EU planning to 'own and operate’ spy drones and air force

[ORAC]

EU planning to 'own and operate’ spy drones and an air force (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno-in-brussels-eu-unplugged/brusselsbruno/367/eu-planning-to-own-and-operate-spy-drones-and-an-air-force/)

The European Union is planning to “own and operate” spy drones, surveillance satellites and aircraft as part of a new intelligence and security agency under the control of Baroness Ashton. The controversial proposals are a major move towards creating an independent EU military body with its own equipment and operations, and will be strongly opposed by Britain.

Officials told the Daily Telegraph that the European Commission and Lady Ashton’s European External Action Service want to create military command and communication systems to be used by the EU for internal security and defence purposes. Under the proposals, purchasing plans will be drawn up by autumn. The use of the new spy drones and satellites for “internal and external security policies”, which will include police intelligence, the internet, protection of external borders and maritime surveillance, will raise concerns that the EU is creating its own version of the US National Security Agency.

Senior European officials regard the plan as an urgent response to the recent scandal over American and British communications surveillance by creating EU’s own security and spying agency. “The Edward Snowden scandal shows us that Europe needs its own autonomous security capabilities, this proposal is one step further towards European defence integration,” said a senior EU official.

The proposal said “the commission will work with the EEAS on a joint assessment of dual-use capability needs for EU security and defence policies”.
It continued: “On the basis of this assessment, it will come up with a proposal for which capability needs, if any, could best be fulfilled by assets directly purchased, owned and operated by the Union.” A commission official confirmed the proposal. "Looking at the current gaps, possibilities could be from surveillance Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems to airlift and command and communication facilities," said the official.

There is a already an intense behind-the-scenes battle pitting London against the rest over plans to create an EU military operations headquarters in Brussels. Lady Ashton, the European foreign minister, the commission and France – backed by Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland – all support the plans. Both sets of proposals are likely to come to a head at an EU summit fight in December.

“We would not support any activity that would mean the Commission owning or controlling specific defence research assets or capabilities,” said a British government spokesman. Britain has a veto but the group of countries have threatened to use a legal mechanism, created by the Lisbon Treaty, to bypass the British and create a major rift in Nato.

Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, Conservative European defence and security spokesman, accused the commission of being “obsessed” with promoting the “EU’s military ambitions”. “It would be alarming if the EU – opaque, unaccountable, bureaucratic and desperately trying to turn itself into a federal state – were to try and create an intelligence gathering capability of its own. This is something that we need to stop in its tracks before it is too late,” he said.

Nigel Farage MEP, the leader of Ukip, described the plans for EU spy drones and satellites as “a deeply sinister development”. “These are very scary people, and these revelations should give any lover of liberty pause for thought over the ambitions of the EU elite.”

The Open Europe think tank has warned that the EU “has absolutely no democratic mandate for actively controlling and operating military and security capabilities”. “The fact is European countries have different views on defence and this is best served by intergovernmental cooperation, not by European Commission attempts at nation-building,” said Pawel Swidlicki, a research analyst at Open Europe.

The spy drones and secure command systems would be linked to a £3.5 billion spy satellite project known as Copernicus which will be used to provide “imaging capabilities to support Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations”. Currently Copernicus is due to be operated by the European Space Agency. It is part of the Sentinel system of satellites, which is costing British taxpayers £434 million. Previously known as the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security project, which is due to become operational next year.

[blimey]

No surprise: it's full steam ahead for a european superstate. Now, whatever happened to the common market?

[BEagle]

The controversial proposals are a major move towards creating an independent EU military body with its own equipment and operations...

"Heute Europa, Morgen die Welt!!"

:\

[CoffmanStarter]

Now where have we heard that before BEagle ... time to reopen Biggin Hill, West Malling, Kenley, Hawkinge and a few other places me thinks ...

http://www.britishfortress.com/battle_of_britain.jpg

[SpringHeeledJack]

time to reopen Biggin Hill, West Malling, Kenley, Hawkinge and a few other places me thinks ...

What makes you think that ze Germans/Dutch/French/Italian et al are happy about this ? The way we're headed over here at present bearing might suggest we'd be low on the list of being 'erobert' from over there. That said even the discussion of such an EU force is scary in the extreme, let alone that Brussels are seriously planning to implement this.

