European Defence Force!! - You must be joking!! - Discuss.... [Archive]

BroomstickPilot

26th May 2016, 11:06

Hi Guys,

Please forgive a civvy private pilot who would like to comment.

It is often said that a camel is really a horse that has been designed by a committee.

However when the committee consists of 28 members, all coming from different cultures, speaking different languages and harbouring different hidden agendas and policy imperatives, what you are likely to end up with is something much less useful than a camel. In all probability what you will end up with will be a two headed Kangacrocopotamus with one wing and three legs.

This was certainly our civvy experience with JAA and that only involved a dozen Member States. EASA has been no better. Now that's just the organisational mess in prospect. If we now turn to financing it gets even more iffy.

Every state in NATO is supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. In fact, apart from the US and the UK, NONE of them do. And even the UK had to more or less cook the books this time round in order to be able to claim we were still contributing our 2%. (Apparently they had to add in things that previously were left out of the reckoning).

The US taxpayer is shouldering 75% of the burden. How much longer the US taxpayer will put up with this nonsense is anybody's guess.

If we now have to have an EU comic opera army (and navy and air force), complete with its Tower of Babel infrastructure, I can see the US taxpayer finally losing his/her temper and causing their government to pull out all together.

In short, I don't envy you guys if this madness goes ahead.

Regards,

BP

Arclite01

26th May 2016, 11:25

Broom

Don't forget though that because Uncle Sam pays for a lot of this stuff he thinks it means that he can interfere in European issues and that we should all do it his way..................... that will continue all the time he's paying.

Arc

Pontius Navigator

26th May 2016, 11:44

cokecan

26th May 2016, 11:44

Broom,

none of the national governments want an EU DF. this means it cannot happen.

some of the beaurocracy want an EU DF, because, well, who doesn't want their own Army, but such things are not theirs to fund, form, control or own. they are solely the preserve of the national governments, and while you can always find an idiot to speak stupid words, none of the national governments are actually interested in an EU DF.

thats not to say that there can't be, or isn't, co-operation, joint venture etc.. but everything is the preserve of the national governments to decide to engage, or not engage, on whatever basis they like.

Melchett01

26th May 2016, 23:12

Another point, touched on by Broom, is language. NATO has just two ENGLISH and French. What language would Euro force use?

One of the former WPC countries required its officers to qualify in English or retire. How many British officers would qualify in German or French?

Which nation is that PN? I don't know if it's across the board in the Army, but I know at least some cap badges -ETS if I recall - at least discussed not promoting people to Major without them having some level of second language competency.

tucumseh

27th May 2016, 06:07

In very general terms, the technical implications were looked at in about 2001 and the word "interoperability" cropped up. A room full of Generals said yes, of course, we need that. It was pointed out that it was not even policy for our own forces to be interoperable with each other, never mind other countries, and attempting that would eat up the entire equipment budget for some years. To their credit, they sneaked the word into the requirement for one Army project, only for it to be promptly removed and the budgetary estimates cut by 80%.

BEagle

27th May 2016, 07:39

The multi-national NATO AEW&C force at Geilenkirchen has been in existence since 1980. In addition, NATO already has a multi-nation Strategic Airlift Capability, with 3 x C-17 based at Papa in Hungary. EATC at Eindhoven https://eatc-mil.com/user_uploads/page_contents/downloads/pdf/AAR%20leaflet%20-%203%20pages.pdf already co-ordinates AT and AAR operations amongst 27 member states, to optimise use of assets with a tariff system which uses equivalent flight hours for nations which don't possess, for example, AAR aircraft. Thus the use of n AAR hours can be offset by (k x n) airlift hours, where 'n' is the nation's agreed factor used by MCCE. When the RAF could afford its own tankers, it too contributed AAR assets, but now that it has to rent its AAR aircraft under a PFI, their use by other nations is a commercial consideration.

Another emerging multi-national force is the European Defence Agency proposal for an AAR fleet of A330MRTT aircraft shared by 4/5 different nations.

