Originally Posted by
Finningley Boy
HM Forces like the armed forces of all countries are an arm of the state. In a democracy, such as we are supposed to have, they are not political, they take their orders from the elected government. As for the "EU army", the idea behind it, in my opinion, is a political move, in order to help solidify the EU as a single nation in due course. Its existence otherwise has no point, not with NATO, it would introduce a competing command and control structure which the very same armed forces, in some cases, would be reporting to. An Eu force, finally, will have no real goal because every operation they will commit to will be under the oversight of NATO, unless you're happy with somebody on the continent ordering HM forces into harm's way at the same time overriding what would be left of Westminster, assuming we had remained of course. Here's a thought for you, if we had remained in the EU and had joined the Euro army. You would have to admit that eventually all orders would come from the Brussels Euro HQ. Should the Falklands be faced with another emergency, say another Argentinian threat of invasion, do you honestly imagine that we could with ease, leave the security of the Falkland Islanders to the resolve of the EU. Anyway, that's it from me on this subject before some gives me a rollocking for thread drift.
FB
If we had remained in the EU we would have vetoed the EU Army, but we didn't and now we can't.
As for the Falklands, leaving the EU has weakened its security not strengthened it. The EEC stood with the UK on 1982, would the EU now?