[smujsmith]

I shudder to think of a military at the command of Rumpy Von Pumpy and Barbosa the braindead. RAF relegated to Rations And Freight, all the jobs with bang given to heroic, loyal, continental countries. My Father in law (617 Groundcrew) must be rolling in his grave. How far are we going to let this country degenerate before "reasonable men" come to the fore ? I see our governmental priority at the moment is "exporting Gay Marriage" :mad:

Smudge

[Rosevidney1]

That nice Lady Ashton is setting it all up. :ugh:What can possibly go wrong?

[brickhistory]

Why?


From a distance, it appears that you have created and are feeding a monster that does, err, what?

Is anything- economic, social, political - actually better because of the EU?

Now you are giving it a military?

[ShyTorque]

Why?

From a distance, it appears that you have created and are feeding a monster that does, err, what?

Is anything- economic, social, political - actually better because of the EU?

Now you are giving it a military?

It certainly is a monster, and it seems to do little other than feed itself (but without ever satiating its increasing hunger).

Point is, not many of us actually voted for any of it.

As for giving it a military...... a very worrying development indeed. :eek:

[longer ron]

Point is, not many of us actually voted for any of it.

Nobody in Britain voted for anything more than the EEC :ugh:

and it seems to do little other than feed itself (but without ever satiating its increasing hunger).

That statement brings no argument from me !!!

[Heathrow Harry]

we never had a vote on joining the UN when you think about it................

[500N]

EU Airforce.

Would the fluffy lefties ever be able to write an ROE that
ever allowed them to drop a bomb or fire on someone ?

I some how doubt it.

[glad rag]

Is anything- economic, social, political - actually better because of the EU?

Ask your [sic] fallen countrymen from cira 6 June 1944 if a stable Europe is worthwhile.

Whilst the Mountain of pish from the EU grows, it's nothing but an inconvenience to what went on before, so YES, it's worth it.

[longer ron]

it's nothing but an inconvenience to what went on before, so YES, it's worth it.

Sounds too good to be true LOL
It only sort of works while everybody has enough money to support the Euro and the Bankrupt countries (and of course feed all the gravy trains :yuk:)

Time will tell

[glad rag]

Have you actually read any 20th century history lr?

Have you understood what is happening, right now, in Greece and Spain??

:ugh:

[brickhistory]

Whilst the Mountain of pish from the EU grows, it's nothing but an
inconvenience to what went on before, so YES, it's worth it.


So the EU is responsible for the lack of another Europe-wide war?

At best, I would've thought NATO as more likely along with the Cold War itself.

But if the eroding of national soveriegnty, as I see it, is a good thing for you, have at it.

But why does the EU need its own military and police forces separate from those of the member nations?

[glad rag]

As usual, you totally miss the point, deliberately or not, in the ongoing "them and us" argument. Have it your own way because I don't really care what you either think or believe.

We have the ghosts of generations lost both in WW1 and WW2 with us, still.

As the MAN said

astalavista, baby :ok:

[brickhistory]

Have it your own way because I don't really care what you either think or believe.

Rather like the EU itself then?

Your view is that the EU, and I assume its related forebears is what kept Europe from going to pieces again?

And I'm still seeking an explanation why it, the EU, would need its own military and police forces separate from the member states'?

[longer ron]

Rather like the EU itself then?

Well said that man :ok:
Its a huge undemocratic financial black hole !!

And yes I am aware of history - but I doubt the EU is a long term solution !!

It started out as the EEC(ish) with very laudable aims and has ended up as a huge financial morass !! (with many people feeding off the many gravy trains !)

rgds LR

[con-pilot]

We have the ghosts of generations lost both in WW1 and WW2 with us, still.


So do we. And just what exactly is your point?

Personally I'm still waiting for a single EU Air Traffic Control System. If the EU cannot figure out how to get that done, I don't see any hope for a unified EU military.

But hey, if the EU manages to form a EU military, just think how much taxes will go up to pay for it, so you've that working for you. :p

[glad rag]

And I'm struggling [:oh:] to see just what it's got to do with a bunch of septic's anyway.

Unless you really are disciples of the holy Obama after all <scratchchin>?

:E

[500N]

glad

In one word, Control !

[brickhistory]

And I'm struggling [:oh:] to see just what it's got to do with a bunch of septic's anyway.


As you pointed out, we Americans have a history of bailing out a Europe that can't seem to control itself, so by your own logic, we should be interested.

At the very least, we need to know what group to talk to as we save the day again. Although Obama may just decide to stay out - "lead from behind" - this time.

So, why doe the EU need, or even want, its own military and police forces separate from those of the member states?

[West Coast]

Curious why euro's feel a need for a combined military force. Your enemies over the past 100 years have largely been internal to Europe. The next to do would lead to a fracturing of whatever alliance is formed. There's a point of diminishing returns, a loose association like the EEC seemed best, the EU seems to be a breaking point, can't even get all member states to adopt the common currency. something further spells the end, to diverse, too many cultures, many differing national priorities to allow such a homogeneous society to thrive as opposed to merely exist. And exist is where the EU is at.

[TomJoad]

But why does the EU need its own military and police forces separate from those of the member nations?


Why should fecking up the world be the preserve of the USA?:}

[roulishollandais]

Germen have always been mercenaries of the monarchies of Europe
.
Already during the US Independance war and in ALL thefollowing wars.

"L'aristocratrie a mis Hitler en place pour faire la politique dont elle avait besoin" (Katharina von BÜLOW 1999)

WWI started when the Prinz was killed in Sarajevo

The yugoslavia war (NATO and French-german Brigad) stopped when the Prinz Karageorgecic could come back in the Belgrad Palace.

Find many others exemples.

Greece is covered with debt but castles continue to be restaured with very much
public aid from European Union.

Some bastards want to get princes, paying no taxes and having many slaves... in their big castles and Parks

Aristocracy has already you money in the Caiman Isles Banks : they are the interests of Banksters rents working for them..

Ashton is a Baroness ? Not surprising.

[Wander00]

If Ashton is the answer, it has to be a very odd qjuestion

[Yellow Sun]

If Ashton is the answer, it has to be a very odd question

If Ashton is the answer then we must have forgotten what the question was.

YS

[Danny42C]

Underlying some of what I have read is the oft-repeated fallacy that "the EU has kept the peace in Europe these last seventy years".

The peace in Europe has been kept by NATO (ie American military power, with some help from its friends). And we'd better not forget it.

Seeing the success it's been having with its unified currency, I would watch the progress of the projected E-unified army from a safe distance.

This bird ain't going to fly.

D.

[Lonewolf_50]

con pilot, they won't pay the taxes now to have a stand alone defense establishment, what makes anyone thing they'd do that in the future?

So, why doe the EU need, or even want, its own military and police forces separate from those of the member states?
Those few in the EU who want that are idiots. The past 25 years has shown, amply, that the EU and the Independent European Defense Identity are a load of garbage.

If, and this is a big if, the "EU" (or substantial parts of it) actually become as a nation state a larger unified political entity (Say, Europe North of the Alps, as the South of the Alps crowd could (at best) barely **** up a wet dream) then you might see something like "an EU Air Force."

Best wishes on that, but at least it might happen. (Prob very small, but greater than zero)

And then, for the rest of Europe, it's:

Welcome the Fourth Reich.
Capital: why not Aachen? :E

[TomJoad]

Why do the Yanks seam so frightened of the prospect of a European defence force - almost hysterically so?

[500N]

As I said before, Control !

They don't want to lose it.

[roulishollandais]

Tom,
because Eu chosed Yanks as ennemis

[GreenKnight121]

We are more worried about who might control the EU military.

Rather like this view of the MLF (Multi-Lateral Force; Italian, German, etc forces with nuclear weapons in their control) once proposed for NATO in the 1960s:

Tom Lehrer - The MLF Lullaby - YouTube


No, we don't believe in the fiction of European cultural/political unity any more than you do.

[Heathrow Harry]

reading posts on here I'm not sure about the extent of cultural/political unity in the US of A these days;);)

[BEagle]

I'll forgive you many things, GreenKnight 121, but dragging that boring, droning, so-called folk singer Lehrer onto PPRuNe is going too far!

There are a few multi-national successes - the NATO E-3A and the Papa C-17 Strategic Airlift Capability (although under the stranglehold of Unce Spam's 'Foreign Military Sales' programme). NATO's MCCE ATARES brokers exchange of service between partner nations at an agreed tariff pretty well.....

But an EU air force? :uhoh:

[Heathrow Harry]

Come come.....

Think of such epic ditties as "Poisoning Pigeons in the park","the old dope pedlar" (spreading joy wherever he goes...), "Vatican Rag" and "The Elements"

40-50 years on and still make an audience go wild

not your average singer and certainly NOT a folk singer (he can play his instrument and therefore cannot be a folk singer)

[BEagle]

My god-daughter's mother thinks that Lehrer is so amusing. Having had to sit through one of his tedious, droning albums on occasion, I can find absolutely nothing to recommend it.... Utter $hite!

Anyway, if Germany cancelled its €urohawk programme due to certification issues and the reluctance of Northrop-Grumman to provide the necessary information, what chance would any 'EU air force' have of operating drones over European soil?

The EDA proposes a 'pool' of commercially-operated tankers, which would suit 'price-sensitive' nations who cannot afford such expensive aircraft in adequate numbers, augmenting ATARES.

[Lonewolf_50]

Why do the Yanks seam so frightened of the prospect of a European defence force - almost hysterically so?
Not frightened of, Tom. Learn what words mean.

Contemptuous of is the words you needed to use there, if it was in response to my post.

An army (or a navy, or an air force) is drawn from the people of a nation. If this "EU" ever becomes a nation, or a nation state, get back to me.

Beagle: good point on the Global Hawk event.

Harry:
reading posts on here I'm not sure about the extent of cultural/political unity in the US of A these days
Point taken, but the difference is that US of A is already a nation, and loves to bicker in public, whereas the EU isn't one, as there are already well established nations, sovereign nations, in place where the EU (or some of its strongest advocates as an entity) is trying to overwrite itself over that already standing and suitable institution.

More for Tom: As to the jest regarding the Fourth Reich, it isn't about Hitler (he only had the Third (and shortest) one). The jest refers to the Bundesbank's attempts to create an economic "Reich" since the 90's, as well as a reference to Aachen (capital of the First Reich, which was Charlemagne's.) Not sure if putting Saxons to the sword will need to be replayed: hopefully not! :eek:

With any luck, we'll see a revival of the Guelph's and the Ghibellines as well. Having another Italian as Pope (Argentina is home to a lot of people of Italian ancestry, such as Francis I) is just one more piece of the puzzle fitting together. :ok: :E

[Bevo]

reading posts on here I'm not sure about the extent of cultural/political unity in the US of A these days;);)

…. Cultural/political unity in the USA???

Please go back and read some history. The US has never had very great “cultural/political” unity. One of its “features”, good and bad, is its diversity in those two areas.

[TomJoad]

Not frightened of, Tom. Learn what words mean. Wow,,get her! Given your response i'll substitute paranoid for hysterical

Contemptuous of is the words you needed to use there, if it was in response to my post.

An army (or a navy, or an air force) is drawn from the people of a nation. If this "EU" ever becomes a nation, or a nation state, get back to me.

Beagle: good point on the Global Hawk event.

Harry:

Point taken, but the difference is that US of A is already a nation, and loves to bicker in public, whereas the EU isn't one, as there are already well established nations, sovereign nations, in place where the EU (or some of its strongest advocates as an entity) is trying to overwrite itself over that already standing and suitable institution.

More for Tom: As to the jest regarding the Fourth Reich, it isn't about Hitler (he only had the Third (and shortest) one). The jest refers to the Bundesbank's attempts to create an economic "Reich" since the 90's, as well as a reference to Aachen (capital of the First Reich, which was Charlemagne's.) Not sure if putting Saxons to the sword will need to be replayed: hopefully not! :eek: Dude, I never mentioned anything, in jest or otherwise, about Hitler! Wow again - never mind learn what words mean how about you learn to read:ok:

With any luck, we'll see a revival of the Guelph's and the Ghibellines as well. Having another Italian as Pope (Argentina is home to a lot of people of Italian ancestry, such as Francis I) is just one more piece of the puzzle fitting together. :ok: :E

So why are you lot paranoid about the prospects of a unified Europe. Does it threaten your manhood or something;)

On the upside, it could mean some rather nice posting opportunities:ok:

[TomJoad]

…. Cultural/political unity in the USA???

Please go back and read some history. The US has never had very great “cultural/political” unity. One of its “features”, good and bad, is its diversity in those two areas.

The US aint had much of that either:E To echo Lone wolfs take on things - "when it does get back to me":ok:

[brickhistory]

And yet still no answer, besides America bashing which isn't an answer, on "why the EU needs or wants separate military and police forces."

[TomJoad]

And yet still no answer, besides America bashing which isn't an answer, on "why the EU needs or wants separate military and police forces."

And still no answer as to why the USA is hysterical sorry paranoid about the prospects of such:=

[500N]

Brick

You know, it's a power trip for them, having their own little army
to order around, plus of course use it to stick a finger up at the yanks !!!

WOFTAM.


I don't like the direction the EU is heading, just like the UN it has
become bigger than Ben Hur and getting bigger.

[brickhistory]

And still no answer as to why the USA is hysterical sorry paranoid about the
prospects of such


I am unaware of "paranoia," but if there is to be a EU military force then perhaps NATO, or at least the U.S.' participation in such can end and we can save the money, bring the few remaining troops home, and let you have at it.

There, I've answered.

Your turn.

Why does the EU, as the article stated, need or want military and police forces separate from the member, sovereign states' forces?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

So why are you lot paranoid about the prospects of a unified Europe. Does it threaten your manhood or somethinghttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
(OK, others have implied the same thing)

Why should we think that the Cousins are scared of a "Europe Superstate"? I think every US President since Richard Nixon has wanted us (UK) in the Common Market/EU. Their current head sheds have been making some very interesting noises at the prospect of us leaving the EU. After all, only having a single European Power to talk to would be rather convenient.

This is another rung on the ladder of a permanent EU. The more things that are shovelled into the European bucket, the harder it will be to fish them back out and, consequently, harder to disentangle from the European monster. Ask the Jocks about their post independence defence plans.

Anyway, the "spy drones" hardly constitute an Air Force: they have no offensive capability (yet?).

[con-pilot]

And still no answer as to why the USA is hysterical sorry paranoid about the prospects of such

Just why would we be "paranoid" about a joke? Like I posted earlier, you lot cannot even form a centralized EU ATC system.

And you think you could form a unified EU army, navy and air force. HA! :p

[Heathrow Harry]

personally I'm relaxed about being governed by remote politicians in Brussels as I am about remote politicians in Westminster

none of them give a rats a*** about Joe Public TBH - and the Brussels ones are further away which has to be a good thing

[TomJoad]

I am unaware of &quot;paranoia,&quot; but if there is to be a EU military force then perhaps NATO, or at least the U.S.' participation in such can end and we can save the money, bring the few remaining troops home, and let you have at it.

There, I've answered.

Your turn.

Why does the EU, as the article stated, need or want military and police forces separate from the member, sovereign states' forces?

Okaydoaky here we go: Why paranoia? Well from what I see and hear from this side of pond you guys are overly concerned about what others are doing; even from within your own borders. In part understandable, you have a lot to protect and will be concerned about any new pretender to the top table. I guess at the simplest level, when you have set yourself up as top dog you will always be paranoid as to where the next challenge will come. At the more local level, I used the term in response to the pejorative nature of your comments (and those of fellow countrymen) in your posts. You come across as very angry and anxious about the concept of a unified European Defence Organisation. This is strange, to me at least, as this is nothing more than someone floating an idea - a straw-man in you like. It is not a new idea and has surfaced before in other guises. So paranoia! Yes, on reflection I stand by that term, I believe it reflects cultural attitudes that inform your domestic and foreign security policy. Now this is my opinion- you are of course free to disagree with it.

Turning now to your question - "Why does the EU, as the article stated, need or want military and police forces separate from the member, sovereign states' forces?" Well firstly I'm not an advocate of the proposition. I haven't really given it much thought to be honest. I can see benefits of course:closer cooperation with our allies, unified command and control during joint operations, sharing of procurement, research budgets, supporting and growing EU member states' defence industries etc. Equally problems of course; none the least of which being political consent and in particular voter appetite for such a profound level of integration. But hey, somebody once said - "we choose to do these things not because they are easy". Anyway I ramble, to the point - why? I suspect the idea is that the influence a unified EU Defence Organisation could bring would be greater than that of any of its member states; the premise is debatable of course. Through such, it would seek to be a leading actor, making favourable influence in world events as they impact on the EU. Much in the same way I guess as the USA's defence organisation supports its own foreign and domestic policy.

Now finally, in response to your closing statement - "if there is to be a EU military force then perhaps NATO, or at least the U.S.' participation in such can end and we can save the money, bring the few remaining troops home, and let you have at it". That really is a curious position to take. It's almost as though you believe, and I am sure I am mistaken here, that the prima facie justification for NATO is the protection of Europe. Article 5 of course forms the bedrock of NATO's constitution. Now I am not an expert in these matters but from what I remember the only time that article 5 has been invoked was following the Sep 11 attack in New York. NATO responded (foremost of which in supporting the USA was the UK) in declaring that the attack represented an attack on all of us. I may be wrong here, but we (the European members of NATO together with Canada) followed the USA into Afghanistan and remained there under the banner of article 5. So why would the USA pull out of NATO - why! Surely we would still be allies? I really don't get it - maybe it's that paranoia thing again!;)

[TomJoad]

(OK, others have implied the same thing)

Why should we think that the Cousins are scared of a "Europe Superstate"? I think every US President since Richard Nixon has wanted us (UK) in the Common Market/EU. Their current head sheds have been making some very interesting noises at the prospect of us leaving the EU. After all, only having a single European Power to talk to would be rather convenient.

This is another rung on the ladder of a permanent EU. The more things that are shovelled into the European bucket, the harder it will be to fish them back out and, consequently, harder to disentangle from the European monster. Ask the Jocks about their post independence defence plans.

Anyway, the "spy drones" hardly constitute an Air Force: they have no offensive capability (yet?).

Pushing against an open door there mate - I don't get it either:ok:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

And yet still no answer, besides America bashing which isn't an answer, on "why the EU needs or wants separate military and police forces."

Because there are 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a year, and claiming expenses, defrauding the public, and undemocratic decision making is simply not enough to satisfy the failed politicians who go to the EU after having been rejected by the ballot box. :mad:

[Roland Pulfrew]

I suspect the idea is that the influence a unified EU Defence Organisation could bring would be greater than that of any of its member states; the premise is debatable of course.

Highly debatable? I would suggest not eVen worthy of debate. Lets face it none of our current crop of politicians understand the need for the military and all see an EU Defence force as a way if saving money. There is an utterly naive view amongst politicians that if we all clubbed together we could save duplications and therefore save money. Except of course when you decide to go to war on your own or as a small coalition that doesn't include all of your "partners". Lots of examples out there in any number of scenarios: Falklands II, Libya II. Syria 1. Lets face it politicians only see this as a way of cutting defence expenditure.

[TomJoad]

Highly debatable? I would suggest not eVen worthy of debate. ,,,,,,,,

Ahh, everything is worth debating fella - to not debate, well that's when you get to call your leader Kim Jong Un, or grand pohbaa or something similar.;)

Tom

[Lonewolf_50]

Tom:
And still no answer as to why the USA is hysterical sorry paranoid about the prospects of such.
You assert emotions that are not present. Called by some "strawman" and by me "someone who knows not of what he speaks."

You demonstrate that you still have no idea what words actually mean, nor can you read for comprehension.
Once agian:
1. No hysteria.
2. No Paranoia.

Spent enough time in NATO when all of the noise and horsecrap about the "European Independent Security Idendity" was being promoted. I noted that the mouths were loud, and the checkbooks silent. The early years of "after the wall NATO" was full of Continental breast beating and swaggering. I saw it first hand.

When the proponents put their money where their mouths are, I'll believe an EU armed force structure ... when it happens. Based on current trends, not gonna happen. If things change, maybe.

For example, ff the US ever pulls out of NATO (which then means NATO no longer exists) I can see a lot of the current members of that alliance forming a similar, European based coalition of some sort. What actual form that takes is wide open, conceptually.

All said and done, most likely such an EU force will be in a coalition with US and Canada, and the usual suspects, just as in NATO is now. Political habits can be hard to break.

I hope I have educated you in the fact that there is no hysteria, no paranoia, and that you need to learn the actual uses and meanings of words that you throw around.

Or, you could just stop spouting a lot of crap. Based on current trends, not likely either.
Why should we think that the Cousins are scared of a "Europe Superstate
You shouldn't. The worry of the "heartland" style conquest of the European continent by the Sovs after WW II was resolved over two decades ago.

The political outcome of NATO's reason for existence has led to some curious mutations, to include the "out of area ops" in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. We grew closer together politically for fifty years than we ever had been before, as nations, thanks to that awkward collection of nations known as NATO. That relationship remains a positive byproduct based on grim reason ... for all of the bickering we exchange across the pond.

[TomJoad]

Tom:

You assert emotions that are not present. Called by some "strawman" and by me "someone who knows not of what he speaks."

You demonstrate that you still have no idea what words actually mean, nor can you read for comprehension.
Once agian:
1. No hysteria.
2. No Paranoia.

Spent enough time in NATO during a time when all of the noise and horsecrap about the "European Independent Security Idendity" was being promoted and I noted that the mouths were loud, and the checkbooks silent.

When the proponents put their money where their mouths are, I'll believe an EU armed force structure ... when it happens. Based on current trends, not gonna happen. If things change, maybe. If the US ever pulls out of NATO (which then means NATO no longer exists) I can see a lot of the current members of that alliance forming a similar, European based coalition of some sort. What form that takes is open to offers.

All said and done, most likely such an EU force will be in a coalition with US and Canada, and the usual suspects, just as in NATO is now. Political habits are often hard to break.

So, I hope I have educated you in the fact that there is no hysteria, no paranoia, and that you need to learn the actual uses and meanings of words that you throw around.

Or, you could just stop spouting a lot of crap. Based on current trends, not likely either.

Random! Sorry fella I didn't understand any of that!

A "strawman" refers to the floating of an idea or paper used to test the water for opinion and to flush out areas of contention. It is a "straw man" because it is there to be knocked down. It is not, taken in all seriousness, as a finished article. Now you have attacked it (the straw man ie the proposal), yes, but your arguments have been highly emotionally charged and laden with pejorative detraction. It is that to which I refer as hysterical and paranoia - the manner and tone, not the argument.

Called by some "strawman" and by me "someone who knows not of what he speaks." - nope I really don't get what you mean there fella sorry !


As I said before, I don't get why you are so excited about this! As for your closing statements - really, is that how you want to conduct yourself. My intention was never to embarrass you fella so for that I apologise.:ok:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Lonewolf_50. You seem to acknowledge most of what I wrote but my secondary point was that the US enthusiasm for the UK being in/staying in the EU may have the intentention of coercing us into staying neatly put. Be that as it may, what the US should be worried about is a politically and militarily unified Europe that is culturally, economically and aspirationally diverse. It will be Defence/Warfare by committee and I shouldn't count on us getting to the right match at the right time; and if we did, expect lots of pleading for injury time. You could find yourselves on your own, in practical terms.

I personally see closer integration of Europe by the politically smart buggers as a catalyst for greater internal unease and, perhaps, public insurrection within the component Nations. How stable and secure would that be?

[Bevo]

The US aint had much of that either:E To echo Lone wolfs take on things - "when it does get back to me":ok:

While you imply we haven’t had “enough history” to make it relevant it would seem that what history we do have has made a significant impact in Europe.

And so far in our press I have seen no paranoia about the suggested EU military/intelligence organization. In fact I haven’t seen much American coverage of the issue at all.

[GreenKnight121]

Ah, but TJ has his firmly-fixed view of what all Americans believe, and (as he showed in the Scottish Independence thread) he refuses to change any of his pre-conceptions no matter how much evidence is offered up, or by whom.

His claim to not comprehend LW50's post is an example of this. The post was clear and direct, but since it didn't match TJ's view he could not admit to comprehending it.

[TomJoad]

Ah, but TJ has his firmly-fixed view of what all Americans believe, and (as he showed in the Scottish Independence thread) he refuses to change any of his pre-conceptions no matter how much evidence is offered up, or by whom.

His claim to not comprehend LW50's post is an example of this. The post was clear and direct, but since it didn't match TJ's view he could not admit to comprehending it.


Could not be further from the truth fella.

he refuses to change any of his pre-conceptions no matter how much evidence is offered up, or by whom . To what evidence do you refer; I have seen only opinion and rhetoric.

examples: as the South of the Alps crowd could (at best) barely **** up a wet dream)
Welcome the Fourth Reich
And yet still no answer, besides America bashing which isn't an answer

In my opinion these comments are borne from hysteria and paranoia. Lone Wolf - these are the words I use, the meaning of which I fully comprehend.:ok:


His claim to not comprehend LW50's post is an example of this. The post was clear and direct, but since it didn't match TJ's view he could not admit to comprehending it. Wow, so now you claim to know my mind better than myself - outstanding! I genuinely could not follow LW's train of thought it was far from clear and direct. I believe he had confused the term "straw man" believing it was a personal insult, hence my further clarification.

I think your post, above all, sum's up my argument fella, thank you.:ok:

[Roland Pulfrew]

Wow, so now you claim to know my mind better than myself - outstanding!

But of course you couldn't be accused of doing the same with our American cousins, could you fella? ;)

[TomJoad]

But of course you couldn't be accused of doing the same with our American cousins, could you fella? ;)

Of course I could, you have just done it in a round about way! Whether it would be correct or not, well then, that would be debatable - highly perhaps.;)

You don't like the ''fella'' thing do you Roland:D Never mind always a pleasure to hear from you.

[Lonewolf_50]

Golf:
You seem to acknowledge most of what I wrote but my secondary point was that the US enthusiasm for the UK being in/staying in the EU may have the intentention of coercing us into staying neatly put.
The UK can in or out of EU as UK so desires, that doesn't necessarily change the Transatlantic link, nor bilateral relations. I am not sure I understand the assertion of "enthusiasm" in the US for the UK to join an EU that is a superstate composed of what are now member states. Where is that enthusism rooted? Do you have any links? :confused:
Be that as it may, what the US should be worried about is a politically and militarily unified Europe that is culturally, economically and aspirationally diverse.
Worried? Given the wide variety of nations with whom we've worked over the years, I don't see that as a worry. Figure out mutual interests and press on. It would save us a bit of money if NATO were to disband, though part of the cost of that would be loss of access to some geography and nicely located bases.

That said: an old history prof had an interesting analytical model that showed "culturally diverse" empires as self-imploding.

His examples were:
Roman Empire
Ottoman Empire
Soviet Empire
Austro Hungarian Empire
Very likely, in his view: The United States. (He framed the point, due to size of US being about the size of Europe ... with America as an Empire).
It will be Defence/Warfare by committee and I shouldn't count on us getting to the right match at the right time; and if we did, expect lots of pleading for injury time. You could find yourselves on your own, in practical terms.
Yes, and the core problem with that is locational, see above. Even so, the rhetoric for NATO to no longer exist, once the Wall fell, began in the US and still has its proponents. Not a lot of them, at present, but that theme has not disappeared. The out of area ops are a mixed bag, in terms of results, the core advantage being preformed coalition protocols and standards, as well as some core C4I already in existence. That, and habitual relationships.
I personally see closer integration of Europe by the politically smart buggers as a catalyst for greater internal unease and, perhaps, public insurrection within the component Nations. How stable and secure would that be?
Economics and politics overlap a lot. How positive has the economic integration been? Doesn't that depend on whom you ask? Seems to me, from the outside, a very mixed bag. As above, the Bundesbank acted as the economic anchor for the great Euro move (and I seem to recall about 11 currencies were at that point already indexed to the Deutschmark anyway, to include the Italian lira ...)

So, what acts as the political anchor? I'd be interested to have that explained. :ok: Without that anchor (polotical and cultural) the military structure that serves that new political entity cannot arise.

[Biggus]

If we can stop the transatlantic bickering for a while, and get back to the point....


I personally, and I suspect the vast majority of its citizens, do not want to see EU armed forces or police. The only people who wish to see this come about are a small number of politicians and intelligentsia who see it as just another step on the road to the construction of their EU super state. They have a habit of ignoring the wishes of the citizens (after all, they don't know what's in their best interest), and such inconveniences as votes that go against them - working on the principle that they will keep asking the question until they get the answer they want.

[TomJoad]

I suspect that if they (the euro intelligentsia) really push for this then it would seal the deal for a UK in/out referenda. Perhaps we should support the idea then afterall:E

[plans123]

You forgot to mention the European Air Transport Command (EATC) just across the carpark from MCCE that is controlling combined German, Dutch, Belgian and French AT assets (soon to be joined by Spain and possibly Italy) and doing it very well. So well in fact that 2Gp could learn a thing or two and has been recently visited by the RAF to look at potential possibilities.

I had the misfortune to speak to a certain Sqn Ldr in FH at a secret AT base in Oxfordshire a year ago. When mentioning EATC, his reply was 'Never heard of them, they can't be that important'.... Oh really..... :=

[TomJoad]

You forgot to mention the European Air Transport Command (EATC) just across the carpark from MCCE that is controlling combined German, Dutch, Belgian and French AT assets (soon to be joined by Spain and possibly Italy) and doing it very well. So well in fact that 2Gp could learn a thing or two and has been recently visited by the RAF to look at potential possibilities.



Shhhh, don't say that - some worried folk around here.:}

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Where is that enthusism rooted? Do you have any links?

I'm unable to provide any links so long after we joined the Common Market. I can only relate what I heard and read at the time and the impression I gained. Regarding current enthusiasm for us staying put in the EU:

EU exit would put US trade deal at risk, Britain warned | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/eu-exit-risks-us-trade-deal)

Britain could miss out on billions of pounds of U.S. investment if it leaves the EU, Obama officials warn | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331753/Britain-miss-billions-pounds-U-S-investment-leaves-EU-Obama-officials-warn.html)

US publicly voices concerns over Britain leaving EU - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9791484/US-publicly-voices-concerns-over-Britain-leaving-EU.html)

Daily Telegraph

The Obama administration has warned British officials that if the UK leaves Europe it will exclude itself from a US-EU trade and investment partnership potentially worth hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that it was very unlikely that Washington would make a separate deal with Britain.

[NutLoose]

Finally someone has come up with a sensible use for drones

http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-112929-Drone-drops-drinks-not-bombs-at-music-festival