Multi-national European forces are hardly anything new.

But the Little Englanders of the increasingly absurd 'Brexit' campaign won't wish to know this....:rolleyes:

Pontius Navigator

27th May 2016, 08:16

BEagle, in a word NATO.

Pontius Navigator

27th May 2016, 08:19

Melchett, I am not quite sure but I think it was Poland or Hungary. I do know that modern Poles, the ones working in Lincolnshire, seem to have better English than their grandparents the I flew with.

Finningley Boy

27th May 2016, 11:31

I f we were to remain in the union, what I'd like to know is, what are the chances of our being dragged kicking and screaming into the Euro Army, which I assume would include a Euro Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force!?

If this were so and the Falklands became an issue pressing a military solution again would our best of buddies throughout the 'union' support our case and allow us to call upon whatever military commitment was deemed necessary to resolve the crisis? and from across the entire ORBAT of the Euro Force?

Would the Supreme command in Brussels, or wherever its location, impose a radical re-deployment of forces in the UK? Could we expect, say...military units from across the continent to be based in London and take on the Royal Duties?

Could HQ EU Forces, acting under the ultimate direction of Brussels, alter significantly the current disposition of UK Forces at home, by ordering a imbalance of units here and there? Thus overriding the concerns of our very own countrymen and women currently charged with such responsibility?

What would become of our nuclear deterrent? Especially given the current position in the cycle of maintaining it?

FB:)

Melchett01

27th May 2016, 11:48

Multi-national European forces are hardly anything new.

But the Little Englanders of the increasingly absurd 'Brexit' campaign won't wish to know this....

True. But last time I checked, my commissioning scroll had HM's signature on it not Juncker's. So up until the time that changes, Juncker and his chums can whistle if they think I'm fighting on his behalf. Bet I'm not the only one with those sentiments either.

MACH2NUMBER

27th May 2016, 12:50

I am with you there Melchett. PN hit it on the head - NATO. The EU is not providing new capability only sharing spare assets at best. As I stated earlier NATO is difficult enough, duplicating for EU is an absurd waste of money and time.

MAINJAFAD

27th May 2016, 13:43

What would become of our nuclear deterrent? Especially given the current position in the cycle of maintaining it?

It would remain a National Assets, just the same as the French deterrent, as the French would never assign it. Remember, one of the reasons the French pulled out of the NATO chain of command for over 40 years was when the US tried to force them to use their nuclear weapons along with the British ones as part of a combined European force.

Finningley Boy

27th May 2016, 16:07

It is an EU army that could bring about war (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/it-is-an-eu-army-that-could-bring-about-war/)

Col Kemp puts it very well here.

FB:)

Alber Ratman

27th May 2016, 22:22

No RAF senior officer has put his name forward as for BREXIT? I wonder why.. Is it because they see into the 21st century and not Waterloo?

MACH2NUMBER

28th May 2016, 15:04

Albert Ratman,
Serving officers of any rank cannot indulge in politics and we are now in Purdah, where no Government department can get involved. I am an Ex senior and I'm for Brexit. I also used to live near Waterloo, if this helps your case.

PPRuNeUser0139

28th May 2016, 16:06

Mach2 - likewise..
I've voted for Brexit by postal vote. I don't consider myself a "Little Englander".. but I believe that the UK electorate must be able to vote for (or against) our lawmakers. Sovereignty is the key issue for me.

Pontius Navigator

28th May 2016, 16:29

My daughter's OTOH are both Remain. Has any one else asked how their adult children will vote? Whatever happens we KOS will be largely unaffected, or dead.

My MiL, a dedicated outer at 91 has a grandson who has just started with easyJet as an FO, he is a remainer. Should we listen to or debate with our children, it is their future. Danny did his bit, We did ours. Now it is their turn.

late-joiner

28th May 2016, 17:45

No RAF senior officer has put his name forward as for BREXIT? I wonder why.. Is it because they see into the 21st century and not Waterloo?

Apart from Jock Stirrup, who let his name be added to that infamous letter drafted by Downing Street, retired senior RAF officers seem have been quiet on the subject either way, unlike their khaki and dark blue counterparts.

MAINJAFAD

28th May 2016, 19:09

Apart from Jock Stirrup, who let his name be added to that infamous letter drafted by Downing Street, retired senior RAF officers seem have been quiet on the subject either way, unlike their khaki and dark blue counterparts.

Most likely because they have a second career within the High Tech / Aerospace industry and actually have some idea of how Britexit will really screw up both their company and the country's trade for no major gain in any term.

Lonewolf_50

28th May 2016, 19:45

For all of the bickering about NATO, it might be wise to consider that we did, at one time, share a common cause and at least a common purpose whose momentum carried over into the difficult peace after a horrible war. (http://www.battlestory.org/index.php?p=1_67_USA-CEMETERIES-IN-EUROPE) That common purpose brought a measure of peace and stability to central and western Europe.

If the European Defense Force is seen (politically) as a replacement for the collective security structure maintained by the North Atlantic alliance, will we have to engage with our children -- on both sides of the ocean -- on the pros and cons of that linkage and the value of being on side together?

This issue came up 20 years ago as "Eurocorps" was being tossed about as an idea. As an RRF, the idea was similar to UN and NATO in terms of nations offering troop units to support an op. Someone mentioned the NATO AWACS group, who have been an operational success. Another multinational success was the WEU maritime interdiction by in the Adriatic (Sharp Fence). It was later merged with a NATO op (Maritime Guard) to become Sharp Guard which was a success story insofar as multinational operations go.

Can this multinational force operate without the core C2 backbone from NATO?

As the nations have gotten used to working together for about 70 years, maybe yes. .

MACH2NUMBER

28th May 2016, 21:25

Arthur Young

29th May 2016, 05:49

Lonewolf, like your thoughts. I see a Euro Defence Force as a NATO lite (no US forces) to be used for "european" issues but able to tap into the NATO structures to assist. Going forward I think the US pivot to pacific would mean they would also be keen for it. Good example would be Mediterranean naval patrols.

Really can't see why it is causing such anguish.

Chugalug2

29th May 2016, 07:58

AY:-
I see a Euro Defence Force as a NATO lite (no US forces) to be used for "european" issues but able to tap into the NATO structures to assist.

The principal "European" issue will be the civil war that true union will inevitably lead to, a la the USSR and the USA. Some here may want to don the blue of the Union Forces, or cling to the quaint belief that our negotiated exemptions would allow us to be part of the EU but not obliged to fight for it. Include me out...

Finningley Boy

29th May 2016, 16:51

Don't forget that being in the EU is the best way to combat climate change!:ok:

FB:)

t43562

29th May 2016, 16:58

The principal "European" issue will be the civil war that true union will inevitably lead to, a la the USSR and the USA. Some here may want to don the blue of the Union Forces, or cling to the quaint belief that our negotiated exemptions would allow us to be part of the EU but not obliged to fight for it. Include me out...

The United States is possibly not the worst outcome as far as a Southerner might be concerned today - compared e.g. to the increased possibility of the Nazis or the USSR having "won" against a more fragmented world.

Since I'm from there, I think about the point where Rhodesia chose not to become part of South Africa, which was incredibly stupid with hindsight even if it was an issue of sovereignty and not wanting to be run by Afrikaaners. Would the National Party have even been able to implement Apartheid with another couple of hundred thousand votes against them? Even if they had, Rhodesia v "freedom fighters" was quite a different thing from SA v "freedom fighters" in an economic sense particularly.

I don't want Zim to be part of SA particularly but I think if Zimbabwe could be no worse than the rest of SA now and have been so for the last 36 years then I suppose I would have to admit that it would have been the right thing to do.

So I don't think these choices are straightforward.

