treaty obligations to the EU.

In terms of capability the EU will have a long way to go before they have the capability the US has, Your talking 30+ years. and a hell a lot of either increased contributions or cuts to social welfare, i don't think Europeans/society have the political mentality to accept such.

To day there is only one country in the world who can deploy such forces and sustain them. - And this is only one small snap shot.

I hope the EU continues with their Defence force policy and wish them well.

 

 

[Black Monk]

12 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

The piece says the remaining EU members sign up. - There was three countries which refused to sign up originally, Malta, Ireland and Denmark. i guess they've now signed up. 

 

There goes Ireland's neutrality.

[bmk1245]

Bit OT.

I wonder, how many years would take country to become top in military power? Lets take country like Britain nowadays as an example: how many years would take Brits to gain military power they have now starting from a scratch (starting point - few helicopters, few armored vehicles, no warplanes, no carriers, no naval fleet, except few rusting barges, etc) given current situation in economics.

[Black Red Devil]

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

The piece says the remaining EU members sign up. - There was three countries which refused to sign up originally, Malta, Ireland and Denmark. i guess they've now signed up. but the devil will be in the detail. what opt-outs will the likes of Ireland choose within the programme. It's well known Ireland pride themselves on neutrality and some commentators have said that if Ireland was forced into any EU army it could result in Irexit. - Its one to watch. 

When you consider that 22 out of 28 EU members are also members of NATO of this EU 22 only four meet the 2% of GDP spending on Defence.

• United Kingdom. 2.21%
• Greece 2.38%
• Estonia 2.16%
• Poland 2%

Now lets consider that any EU Military if it's to rival or surpass NATO, like some posters are dreaming. it will have to match similar spending by NATO. That's going to be a seven fold increase in spending by the EU. then the members are going to have to purchase the assets, military equipment. etc..

The USA is the muscle of NATO in both terms contributing to the Budget and also assets. The USA contributes 22.4% of NATO's budget, The United Kingdom 9.8%. The USA spends $650 billion a year on its military that's more than the rest of NATO combined. the second largest Defence spender in NATO is the UK at £60Billion.

So the EU Army, where are they getting all the extra money from to form and rival NATO. Its going to cost them at least $600Billion. Current NATO members who are also EU members will have to decide if they can fund dual membership of both NATO and any EU defence force. - Many if not all EU members will have to leave NATO due to treaty obligations to the EU.

In terms of capability the EU will have a long way to go before they have the capability the US has, Your talking 30+ years. and a hell a lot of either increased contributions or cuts to social welfare, i don't think Europeans/society have the political mentality to accept such.

To day there is only one country in the world who can deploy such forces and sustain them. - And this is only one small snap shot.

I hope the EU continues with their Defence force policy and wish them well.

 

 

I'm a bit confused by your numbers and facts.  If NATO total is $900.5 billion and the US is spending $600 billion isn't that 66% of NATO's defense budget, not 22.4%?  Also Britain spends 9.8% which means that the rest of NATO spends 24.2%.  The rest of NATO is basically the EU minus Turkey which only spends about 1.56% on its defense.  So realistically a combined EU would be contributing a lot more to NATO than the UK and also the ridiculous suggestion you make that a combined EU would pullout of NATO is complete nonsense.  Why would they?  They are still allies against the "Russian menace" which is why NATO exists correct?  Also, why would the EU challenge the US if they are allies?

Your constant attempts to undermine anything the EU does is starting to appear more like attempts to convince yourself, at all costs, that BREXIT was the best thing that ever happened to Britain.  Ever consider the possibility that your arrogant attempts to display constant British superiority over the "continentals" may turn out to be wrong?  I'm sure we won't be seeing much of you on UM if things turn South for Britain will we?

Edited December 16, 2017 by Black Red Devil

[RAyMO]

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

I hope the EU continues with their Defence force policy and wish them well.

As usual a well argued piece Steve.

My only comment is that there will never be a time when it is perfect to start such a project. So that gives two options - accept that Europe will never be capable of mounting a serious defence force and continue to be reliant on the US and thus subservient to its diktats, or bite the bullet and get on with it.

Having said that, PESCO is not yet at a stage whereby it can be construed as a European army - although ultimately that may be the aim.

"PESCO is a Treaty-based framework and process to deepen defence cooperation amongst EU Member States who are capable and willing to do so. The aim is to jointly develop defence capabilities and make them available for EU military operations." Source

The key words in the above being 'deepen cooperation' and 'make available'

However that said, I support what I suspect is the ultimate aim - a European Army.

In regards to Ireland, Varadkar makes the following argument:

"There are real threats to European security and, over time, rather than relying on the United States to defend Europe and pay for European defence, Europe should provide and pay for its own defence and not be dependent on the United States in the way it has been since 1945."

A reasonable stance in my mind. Varadkar further stated Pesco will be different for Ireland as we can join in an opt-in, opt-out basis;

“We will only opt in to certain programmes and certain parts of Pesco that we want to be involved in, for example, counter-terrorism, given all European countries need to work together to defeat terrorism, and cyber-security and peacekeeping.....

Personally I am not so sure about that, I suspect a time will come when Ireland will have to re-visit its neutrality stance - circumstances have changed greatly since that was conceived. It is reasonable to speculate, for example, that the policy was instigated to prevent Civil War re-igniting in Ireland. Aligning Ireland to the UK, so soon after independence would have been problematic. However, as perceptions and relationships develop, this should become a non factor. In fact,Ireland did give quiet support to the allies during WW2 so in that sense was not strictly neutral.

Lastly, I will call Boris - Quote is from article linked in OP

“We’ll be looking at the new European plans for defence and security cooperation. We’re like a flying buttress to support the cathedral and we think there is a lot op promise in the ideas and we will be backing them up.”

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by RAyMO

[stevewinn]

2 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

I'm a bit confused by your numbers and facts.  If NATO total is $900.5 billion and the US is spending $600 billion isn't that 66% of NATO budget, not 22.4%?  Also Britain spends 9.8% which means that the rest of the NATO spends 24.2%.  The rest of NATO is basically the EU minus Turkey which only spends about 1.56% on its defense.  So realistically a combined EU would be contributing a lot more to NATO than the UK and also the ridiculous suggestion you make that a combined EU would pullout of NATO is complete nonsense.  Why would they?  They are still allies against the "Russian menace" which is why NATO exists correct?  Also, why would the EU challenge the US if they are allies?

Your constant attempts to undermine anything the EU does is starting to appear more like attempts to convince yourself, at all costs, that BREXIT was the best thing that ever happened to Britain.  Ever consider the possibility that your arrogant attempts to display constant British superiority over the "continentals" may turn out to be wrong?  I'm sure we won't be seeing much of you on UM if things turn South for Britain will we?

The figures represent the total spend in members budgets. Not their contribution to NATO. i.e the USA doesn't not spend $600Billion on NATO. 

To quote myself from above. The USA spends $650Billion ON IT'S military. hope it clears up any confusion.

Quote

The USA is the muscle of NATO in both terms contributing to the Budget and also assets. The USA contributes 22.4% of NATO's budget, The United Kingdom 9.8%. The USA spends $650 billion a year on its military that's more than the rest of NATO combined. the second largest Defence spender in NATO is the UK at £60Billion.

In answer to your next question; my opinion that EU members would pull-out of NATO, i did give my reason in that initial post, to quote myself;

Quote

Current NATO members who are also EU members will have to decide if they can fund dual membership of both NATO and any EU defence force. - Many if not all EU members will have to leave NATO due to treaty obligations to the EU.

purely on financial and treaty grounds, in my opinion it wont be possible for dual membership of both NATO and a European defence force, The Lisbon treaty laid the frame work for a EU army and as this 'new' EU defence pact develops over the coming years it will lead to EU members having to adhere and abiding to first and foremost the EU treaty obligations. In the wider context of the EU building its capabilities to meet those same standards of NATO today the EU members of NATO will have to cut back on standing NATO commitments. They simply cannot do both. 

Also i never said in my reply. The EU would challenge the US, as you suggested i did,  maybe another poster did. 

In answer to your next question. (quoted below)

Quote

Your constant attempts to undermine anything the EU does is starting to appear more like attempts to convince yourself, at all costs, that BREXIT was the best thing that ever happened to Britain.  Ever consider the possibility that your arrogant attempts to display constant British superiority over the "continentals" may turn out to be wrong?  I'm sure we won't be seeing much of you on UM if things turn South for Britain will we

How have i undermined the EU's future defence pact? because I've pointed out it currently lacks the capability to rival NATO on size scope and assets, posters are saying this is what the EU proposal is a Europe moving away from NATO and US influence and taking responsibility for its own defence. well, forgive me for asking how this is going to be financed.

I even ended my original post with the comments. I hope the EU continues with their Defence force policy and wish them well.

Not every post as to be about Brexit you know. in fact it was only you who mentioned it.

 

 

 

[stevewinn]

32 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

As usual a well argued piece Steve.

My only comment is that there will never be a time when it is perfect to start such a project. So that gives two options - accept that Europe will never be capable of mounting a serious defence force and continue to be reliant on the US and thus subservient to its diktats, or bite the bullet and get on with it.

Having said that, PESCO is not yet at a stage whereby it can be construed as a European army - although ultimately that may be the aim.

"PESCO is a Treaty-based framework and process to deepen defence cooperation amongst EU Member States who are capable and willing to do so. The aim is to jointly develop defence capabilities and make them available for EU military operations." Source

The key words in the above being 'deepen cooperation' and 'make available'

However that said, I support what I suspect is the ultimate aim - a European Army.

In regards to Ireland, Varadkar makes the following argument:

"There are real threats to European security and, over time, rather than relying on the United States to defend Europe and pay for European defence, Europe should provide and pay for its own defence and not be dependent on the United States in the way it has been since 1945."