Lonewolf_50

29th May 2016, 18:31

L Wolf. I haven't seen too much bickering about NATO, in this thread, only the proposed EURO Forces. NATO still works. NATO AWACS, which I know only too well, is a NATO product, driven by a severe operational shortfall during the Cold War and now sustained by industrial imperatives. Nations put in money and, roughly speaking, get their money back in industrial benefits. As far as I am aware, there is no similar scheme in the EU, which adds real additional capability and works. Perhaps others know more than I?
With warmest regards, Europe had a chance to handle a European security issue in Bosnia as "Europe" and failed badly. (Not for want of effort by a lot of folks in uniform). The habitual relationships were already there, from 40+ years of working together.

What second event/crisis can the EU defense proponents handle that establishes that collective effort as a stand alone from the long link? (I am not blind to some of the political obstacles to that). Put another way, whomever is championing this independent capability needs to demonstrate that the collective political will can get X done.

(That's why I tossed out the WEU flotilla, as it was an earnest effort in that direction well supported ... even though the larger effort eventually hadn't the momentum to work without outside help).

Since I've been a proponent of "bring the boys home" for about two decades (even though I lived in Germany as a kid and had a very fulfilling job in NATO proper) I may be an unusual PoV holder on this side of the pond.

Can the political obstacles be overcome?

Herod

29th May 2016, 19:50

It's not going to happen, but an interesting point for discussion: would we be better off applying to become the fifty-first state of the USA?

MACH2NUMBER

29th May 2016, 21:31

blimey

29th May 2016, 22:03

PN

My easyJ boy is an outer - the young need reminding of the 53/50/37% youth unemployment in Greece/Spain/Italy. The EU is a basket case in its present form. It is unwilling to be reformed.

I worked in NATO in the 80's, I have a debt of gratitude to the US and Canada.

Lonewolf_50

30th May 2016, 04:05

L Wolf, thanks giving some more insight to your position. I was at the pointed end of NATO in Bosnia (OP Deny Flight) air-to-air fighters. This might have functioned well, but for dual ROE with the UN who were particularly keen to allow free access to all combatant helicopters. I do not recall the EU being particularly involved in the air blockade at all.
I have had the pleasure to serve with 'your boys' in NATO, the UK, the US and elsewhere. I sincerely hope that you never bring them back home or we are well and truly stuffed!
Tip of the cap, there was a lot of good effort put into that mess. The reliance on the UN was exposed as a mistake when one wanted results. Sad but true. (Given that my country is one of the permanent members, we are sometimes part of the problem).

Chugalug2

30th May 2016, 08:28

t43562:-
The United States is possibly not the worst outcome as far as a Southerner might be concerned today - compared e.g. to the increased possibility of the Nazis or the USSR having "won" against a more fragmented world.

I agree, but why go there in the first place? The Southern States wanted to secede, but that led directly to civil war. Unless we get out of the EU now, the same could apply to us and for every other European country that realises that it is a square peg in a round hole.

That is the problem with such "Unions", they cannot tolerate dissent for it can lead to their own domino-like collapse. The irony is that this particular Union, the result of a dissembling that presented it as a mere Economic Community to disguise its true purpose of European political unification to avoid further nationalistic wars, now threatens the worst kind of war known to man, Civil War.

As ever, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Pontius Navigator

30th May 2016, 09:26

To have a civil war you need armed force. Should one or more southern states declare Exit then what?

A European Force would comprise elements from every nation. Those from Southern states would have to go home if they opted to support their home state.

Then the remaining force would have to obey an order to "restore order" in the south. Can you conceive of that happening?

Disintegration, yes, forced reintegration, I don't think so

Chugalug2

30th May 2016, 10:15

Then the remaining force would have to obey an order to "restore order" in the south. Can you conceive of that happening?

In a word, yes! To those who contemplate ever closer union with equanimity, I say be careful what you wish for. The power of peoples to rise up and oppose what they see as a tyranny threatening their culture and way of life has frustrated the ambitions of all those who have sought to "unify" Europe throughout history.

British history in particular has one unifying theme, to oppose the strongest European power at any time, lest it threatened the possibility of invasion and our subjugation; be it Spain, France, Germany, the USSR, even Holland! A unified and armed European Union would merely add to that list in my view.

In the jargon of this forum, watch your 6 o'clock!

Courtney Mil

30th May 2016, 16:06

Hang on! What's this civil war that's coming? Who's gonna fight whom? And over what? And with what?

Lonewolf_50

30th May 2016, 18:04

I think Pontius Navigator nailed it, chug.

Before there's a civil war, someone would first have to forge that Reich/Empire against which certain states might rise up and leave. That forging is either not going to happen, or is going to take a long while to happen. If one believes that a Central European hegemon is making a play for all of the cards, each and every local concern must be either accommodated or bullied into submission. In this era of information glut, the ability to steal a march is curbed -- politically. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure, so folks in Greece, Italy, Spain, elsewhere are already chaffing at the North of Alps influence long before any such hegemony has been established.

MACH2NUMBER

30th May 2016, 19:42

I'm with CM, how did this civil war bit come about? Its a bit off beam to say the least.

Pontius Navigator

30th May 2016, 20:43

It was Chug who brought up civil war. The civil war he had in mind was as in the US. This is inconceivable; who would follow a directive from Brussels to send troops into another State?

minigundiplomat

31st May 2016, 04:24

I just think the timing is interesting.

The debate regarding an EU Force comes immediately after the decimation of a once potent UK Armed Forces. Who'd have guessed......

Chugalug2

31st May 2016, 05:46

PN:-
It was Chug who brought up civil war. The civil war he had in mind was as in the US. This is inconceivable; who would follow a directive from Brussels to send troops into another State?
PN, lest you think me rude, I did reply. Mysteriously my post has disappeared into the dust-bin of history. I'll keep this one brief as history has a habit of repeating itself!

The civil war that I envisage can obviously only take place when and if the EU becomes a state in its own right. That is the intended purpose of "ever closer union". A state needs a flag (tick), an anthem (tick), a common currency (mass civil unrest to date), no internal frontiers (starting to reclose already) and a military force (per this thread).

Not what you call great progress I'll admit, but the Eurocrats' agenda is still there and I for one don't underestimate their tenacity to succeed. If they ever do succeed then the possibility of certain southern States attempting to secede is quite large in my view. So a newly formed Union will have little choice but to counter such attempts, or see itself disintegrate. Hence the need for a military force.

We now have an opportunity now to bail out of this foolish experiment, which may indeed lead to its premature disintegration, or better still see it changed it back to the European Economic Community that we signed up for under a false prospectus in 1974. Either way I don't want to live to see my grand-children receiving call-up papers from Brussels to report to their newly mobilised local militia with orders to march south!

This was supposed to be short, sorry.

Courtney Mil

31st May 2016, 08:25

Chug, isn't that all a bit far-fetched? It would make an excellent scare line for Boris or Nigel, "Vote Leave or your grandchildren will be forced to invade Spain!"

Pontius Navigator

31st May 2016, 11:10

CM, thought we did that a couple of times already. :)

Lonewolf_50

31st May 2016, 11:11

Not what you call great progress I'll admit, but the Eurocrats' agenda is still there and I for one don't underestimate their tenacity to succeed. If they ever do succeed then the possibility of certain southern States attempting to secede is quite large in my view. So a newly formed Union will have little choice but to counter such attempts, or see itself disintegrate. Hence the need for a military force. Why would these southern states join in the first place? An ounce of prevention and all that.

Courtney Mil

31st May 2016, 11:27

CM, thought we did that a couple of times already.

Not forgetting the last time some 15 years ago when the Royal Marines invaded the beach at La Linea by mistake! I think a couple of Spanish cops held them off, though.

Pontius Navigator

31st May 2016, 11:31

Why would these southern states join in the first place? An ounce of prevention and all that.
Not sure I follow LW, they are in already.

melmothtw

31st May 2016, 17:17

I'd suggest that you're confusing cause and effect Chugalug. Rather than being the cause of a future civil war, the EU was created precisely to prevent another one after WW2.

Pontius Navigator

31st May 2016, 17:26

"make war not only unthinkable but materially impossibleTo quote a quote

Courtney Mil

31st May 2016, 17:34

I agree, Mel. But I think the picture Chug is painting is a Soviet style state using its instruments of force to prevent states leaving, which is even weirder.

melmothtw

31st May 2016, 17:43

Agree Courtney. You can take any potential scenario to the Nth degree, but I don't think anyone would suggest that an EU civil war (an actual shooting war) is credible.

Chugalug2

31st May 2016, 17:45

melmothtw:-
Rather than being the cause of a future civil war, the EU was created precisely to prevent another one after WW2.
Well quite, Melmoth, but as the blessed Tony has made us learn the hard way, history is strewn with unforeseeable consequences.

CM:-
Boris or Nigel, "Vote Leave or your grandchildren will be forced to invade Spain!"

Is that what they are saying? Well then, that just goes to prove my point! How others vote is their affair. Personally the EU has as much appeal to me as a rather dodgy banger offered by Arthur Daly. I agree that it is very unlikely to achieve the final Union that it is aiming for, but in the meantime it is wreaking havoc with the economies of the southern states, the security of all of its members, and the patience of the German tax-payer. In my view it carries the seeds of its own destruction and any discomfort in leaving now will be a small price to pay to avoid the deluge of its disintegration.

As to the OP, can anyone explain just why the EU needs an EDF? Is it in order to keep the peace in Europe, that evidently it has kept anyway since WWII and for which it received the Nobel Peace Prize? Or is it perhaps to keep the peace in the EU, an altogether separate matter.

melmothtw

31st May 2016, 17:54

As to the OP, can anyone explain just why the EU needs an EDF? Is it in order to keep the peace in Europe, that evidently it has kept anyway since WWII, and for which it received the Nobel peace Prize? Or is it perhaps to keep the peace in the EU, an altogether separate affair.

I'm not sure that it does 'need' one, but playing devil's advocate it could be that the nations of Europe face much the same security challenges as each other (counter-terrorism, illegal immigration, resurgent Russia, etc) and that perhaps a joint organisation to face them might be a sensible option. This is especially so as, as has already been said, the US is increasingly looking to Asia-Pacific.

While there are many differences in the defence concerns of the EU member states (such as the Falklands for the UK, for example), these did not get in the way of founding NATO, and so shouldn't have an impact on the creation of an 'EDF', if it were decided that was the best road to go down.

Lonewolf_50

31st May 2016, 18:04

Not sure I follow LW, they are in already.
No, they are not in a federal system analogous to the United States of America that was fully established by the Constitution of 1789. Not by a long shot.

glad rag

31st May 2016, 18:04

Chug, isn't that all a bit far-fetched? It would make an excellent scare line for Boris or Nigel, "Vote Leave or your grandchildren will be forced to invade Spain!"
Thought is was more like El Cyd in reverse??

Courtney Mil

31st May 2016, 19:28

Or maybe Don Quixote.

Pontius Navigator

31st May 2016, 20:04

LW, that depends on your viewpoint.

Common currency, its own parliament, aspirations of a foreign policy, permanent membership of the security council, a supra State police service, a taxation system for the Union and States within.

Where it differs is no common language and the Union military force is in embrio and the State forces are not under ultimate Union control.

Chugalug2

31st May 2016, 20:34

LW50:-
No, they are not in a federal system analogous to the United States of America that was fully established by the Constitution of 1789. Not by a long shot.

Indeed not, Lonewolf, but that is the very model that seems to be behind the ever closer union agenda of the EU. You, no doubt, have your own ideas as to what later led to the 4+ years of bitter civil war, but the Proclamation of the Confederacy made it difficult to avoid as far as the US Government was concerned, and the shelling and taking of Fort Sumter made it unavoidable.

Of course, 21st Century Europe is different from 19th Century USA. It is not beyond possibility though that under a revered, dynamic, and charismatic newly elected President of a now Unified Europe that the economic tensions between the North and South would finally erupt. Unlikely? Perhaps. Impossible? Hardly. Then all the agenda would be as nought as the very situation that unification was meant to prevent (courtesy of Melmoth) becomes hideously possible. We don't have to stick around to find out.

The EU no doubt has enabled cheap flights and high speed trains throughout its territory. Others made the trains run on time and built new freeways. Neither were guarantees of peace in our time...

Pontius Navigator

31st May 2016, 20:46

Chug, but history suggests that we do get involved. We invaded Russia; Britons went to Spain, we were involved in two horrendous continental wars in the 20th Century and others before. We were involved in Greece until we ran out of money; we were involved in the Balkans. It is a rare conflict in which we are not involved.

Lonewolf_50

31st May 2016, 20:47

Where it differs is no common language and the Union military force is in embrio and the State forces are not under ultimate Union control. The day that the the Guardia di Finanza shows up in Birmingham, Oslo, or Athens or Berlin to enforce EU law ... :E... I'll believe some mythical United States of Europe exists.

I suppose my hang up is on how our own union was formed, and what we had in common that brought 13 bickering and competitive states/colonies into agreement (enough) on common cause. Even with that, the Constitution of 1789 was flawed enough that
New England had profound sympathies for the Brits in 1812, and the slavery and 3/5th's rule lay as a latent defect that raised its ugly head again and again before the break. While we didn't have 1400 years of on again and off again Imperial influence, and rebellion against it, our collation and temporary disunion was based on a narrow subset of the culture wars from that 1400 years ..... mostly of which was North of the Alps (and across that channel) based.

What comparable unifying outside influence is there which will drive one to three dozen nations into that position? Maybe I lack vision and imagination. I just don't see it.

Chugalug2

31st May 2016, 21:05

PN:-
We invaded Russia; Britons went to Spain, we were involved in two horrendous continental wars in the 20th Century and others before. We were involved in Greece until we ran out of money; we were involved in the Balkans. It is a rare conflict in which we are not involved.

As to the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars, they prove the age old adage to never get involved in others' civil wars, which we still go on ignoring. One of my ex-Squadrons was involved in the first adventure. The second of course was not UK Government policy.

I take your point though, and no doubt as outsiders we would have to go in and help pick up the pieces. At least we would not be part of the pieces, unless of course one side or the other threatened "consequences" if we did not actively come in on side (now who would ever say such a thing?).

As I have said earlier, the bulk of our involvements in European unpleasantnesses have been against the strongest Continental power. I think I've just conceded a come-back for you there PN. Care to go for it? ;-)

Herod

31st May 2016, 21:23

There is a big difference between a United States of Europe and the USA. The states of Europe are, and have been for some time, sovereign. Lonewolf will correct me here but, the land that is occupied by the American States already belonged to the USA, which had claimed "from sea to shining sea". The States merely gained statehood as they became viable. Only two states gave up sovereignty; Texas and Hawaii. The secession of the south was illegal, because they were taking possession of something that had never belonged to them; i.e. the land of the United States.

This is something that I think a lot of Americans don't understand when they can't see our objection to a USE.

Courtney Mil

31st May 2016, 21:40

CM:-
Quote:
Boris or Nigel, "Vote Leave or your grandchildren will be forced to invade Spain!"

Is totally disingenuous, as you know. But a very good way of trying to avoid my point.

To reiterate, my point is that you are
painting is a Soviet style state using its instruments of force to prevent states leaving

If any state decides that the EU is going too far with integration, they all have the option of Article 50. Even the angry "southern states" are happy enough to accept the bail out. But they don't have to accept the conditions if they don't want to. And no one has to accept being a part of the USE, as Lonewolf says. They can leave and the other 27 states are not about to reach an agreement to use military force against them to try to force them to stay. What could we possibly hope to gain by so doing?

Pontius Navigator

1st Jun 2016, 06:54

Chug, draw, it's raining

PAXfips

1st Jun 2016, 07:33

What do you mean "it's not coming"? I see, it's already there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Military_Staff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUFOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup

So many stuff to pick from!

Chugalug2

1st Jun 2016, 08:09

CM
From your ID details, you have obviously invested in the future of the EU in a very personal way and if the referendum (in which you may or may not have a vote, I've no idea) goes for Brexit there would no doubt be greater costs to you and your loved ones than for me. I'm sorry about that but I still have a right to my views and in any case I suspect that no such scenario is likely.

The leave campaign has been hijacked by the Conservative leadership battle and the so called facts fielded by both sides border on the bizarre. Johnston is no more anti EU than Cameron is pro, but it is an easy vehicle for their respective purposes.

Farage is different. He really believes what he says. He is the reason that we are having a referendum. He is the one who pointed at the newly appointed President of the European Parliament, Mr Rompuy, and demanded "Who are you? I've never heard of you!". Poor form of course, bloody rude, and he was fined for it, but it made the point of the undemocratic nature of EU institutions and appointments.

So, to your point that I am comparing the MO of the EU to that of the USSR. No, of course I am not. The whole point of the agenda from the outset was to use stealth and deceit rather than the brute force of past efforts to "unify" Europe. You may be happy with such methods. I am not. As you say, each state presently has the right to leave. Given the obdurate way that reform is rejected, and ever closer union has the aura of holy writ, I think that the UK should take the opportunity to do so now.

When does an ever closer union reach its zenith? Logic suggests that would indeed be as the USE. Yes, sovereignty would have to be ceded by the states (contrary to the USA case, thank you Herod). Would they do so? Under certain political situations, perceived external threats, inspiring leadership, some might. Never say never! All I say is that the very direction of travel is disturbing and I want none of it. I reiterate that IF a USE happened all bets are off and, given the precedents of the USA and the USSR, civil war could follow. A lot of ifs but a lot of the agenda has already been gained against the odds. Do not underestimate the perseverance of the believers!

As to the EDF, who or what would that owe allegiance to? Those who served in it would presumably be prepared to fight and die if necessary. Other than for each other, who would that be for? Just asking...

Thanks for the advice PN. My stumps have seemingly been pulled once by the mods already. You have a point, looking around the field and at the score!

Lonewolf_50

1st Jun 2016, 11:38

Lonewolf will correct me here but, the land that is occupied by the American States already belonged to the USA, which had claimed "from sea to shining sea". The States merely gained statehood as they became viable.
That was after the USA was formed from the original 13 states, and various associated territories. States formed and then applied (see California as a good example) for entry into the Union. (I seem to recall that California did send some years as a republic?).
The secession of the south was illegal, because they were taking possession of something that had never belonged to them; i.e. the land of the United States. Not going to digress into that, as that particular point is argued from a variety of points of view on Constitutional grounds. From the PoV of the government in Washington at the time, it was a rebellion and there was the serious problem of confiscating federal property... among other things. That's best left for a different discussion than this one.

KenV

1st Jun 2016, 16:24

I agree, but why go there in the first place? The Southern States wanted to secede, but that led directly to civil war. Unless we get out of the EU now, the same could apply to us and for every other European country that realises that it is a square peg in a round hole. Is it really impossible for a nation to exit the European Union? The US civil war happened at least in part because states attempted to secede from the Union, and the Constitution which established that union did not allow for such a secession. Does the Maastricht Treaty which established the EU prohibit secession? If not, then why is there a danger of a civil war?