A reasonable stance in my mind. Varadkar further stated Pesco will be different for Ireland as we can join in an opt-in, opt-out basis;

“We will only opt in to certain programmes and certain parts of Pesco that we want to be involved in, for example, counter-terrorism, given all European countries need to work together to defeat terrorism, and cyber-security and peacekeeping.....

Personally I am not so sure about that, I suspect a time will come when Ireland will have to re-visit its neutrality stance - circumstances have changed greatly since that was conceived. It is reasonable to speculate, for example, that the policy was instigated to prevent Civil War re-igniting in Ireland. Aligning Ireland to the UK, so recently after independence would have been problematic. However, as perceptions and relationships develop, this should become a non factor. In fact,Ireland did give quiet support to the allies during WW2 so in that sense was not strictly neutral.

Lastly, I will call Boris - Quote is from article linked in OP

“We’ll be looking at the new European plans for defence and security cooperation. We’re like a flying buttress to support the cathedral and we think there is a lot op promise in the ideas and we will be backing them up.”

 

Like I've already said, I wish the EU well with this policy. I'll happy support the formation of it, as long as the UK is not part of it. Im also pleased with the ROI stance on it.

Its a means to an end for me, i want to see defence spending in the UK increase. The policies above will force the UK govt to act accordingly. win win for me.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by stevewinn

[Unusual Tournament]

10 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Very best of luck to them. Wasn't that originally what the good Mr. T  wanted, before he was nobbled by the Establishment into supporting the military-industrial industry? I think "NATO will diminish" is a bit paranoid; are you envisaging that Britain would stand aside as Putin's tanks rolled into Poland? If only they had done in 1939, rather than making an utterly pointless "commitment" to Poland that they could never possibly keep. Or are you worried that the EU Army (centered, of course, around the Germans) will itself want to exert its power and expand the European empire by force? Who do you envisage they would try to exert force against?

What is it with you British and your inherent fears of Germany? yes i get the Germans started two wars but at some point you have to review this Churchillian ideology and decide whether its still relevant,t which sounds more like paranoia than any downgrade of NATO. Just because NATO has kept the peace in Europe doesn't mean that members should take that for granted, Britain included. The balance of power in Europe has changed with Brexit and saying that it won't change the security situation is short sighted. No one is saying that America and GB will be outta the security equation just that things won't be the same again and over time a new power structure will develop. and there are no guarantees that this will be good for America and GB.  

[FLOMBIE]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

What is it with you British and your inherent fears of Germany? yes i get the Germans started two wars but at some point you have to review this Churchillian ideology and decide whether its still relevant,t which sounds more like paranoia than any downgrade of NATO. Just because NATO has kept the peace in Europe doesn't mean that members should take that for granted, Britain included. The balance of power in Europe has changed with Brexit and saying that it won't change the security situation is short sighted. No one is saying that America and GB will be outta the security equation just that things won't be the same again and over time a new power structure will develop. and there are no guarantees that this will be good for America and GB.  

Up until WWI, we used to be the biggest allies. Actually, there has never been a war between German and British forces prior to WWI. Heck, even the British Royal Family is of German descent. 

[Unusual Tournament]

8 hours ago, Black Monk said:

The EU won't be around in the next five to ten years. Britain is merely the first country to secede, not the only one.

that's possibly. another scenario is a smaller EU with the Baltic's, Poland and other central European countries leaving the EU and making an independent alliance with the U.S. or even Russia.  But that does nothing for British security. 

[Unusual Tournament]

10 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

Up until WWI, we used to be the biggest allies. Actually, there has never been a war between German and British forces prior to WWI. Heck, even the British Royal Family is of German descent. 

why stop at the British royals the British nation has a large German heritage from anglo-saxon times. but it seems to me at least that the German boogieman is alive and under the beds of GB still. 

[FLOMBIE]

30 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

why stop at the British royals the British nation has a large German heritage from anglo-saxon times. but it seems to me at least that the German boogieman is alive and under the beds of GB still. 

That is not German, but Germanic. It's a difference. But I agree, some people do hold a grudge. My personal experience shows it's a minority, though. 

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, FLOMBIE said:

Up until WWI, we used to be the biggest allies. Actually, there has never been a war between German and British forces prior to WWI. Heck, even the British Royal Family is of German descent. 

If it hadn't been for Blücher, Waterloo station would have had to have been called... something else. 

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

What is it with you British and your inherent fears of Germany? yes i get the Germans started two wars but at some point you have to review this Churchillian ideology and decide whether its still relevant,t which sounds more like paranoia than any downgrade of NATO. Just because NATO has kept the peace in Europe doesn't mean that members should take that for granted, Britain included. The balance of power in Europe has changed with Brexit and saying that it won't change the security situation is short sighted. No one is saying that America and GB will be outta the security equation just that things won't be the same again and over time a new power structure will develop. and there are no guarantees that this will be good for America and GB.  

I wasn't in fact being paranoid about Germany, Cap'n, I was wondering if you were being. I'm glad to see that's not the case. 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker