European Army

[ORAC]

Not sure what so offended anyone that the previous thread was closed. However the process marches on, see below. I have added a separate link at the end to the list. Items 19 and 20 put a very large question mark over Anglo-French military programmes and seem sto eliminate any possibility of UK participation in and future aircraft programme.

Interesting that Ireland has signed up as well, always having refused to join NATO.

EU to unveil military pact projects (https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-eu-to-unveil-military-pact-projects/)

Notification on Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31511/171113-pesco-notification.pdf)

[Mil-26Man]

Not sure what so offended anyone that the previous thread was closed.

Has nothing to do with Military Aviation, most likely.

[t43562]

Simplifying and standardizing cross border military transport in Europe for
enabling rapid deployment of military materiel and personnel.

I watched a video recently that featured an American commander saying that it took far too long to move troops around in NATO and that the Russians didn't have this problem in their side of the border. So could this be a step in the right direction?

[TBM-Legend]

Jointery in military aviation has and is occurring. eg. NATO E-3 AWACS, New tanker A330-MRTT and C-17 airlift etc..

[ORAC]

As I said, it is points 19 and 20 which seem to eliminate the UK participating in future European projects...

“19. Ensure that all projects with regard to capabilities led by participating Member States make the European defence industry more competitive via an appropriate industrial policy which avoids unnecessary overlap.

20. Ensure that the cooperation programmes - which must only benefit entities which demonstrably provide added value on EU territory - and the acquisition strategies adopted by the participating Member States will have a positive impact on the EDTIB.”

[Heathrow Harry]

As ever it will go with the size of orders - European aircraft manufacturers would cut in N Korea if they offered to buy 100 units of a new frontline aircraft

[Finningley Boy]

Has nothing to do with Military Aviation, most likely.

Mind you I'm sure any reference a European Army includes such things as a European Navy and a European Air Force.

FB:)

[T28B]

Has nothing to do with Military Aviation, most likely. Based on the text in the article, it most likely does involve aviation since all of the EU and NATO have taken the Joint Forces approach in one form or another. French President Emmanuel Macron took a major step toward his grand plan of a European military intervention force (https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/european-union/events/article/president-macron-s-initiative-for-europe-a-sovereign-united-democratic-europe). An intervention force will tend to be air-land by default, and air-land-sea depending upon the location of the intervention.


Perhaps the harder question is the following: in what language will the ground element commander call for close air support from a section of tactical aircraft arriving on a given day? The details will be worked out, or not, as this proposal goes from concept to implementation.

(Not "as a mod," just happened to see this while checking in).

[A_Van]

T28B,


Have you heard of things like C-BML, MSDL and likes?

[Blacksheep]

If one takes the bus out to Zaventem airport, the bus stops at a large development where large numbers of military officers badly disguised as civilians alight. With the introduction of a European Army, will this establishment become redundant and then be converted into a shopping mall?

One suspects that is not the case. The poor people of the EU are going to have to shell out a bit more tax to pay for the new buildings, additional staff officers and an equally large army of civil servants.

[Pontius Navigator]

“19. Ensure that all projects with regard to capabilities led by participating Member States make the European defence industry more competitive via an appropriate industrial policy which avoids unnecessary overlap.
This was always a NATO problem. USA, France and UK all vie to produce advanced combat aircraft. USA, Germany, and UK vie for MBT and so on. For a Euro policy avoiding unnecessary overlap who makes what?

Will Germany make SSC and MBT? Will France make ACV and FJ? Who will make the rifles, Germany or Belgium? What will the Irish make?

[golfbananajam]

@Pontius Navigator

Q What will the Irish make?
A Mine detectors

[T28B]

T28B,
Have you heard of things like C-BML, MSDL and likes? Yes. (But I don't work in that field).

[A_Van]

Yes. (But I don't work in that field).



These languages automate greatly information exchange across various folks and military forces and alleviate, to a considerable extent, the "babylon tower" problem, which is quite applicable across Europe.


But if data links are damaged (jammed, nodes destroyed, etc) then, as you correctly envision, the whole bunch of language problems pops out.

[ORAC]

“Even if” data links are damaged? Oh the fun of ADat-P3 different data dictionaries, Link 11 navy/identities and moving DLRPs, haphazard L-16 J message implementations...... that’s before you get to Geodetic datums and differing Lat & Long position reporting formats where the link didn’t support the format.

[Trim Stab]

Brexit will accelerate European defence integration to the detriment of NATO. UK was always US stooge against further European defence. With the UK out of Europe (and US sidelined by Trump lunacy), France/Germany will be able to form their own defence and diplomatic policy.

[SARF]

Well that will make a change from the last century or five ..
The uks policy in Europe has been to stop a European power achieving continental dominance ..
watching the French and Germans trying to work together militarily, at arms length could be the most amusing thing for decades

[Always a Sapper]

@Pontius Navigator

Q What will the Irish make?
A Mine detectors


Who knows? But if the past is anything to go by, then they may well be dusting off a cottage industry making simple 9mm blow-back smg's, directionally challenged mortars and good old home brew!

[Pontius Navigator]

As the Germans have 4 times the number of MBT than France which has 4 times the number of Italy, you can see where that argument would go.

[ORAC]

The more they change PESCO the more it seems to duplicate NATO - and to what purpose?

Further, they would appear to want others to join based on what they can bring to the table - but insist on keeping all the positive elements to the EU members - specifically all funding and defence procurement as in the links above, and now any voice in the say of an organisation they suggest they would like the UK, Canada or the USA to join. The article below suggests their incentive would be access to procurement contracts. However, based on PESCO’s charter as given in the previous links that would be extremely naive to believe......

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-defense-pesco-military-extend-cooperation-to-non-eu-countries-say-benelux-countries/

The EU’s new military pact should be opened up to countries outside the bloc — such as the U.S., Norway and the U.K. — after Brexit, according to a proposal to be discussed by European defense ministers next month.

The idea — put forward as a “food for thought paper” by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands — would, if implemented, erode the EU exclusivity of the military cooperation forum. But it offers another way besides NATO to keep Britain, in particular, engaged in European security structures after next year. The U.K. is the biggest military spender of the current 28 EU countries and a rare one able to project force into distant combat zones. This proposal opens a path for Britain, or another so-called third country, to take a role in future EU military initiatives, including in an EU rapid reaction force.

The two-page document, titled “Third state participation in PESCO projects,” states: “Certain PESCO projects can benefit from participation by non-EU countries in terms of providing capacities, specific expertise or financial contributions that are useful for either capacity development or operations.” It proposes that third countries “be invited by the participating Member States of a PESCO project acting unanimously and on a case-by-case basis.”........

The document, which was obtained by POLITICO, has the backing of 10 other EU member countries: Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Portugal, Sweden and Finland...... The Benelux proposal lays out conditions under which the participation of a non-EU country would be considered: specific expertise or assets, economies of scale, and a financial, operational or capacity contribution to the project. But it states that “a third state will not be involved in any decision making in relation to general PESCO matters.”......

A Dutch diplomat stressed, though, that the Benelux proposal is bigger than Britain or Brexit: “It’s not only the U.K. We work a lot with Norway that could contribute, but also the U.S., Canada or Switzerland.”........

[Heathrow Harry]

The whole point is, I guess, to keep the "army" under European control - otherwise you are just duplicating NATO where the US runs it.

In the long term it's quite logical to think that as Europe gets closer politically so will the need for armed forces that can act in the interests of the EU - which may be different from those of the US & Canada in some situations

How that plays out v. NATO is an interesting situation which will depend on the future of Russia. If Russia continues as it has under Putin NATO is vital for Europe. IF Russia changed, or split up again, then NATO would be less valuable

[glad rag]

As the Germans have 4 times the number of MBT than France which has 4 times the number of Italy...

And that shows the issue of relying on statistics.

[Chugalug2]

Most Unions eventually need an Army, not only for defending the Union against outside threats but from those within as well. The UK is presently stuck at the check-out desk of this Hotel California as its bill inexorably rises. Future check-outs may no longer be available even, let alone actually leaving. That is when the European Army will be required...

[t43562]

Most Unions eventually need an Army, not only for defending the Union against outside threats but from those within as well. The UK is presently stuck at the check-out desk of this Hotel California as its bill inexorably rises. Future check-outs may no longer be available even, let alone actually leaving. That is when the European Army will be required...

Is that why the British Army exists?

[West Coast]

In the long term it's quite logical to think that as Europe gets closer politically so will the need for armed forces that can act in the interests of the EU - which may be different from those of the US & Canada in some situations

this presumes Europe gets closer.

[Heathrow Harry]

Indeed.................. a lot of people assume that because the USA eventually became a single unit the same will happen in Europe

The language and history issues are a far bigger issue in Europe but it's not impossible given enough time

[t43562]

I think you are ascribing attitudes without justification. Can we just steer clear of dragging in the Daily Mail, UKIP, and the rest of the hate list? Who mentioned foreigners? Oh, you did of course. I was talking about the EU, many of whose apparatchiks are Brits anyway. If anything my faith is in the "foreigners" coming to their senses and dissolving this monstrous experiment in the harmonisation of the nations of Europe. On the whole they practice democracy and accept the will of their own electorates, but then of course they don't have a political agenda that transcends that will. That is the Achilles Heel of the EU which I think will lead to its eventual downfall, but the path to that outcome will not be pleasant. Therein lies my own reservations about an EU Army.

I'm pointing out that in one case you see an Army of a Union as an instrument of suppression but in the other you don't and I assume that because it doesn't appear to be on your list of 'bad' armies. Presumably harmonization is ok within nations but not between them too. I don't think that has any anti-Daily Mail overtones?

[t43562]

What interests me more is whether an EU army would mean that nations in the EU would begin to standardise, have greater buying power and share equipment and what this might mean for the defence industry.

[Chugalug2]

t43562:-
I'm pointing out that in one case you see an Army of a Union as an instrument of suppression but in the other you don't and I assume that because it doesn't appear to be on your list of 'bad' armies. Presumably harmonization is ok within nations but not between them too.

I'm pointing out that sooner or later most Unions use their armed forces to cement the Union. In our case it was sooner. You only have to look at our own dubious history to acknowledge that. Later Unions did it later than we, and the EU is the most recent Union. The irony is of course that it was devised to end the long history of European war. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

[Heathrow Harry]

What interests me more is whether an EU army would mean that nations in the EU would begin to standardise, have greater buying power and share equipment and what this might mean for the defence industry.

Think it'll be the other way round - the industry will be pan-European before the COuntries or the Armed Forces

Lower budgets, higher cost of modern kit all drive consolidation -

In Aerospace it'll be Airbus ........................

[West Coast]

Indeed.................. a lot of people assume that because the USA eventually became a single unit the same will happen in Europe

The language and history issues are a far bigger issue in Europe but it's not impossible given enough time

seems to me a one Europe idea is fracturing, not strengthening.

The UK long realized a homogeneous Europe with differing regional solutions to any given issue wouldn’t suit their needs. I think other nations are realizing that a loose confederation for economic sake doesn’t mean there’s common ground to allow for one voice when it comes to military intervention. It took an American President to stop the vacillating and hand wringing over genocide in Europe itself, that’s pretty damning of Euro internal quibbling and politics.

[pulse1]

As outlined in a speech last week by the High Representative of EU Foreign Affairs & Security Policy.

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/...sity-institute (https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/44432/speech-high-representativevice-president-federica-mogherini-european-university-institute)

This is the EU fighting back against the erratic Trump administration in a way that Britain would not dare.

It all sounds wonderful until you consider Germany's reneging on Defence Spending as described in the Sunday Times:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-is-the-the-wests-real-rogue-elephant-cz8tc2rqz

[Heathrow Harry]

" The UK long realized a homogeneous Europe with differing regional solutions to any given issue wouldn’t suit their needs. "

that's been the attitude of C Govt in London with respect to the rest of the UK for 150 years - we're the most centralised Govt in Europe by a country mile

They want total control over everything, all the time.............. as long as its in Westminster and not Brussels

[Jabba_TG12]

" The UK long realized a homogeneous Europe with differing regional solutions to any given issue wouldn’t suit their needs. "

that's been the attitude of C Govt in London with respect to the rest of the UK for 150 years - we're the most centralised Govt in Europe by a country mile

They want total control over everything, all the time.............. as long as its in Westminster and not Brussels

Well, considering most of the Proles blame Central Government for everything and expect them to deliver everything from the cradle to the grave, thats an unachievable aim unless they have control of it...

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-angela-merkel-endorses-eu-military-plan/

Merkel endorses Macron’s EU military plan

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sunday she supports the idea of a joint European defense force, adding that the initiative could be open to British participation post Brexit.

Merkel’s French counterpart Emmanuel Macron has been pushing (https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macrons-eu-defense-army-coalition-of-the-willing-military-cooperation/) for the creation of a combined EU military force that could be deployed to trouble spots around the world. The idea had so far received a frosty reception in Berlin, with defense minister Ursula von der Leyen saying the idea is “not an imminent project for tomorrow.” Merkel’s intervention represents a significant change of tone.

“I am in favor of President Macron’s proposal for an intervention initiative,” Merkel said in a wide-ranging interview (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/kanzlerin-angela-merkel-f-a-s-interview-europa-muss-handlungsfaehig-sein-15619721.html?premium&_ga=2.17497467.313999809.1528031038-1366927076.1528031036) with Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. Merkel said the initiative “needs to fit into the structure of defense cooperation,” which she said should bring down the number of different EU weapon systems from 180 to “about 30.” “

With this, we will already develop more European unity. This will need to be complemented by joint strategic action in [military] deployment.”

The German leader also supported Macron’s idea of inviting Britain — which has the second-largest army in the EU — to join that force even after it leaves the bloc. “We can additionally open that initiative to a country like Great Britain,” Merkel said.

Germany’s Bundeswehr would not need to participate in all such European missions, Merkel said, and would join “to the extent of the possibilities of a parliamentary army.”.......

[Heathrow Harry]

A "parliamentary Army" sounds a bit wishy-washy.......... on the other hand the English Parliamentary Army in the 1640's was probably the best army we ever had...........

[Jetex_Jim]

It all sounds wonderful until you consider Germany's reneging on Defence Spending as described in the Sunday Times:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-is-the-the-wests-real-rogue-elephant-cz8tc2rqz

How odd that this thread has not been moved to Jet Blast. And then closed.

[Rigga]

What interests me more is whether an EU army would mean that nations in the EU would begin to standardise, have greater buying power and share equipment and what this might mean for the defence industry.

The standards you describe have already been placed into the EU's Eurolex as European Military Regulations and Standards. As such, I believe, the UK's MOD has already adopted many of them in the new MAA MARs.

[Alber Ratman]

The New Model Army were Jihadist in their indoctination. Nothing great about the Commonwealth of 1648 to 1660. That is why it was canned. The mob was so fickle. Like now.

[Heathrow Harry]

The New Model Army were Jihadist in their indoctrination. Nothing great about the Commonwealth of 1648 to 1660. That is why it was canned. The mob was so fickle. Like now.

well it got rid of absolute monarchy pretty early so we only chopped off 1 head rather than lots of heads like the French & Russians did.................... and it was a major force in the rise of Middle Class England, Parliament and English trading and industry

But you are right - it was the first army that was founded on the belief of the ordinary soldier rather than imposed by their elders & betters

[A_Van]

well it got rid of absolute monarchy pretty early so we only chopped off 1 head rather than lots of heads like the French & Russians did/////


HH, it's a myth.
E.g., throughout the XIXth сentury number of death executions in Britain and Ireland was about 4K vs. less than 2K in the Russian Empire (and per capita the difference was even higher). As for earlier years, the difference is way bigger. "Facilities" such as the Tyburn death machine (that alone "processed" tens thousands heads) were not popular here.

I assume it's a myth about France either (except for the period of their Revolution in the end of the XVIII-th century)

[ORAC]

That’s because Russia didn’t have its revolution till the XXth century - at which point its death rate accelerated considerably......

Of course executions and cutting off heads isn’t the only way to kill people an, even though Russia didn’t have the death penalty, that didn’t stop it killing people. The following, for example, is an example of mass deportation and genocide copied in later years by Stalin......

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151025

[A_Van]

ORAC,

You are perfectly right about "Uncle Joe".We are still 100+ years behind France and its revolution. But Harry was mentioning times after absolute monarchy ended in Britain. And at that time the tsar regime in Russia was rather soft and very tolerant to various religions.

As to the main topic, I am not sure the "European Army" will work well. NATO is operational only due to the US. Without "Uncle Sam" it will be a mess.

[Lonewolf_50]

As to the main topic, I am not sure the "European Army" will work well. NATO is operational only due to the US. Without "Uncle Sam" it will be a mess. Having worked hand in hand with the Greeks, Turks, and Italians, NATO is as often a mess as not. :hmm: But I guess it's better than the alternative.

[Heathrow Harry]

Having worked hand in hand with the Greeks, Turks, and Italians, NATO is as often a mess as not. :hmm: But I guess it's better than the alternative.

:ok: too true.....

[Heathrow Harry]

ORAC,

You are perfectly right about "Uncle Joe".We are still 100+ years behind France and its revolution. But Harry was mentioning times after absolute monarchy ended in Britain. And at that time the tsar regime in Russia was rather soft and very tolerant to various religions.

As to the main topic, I am not sure the "European Army" will work well. NATO is operational only due to the US. Without "Uncle Sam" it will be a mess.

Van - I was looking at when revolutions happen - some are (relatively) bloodless - such as 1648 in the UK - no-one, other than Charles I, was executed because of their social position. France 1789 - 2000-3000 aristos went, Russia 1917-18 - quite a lot of people, Spain 1940 - several thousand, probably more, China 1948 - perhaps a million or two......................., Indonesia 1965 up to a million killed

[CISAtSea]

Van - I was looking at when revolutions happen - some are (relatively) bloodless - such as 1648 in the UK - no-one, other than Charles I, was executed because of their social position. France 1789 - 2000-3000 aristos went, Russia 1917-18 - quite a lot of people, Spain 1940 - several thousand, probably more, China 1948 - perhaps a million or two......................., Indonesia 1965 up to a million killed

Minor point, but King Charles was hardly executed for his social position, but for High Treason; specifically for causing the second civil war with the support of Scotland. His nominal accusers (Strongly encouraged by Cromwell) were the members of the Rump Parliament, a fair proportion of whom were titled people themselves.

Yes, I know ... picky, picky, picky

[Heathrow Harry]

Minor point, but King Charles was hardly executed for his social position, but for High Treason; specifically for causing the second civil war with the support of Scotland. His nominal accusers (Strongly encouraged by Cromwell) were the members of the Rump Parliament, a fair proportion of whom were titled people themselves.

Yes, I know ... picky, picky, picky

Not at all ..you're correct

quite oddly (I always thought) the English Legal profession, showing early evidence of their infinite invention, brought the charges on the basis that Charles Stewart, the man, had led a rebellion against Charles Stewart, the King -in -Parliament.......... nearly as good as Kim Il Sung who had someone shot for "leftist-rightest-tendencies".....................

[Lonewolf_50]

Kim Il Sung who had someone shot for "leftist-rightest-tendencies"
Harry, would that be a case of ambidextrous sedition? IANAL and I am not sure if that's a legal term or not.

[Heathrow Harry]

Harry, would that be a case of ambidextrous sedition? IANAL and I am not sure if that's a legal term or not.

It's a bloody hard charge to defend yourself against I guess.... I mean....... "tendencies"....................

Of course the Young Leader had someone shot for putting his statue in the shade - makes J V Stalin look like Mother Theresa

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/uk-may-join-eight-countries-in-military-unit-outside-eu-35vfr8wsf

UK may join eight countries in military unit outside EU

Nine European countries, including the UK, have signed a “letter of intent” to create a joint military intervention force operating independently of the European Union.

The planned force for rapid deployment in times of crisis would include Britain after Brexit and was agreed without any involvement from Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign affairs chief. It was also signed by France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia, Spain and Portugal. The scheme is independent from plans for greater EU defence co-operation and has been pushed by France because of concerns that Brexit could create obstacles to European military operations by excluding Britain.

The decision comes amid growing unease, especially in France and Spain, over the EU’s slowness and frequent inability to take foreign policy decisions, especially military intervention. “The deadlines and decisions in the EU are still much too long compared to the urgency that can arise of a critical situation in a country where Europeans would consider that there is a strong stake for their security,” Florence Parly, the French defence minister, said. Britain and France have often expressed concern that an EU marked by diverging geopolitical interests and very different military traditions will never agree to deploy troops in combat.

President Macron proposed the idea for the “European Intervention Initiative” in a speech last September in direct competition to EU plans for a new defence pact known as Permanent Structured Co-operation (Pesco). Pesco will involve 23 out of the EU’s remaining 27 countries after Brexit and is widely regarded as a poor basis for serious military intervention. Its first priority project is a plan for a European medical evacuation and field hospital unit.

Britain’s role in the new force follows initial opposition from Germany which has been resistant to military intervention and is a strong supporter of EU defence co-operation structures that will not include Britain after March next year. The new defence initiative will help Britain’s case for a new security and defence treaty by the time of Brexit next spring. Italy is also expected to join the coalition after a decision was delayed by the forming of a new populist government.

[Finningley Boy]

So would this new European Intervention Force be deployed rapidly down to the South Atlantic to confront an Argentinian military threat to the Falklands? Would Junker and Hofstadt have our backs over the Falklands I wonder? Not at all if I'm honest.

Best Regards,

FB

[Heathrow Harry]

So would this new European Intervention Force be deployed rapidly down to the South Atlantic to confront an Argentinian military threat to the Falklands? Would Junker and Hofstadt have our backs over the Falklands I wonder? Not at all if I'm honest.

Best Regards,

FB

Oddly enough the word EUROPEAN in the tile of the post "EUROPEAN ARMY" is a give- away... it's to defend Europe and (possibly) European interests elsewhere

If Canada decides to take over ST Pierre & Miquelon it can't really be seen as a European interest or issue. If a country wants to hold onto bits and pieces around the globe it's their choice and they can pay for it - bit much to ask us to cough up for French Imperialist hang-overs ,....... no???

[minigundiplomat]

Oddly enough the word EUROPEAN in the tile of the post "EUROPEAN ARMY" is a give- away... it's to defend Europe and (possibly) European interests elsewhere

If Canada decides to take over ST Pierre & Miquelon it can't really be seen as a European interest or issue. If a country wants to hold onto bits and pieces around the globe it's their choice and they can pay for it - bit much to ask us to cough up for French Imperialist hang-overs ,....... no???

Such as Mali?

Other than a 'make macron great' eurotrash campaign, I am not sure why the UK is sending 3 Chinooks, in addition to those provided by Canada - it seems to me like a Brexit concession during Napolean's visit, to which there was no return.

[Heathrow Harry]

France isin Mali but it's not a European Union force... as you say quite why we are there is a bit odd

[chopper2004]

France isin Mali but it's not a European Union force... as you say quite why we are there is a bit odd

The French need some heavy lfit capability hence supporting them with Odiham's finest? It is also part of a bigger plan/picture there...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-step-up-french-operations-in-africa-as-pm-and-president-macron-meet-for-uk-france-summit

[minigundiplomat]

The French need some heavy lfit capability hence supporting them with Odiham's finest? It is also part of a bigger plan/picture there...

I disagree - every European and their dog are sending the magical NH90, and the Canadians are sending F Model CH47's. Apart from the Canadians, most of the contributors are European, whom, if judged by recent history, will spend most of their time getting p1ssed in their bases.

As for bigger picture - Macron visited May, got a pledge for the 3 RAF Chinooks, and then knifed her in the back. Why are UK taxpayers footing the bill for duplicating the Canadian contribution? So we can rely on the French in the future?

[esa-aardvark]

Strikes me that the future European Army is being created so as to deal with internal troubles, dissidents & leavers from the Union or Euro.
Round up migrants and send them home or somewhere, without a particular country having to take the blame.
Once created our beloved leaders will find a reason to use it, if only to encourage the others.

[Rockie_Rapier]

So, according to President Trump NATO is costing the USA too much and Europe needs to start pulling its weight.

Can he really be advocating a EU army?

[Predator Jock]

'Joint military intervention force'

A force to facilitate a crisis like the overthrow of Gaddafi which left Libya as the unprotected African gateway for the refugee crisis which is triggering Europe.

Who Benefits?

[Heathrow Harry]

So, according to President Trump NATO is costing the USA too much and Europe needs to start pulling its weight.

Can he really be advocating a EU army?

Sounds like it............... he's no fan of ANY international Body as far as I can see

[A_Van]

IMHO, "The Donald" is like a "tough guy" (using the ice hockey slang), but his field is business and economics, and the political issues should be projected on that plain (or vice versa). It is crystal clear that pressing the Europeans to raise their military budgets means that at least half of this increase would land in the hands of US companies producing weapons. As far as mil. aviation is concerned, there are no European competitors to F-35 and SAMs like PAC-3, THAAD, AeGIS. I assume that with other forces the US would benefit as well.

Even considering that NordStream-2 gas project, for Trumps it's a competition and all means are OK to achieve the goal. Supress the Russian tube and bargain instead his liquid stuff. I assume that his position in talks with Putin will be clear and simple: "Nothing personal, Vlad, it's just business. If you have a stick to scare those guys, you may use it as well, but you don't have any, while I do have ;) "

[minigundiplomat]

The last example of a synthetic nation made up of wildly different elements and dominated by one group was Yugoslavia, and we know what happened when that went bang. And there is the rub, the European Union, in its drive to form a United States of Europe, will slowly pull itself apart, and when it does, history suggests it won't be pretty.

The EU is currently drinking its own Kool Aid, but at some point, will have to face up to the fact that it's model of repeated compromises across 27 members doesn't equate to a coherent command and control in a time of crisis.

However, whilst this process follows its predictable route to failure, those nations spending >2% on defence are expected to subsidise the defence of the others, including the EU's wealthiest member, Germany, which has allowed its defence capability to descend into a shocking farce.

Another example is Belgium, which having been invaded twice in living memory, spends half the recommended NATO level on defence, whilst relying on the contribution of forces from The US, UK and others in a time of need.

The 'Donald' is spot on, and the Europeans, with their contemporary outrage at his directness, have read this one very badly. It's not Trump putting NATO at risk, its European intransigence.

[Pontius Navigator]

MGD followed Yugoslavia by a couple of years and then Malaysia in 1964 and that soon split. But your premise holds.

BTW, welcome back t o the pack 😁

[Heathrow Harry]

"Belgium, which having been invaded twice in living memory "

How many 104 year olds are there on here????

[Pontius Navigator]

"Belgium, which having been invaded twice in living memory "

How many 104 year olds are there on here????
Who said on Pprune.

[Chugalug2]

mgd:-
the European Union, in its drive to form a United States of Europe, will slowly pull itself apart, and when it does, history suggests it won't be pretty.

Hammer, nail, head! A European Army (Surely that should read a EU Army?) will be concerned with defending the European Union, not from without but from within. That could range from Internal Security to full outright Civil War. Neither will be pretty as you say. In the former they kick in your door at 0300 hrs, in the latter there will be a mass blood bath, and all because of some bright idea to avoid future European Wars. Oh, the irony!

[The Old Fat One]

Don't necessarily disagree with your point however...

will be concerned with defending the European Union, not from without but from within.

...that pretty much applies to most armies that have ever existed.

[Chugalug2]

Agreed, but it particularly applies to Union Armies wherein separate states with their own politics and heritage are herded together into a super state. It needs all the resources of the centre to keep them together, but notably it ofttimes fails dramatically.

[Rockie_Rapier]

However, whilst this process follows its predictable route to failure, those nations spending >2% on defence are expected to subsidise the defence of the others, including the EU's wealthiest member, Germany, which has allowed its defence capability to descend into a shocking farce.

There's an interesting website (which I'm not able to post the link to) which ranks countries according to defense spending. Just google wiki list of countries by military expenditure.
This claims that the UK's military spend is 47.2 billion in USD terms and that this corresponds to 1.8% of UK GDP.

On the other hand Russia spends 66.3 billion in USD terms which, out of its smaller GDP is 4.3%.

A pat on the back then to Ivan. Perhaps Trump will invite Russia to join NATO

[ORAC]

German Foreign Office: MoreFM @HeikoMaas (https://twitter.com/HeikoMaas):

"We are in the process of transforming the EU into a genuine security and defence union. We remain convinced that we need more and not less Europe."


https://twitter.com/GermanyDiplo/status/1027848024922316800

[Heathrow Harry]

Sounds like the formation of the USA..............

So who gets to play Ol 'Abe and who is going to be Jeff. Davis???

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-founded-as-project-of-peace-debates-a-militarized-future-nato-european-defense-fund-russia/

EU, founded as project of peace, plans military future

The mood in the European Union on military affairs is undergoing a seismic shift. Policymakers across the Continent finally agree that hard power — long viewed as antithetical to the EU’s raison d’être — is now essential to the bloc’s survival. The question is how, or sometimes if, the EU’s militaries should work together.........

....in Brussels, the Commission has proposed (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4121_en.htm) a €13 billion European Defense Fund for the bloc’s next long-term budget, in part to expand a list of 17 joint defense initiatives approved in December by the European Council under what is known as Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). The European Parliament has even called for creating a directorate general for defense (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2017-0492+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN) in the Commission.

Advocates of military cooperation say no less than the EU’s survival is at stake. “Only together, we are strong,” Michael Gahler, a German member of the European Parliament, said in July after the approval of a €500 million fund for research and development of defense industrial products. “Only united will Europeans face the challenges that emanate from Russia, disintegrating states in the neighborhood and, unfortunately, the currently incalculable U.S. foreign and security policy.”.....

The European Council in March approved an initial list of projects, (http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6393-2018-INIT/en/pdf) including the creation of a European Medical Command, development of cyber rapid-response teams, and construction of an armored infantry fighting vehicle, to be built by Italy, Greece and Slovakia. Diplomats said only two projects — the cyber initiative led by Lithuania and a Dutch-led initiative on military mobility — have made concrete progress so far. But already defense ministers are looking at a further 33 projects put forward by member countries in recent months. They plan to draw up a shortlist for approval by December.

The Commission also allocated €500 million in 2019-20 for defense industrial research projects, which one European NATO official said would help reduce reliance on Washington. “Currently it’s all based on U.S. and U.K. technology,” the official said. “Once this will be done, EU member states will be in the position to choose between U.S. and EU products.”

While these initial steps may seem small, experts say they represent a revolutionary shift after decades of inaction.

“The European Commission has found its way into the European security and defense sector,” Chantal Lavallée, an expert at the Institute for European Studies, wrote in a recent paper for the Real Instituto Elcano in Spain (http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/ari59-2018-lavallee-european-commission-enabler-for-european-security-defence-union). “To the surprise and skepticism of many, given that this sector has long been considered a domaine réservé of the member states, ambitious Commission initiatives have come to fruition.”........

[dead_pan]

What do we care? We're leaving, it's none of our business now. That said, it does make sense in view of the US's increased questioning of NATO's raisin d'etre. Who knows, when Putin pops his clogs maybe they might eventually ask Russia to join....

[melmothtw]

The last example of a synthetic nation made up of wildly different elements and dominated by one group was Yugoslavia, and we know what happened when that went bang. And there is the rub, the European Union, in its drive to form a United States of Europe, will slowly pull itself apart, and when it does, history suggests it won't be pretty.

The EU is currently drinking its own Kool Aid, but at some point, will have to face up to the fact that it's model of repeated compromises across 27 members doesn't equate to a coherent command and control in a time of crisis.

However, whilst this process follows its predictable route to failure, those nations spending >2% on defence are expected to subsidise the defence of the others, including the EU's wealthiest member, Germany, which has allowed its defence capability to descend into a shocking farce.

Another example is Belgium, which having been invaded twice in living memory, spends half the recommended NATO level on defence, whilst relying on the contribution of forces from The US, UK and others in a time of need.

The 'Donald' is spot on, and the Europeans, with their contemporary outrage at his directness, have read this one very badly. It's not Trump putting NATO at risk, its European intransigence.


Of course, one example of a "synthetic nation made up of wildly different elements and dominated by one group" that you omit to mention is the UK. We may yet get to see what happens when that "goes bang".

[Chugalug2]

Heiko Maas (German Foreign Minister):-
We remain convinced that we need more and not less Europe at this time.

Sounds familiar...

[Pontius Navigator]

construction of an armored infantry fighting vehicle, to be built by Italy, Greece and Slovakia. Diplomats said only two projects — the cyber initiative led by Lithuania and a Dutch-led initiative on military mobility

Do I smell pork cooking?

[Pontius Navigator]

Michael Gahler, a German . . . “Only united will Europeans face the challenges that emanate from Russia, disintegrating states in the neighborhood and, unfortunately, the currently incalculable U.S. foreign and security policy.”.

1914 any one?

[Lonewolf_50]

Pontius, I'd say it's more 1871 or 800 AD. I don't want to Godwin the thread with my third estimate.

[Chugalug2]

Lonewolf, you may well say that but the Godwin estimate seems to me the most appropriate of your three from this side of the pond. Right now the UK is split between those who feel that enough is enough and we need once more to confront our own national security, and those who suggest that we should stay close to nurse for fear of finding something worse. The formation of an EU army merely dots the i's in that regard. Those who forget the past and all that...

[melmothtw]

Lonewolf, you may well say that but the Godwin estimate seems to me the most appropriate of your three from this side of the pond. Right now the UK is split between those who feel that enough is enough and we need once more to confront our own national security, and those who suggest that we should stay close to nurse for fear of finding something worse. The formation of an EU army merely dots the i's in that regard. Those who forget the past and all that...

"...we need once more to confront our own national security" doesn't actually make any sense, but assuming you mean that the UK needs to take responsibility for its own national security implies that for the last 40-odd years the EU has done it for us, which is patently nonsense.

What are you talking about?

[Chugalug2]

Pots and Kettles, old boy, Pots and Kettles! The EU hasn't taken responsibility for anyone's security for the last 40 odd years, let alone ours, and I wasn't implying that it had. Now however it is implying that it will be taking responsibility for it with the EU Army (if we decide in the end against checking out and voting as per the DS). That responsibility will eventually protect member nations of the 'unified' European Union from themselves, just as other unions have similarly protected their member nations from themselves (including our own, as has been repeatedly pointed out here). That possibility or probability (depending on one's glass being half full, etc) is what we now have to confront. We have done so frequently in the past and no doubt will do so again in the future, unless mother nature drains the English Channel. That is what I was talking about....

[KenV]

What do we care? We're leaving, it's none of our business now. That said, it does make sense in view of the US's increased questioning of NATO's raisin d'etre. Who knows, when Putin pops his clogs maybe they might eventually ask Russia to join...."Makes sense in view of the US's increased questioning of NATO's raisin d'etre"?! Ummmmm, no. Neither Trump, nor the US question Nato's purpose. They both question Nato's member states' commitment to Nato given their unwillingness, for decades, to meet their funding commitments to Nato. And further, both have stated the US's unwillingness to continue to shoulder the vast majority of that burden alone. That is a vast difference.

[KenV]

Of course, one example of a "synthetic nation made up of wildly different elements and dominated by one group" that you omit to mention is the UK. We may yet get to see what happens when that "goes bang".Which begs the question, is the UK a nation by the traditional definition of nation? Or is the UK a country?

Nation: A stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation is distinct from a people, and is more abstract, and more overtly political, than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests

Country: a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography.

And secondarily, is the distinction significant?

[melmothtw]

The UK is a state made up of three nations of Great Britain and the province of Northern Ireland.

It is a state in the same way as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were states.

[Harley Quinn]

The UK is a state made up of three nations of Great Britain and the province of Northern Ireland.

It is a state in the same way as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were states.
But has lasted as an entity for far longer than most European nations have existed

[melmothtw]

But has lasted as an entity for far longer than most European nations have existed

The UK as an entity has existed since 1921.

[Chugalug2]

Harley Quinn:-
But has lasted as an entity for far longer than most European nations have existed

melmothtw:-
The UK as an entity has existed since 1921.

Collins:-
An entity is something that exists separately from other things and has a clear identity of its own.

Wiki:-
The 1707 Acts of Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707) declared that the kingdoms of England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England) and Scotland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland) were "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain)", though the new state is also described in the Acts as the "Kingdom of Great Britain", "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "One Kingdom".[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-41)
[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-42)
[note 12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-43) The term "United Kingdom" is found in use as a description, but not a name, during the 18th century, and the country has occasionally been referred to in later centuries as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" although its full official name, from 1707 to 1800, was simply "Great Britain", without a "long form".[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-44)
[33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-name-45)
[34] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-name2-46)
[35] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-name3-47)
[36] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-48) The Acts of Union 1800 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1800) united the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ireland) in 1801, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland). Following the partition of Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Ireland) and the independence of the Irish Free State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State) in 1922, which left Northern Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland) as the only part of the island of Ireland within the United Kingdom, the name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was adopted.[37] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-49)Although the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country, England, Scotland, Wales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales) and, to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland are also regarded as countries, though they are not sovereign states.[38] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-alphabeticalNI1-50)
[39] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-51) Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have devolved self-government.[40] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-52)
[41] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-citizenship-53) The British Prime Minister's website has used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-page823-29) Some statistical summaries, such as those for the twelve NUTS 1 regions of the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUTS_of_the_United_Kingdom), also refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "regions".[42] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-54)
[43] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-55) Northern Ireland is also referred to as a "province".[44] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-alphabeticalNI2-56)
[45] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-placeApart-57) With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences".[46] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-58)The term "Great Britain" refers conventionally to the island of Great Britain, or politically to England, Scotland and Wales in combination.[47] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-59)
[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-60)
[49] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-61) However, it is sometimes used as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-62)[[i]not in citation given (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)][51] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-63) GB and GBR are the standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization) country codes for the United Kingdom (see ISO 3166-2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:GB) and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3)) and are consequently used by international organisations to refer to the United Kingdom. Additionally, the United Kingdom's Olympic team (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics) competes under the name "Great Britain" or "Team GB".[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-64)
[53] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-65)The term "Britain" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name)) is used both as a synonym for Great Britain,[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-Britain-CED-66)
[55] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-Britain-OLD-67)
[56] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-Britain-Col-68) and as a synonym for the United Kingdom.[57] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-Britain-MW-69)
[56] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-Britain-Col-68) Usage is mixed, with the BBC preferring to use Britain as shorthand only for Great Britain[58] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-checklist-bbc-70) and the British Government, although accepting that both terms refer to the United Kingdom, preferring, in most cases, to use the term UK rather than Britain.[59] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-style-guide-govuk-71) While the UK Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Committee_on_Geographical_Names) (whose definitions are the "authoritative geographical names of the United Kingdom") lists "United Kingdom" and "UK or U.K." as shortened and abbreviated geopolitical terms for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but does not list "Britain",[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-PCGN-uk-guide-72) it has been used "informally" by government websites.[61] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-num10-countries-73)The adjective "British" is commonly used to refer to matters relating to the United Kingdom. The term has no definite legal connotation, but is used in law to refer to United Kingdom citizenship and matters to do with nationality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law).[62] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-Bradley-74) People of the United Kingdom use a number of different terms to describe their national identity and may identify themselves as being British; or as being English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people), Scottish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_people), Welsh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_people), Northern Irish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Northern_Ireland), or Irish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_people);[63] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-75) or as being both.[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-76)In Welsh, the long form name of the state is "Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon", with "Teyrnas Unedig" being used as a short form name on government websites.[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-77) However, it is usually abbreviated to "DU" for the mutated form "Y Deyrnas Unedig". In Scottish Gaelic, the long form is "Rìoghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Èireann a Tuath" and the short form "Rìoghachd Aonaichte".

Looks as though Harley Quinn has it right, melmothtw, unless of course you are being pedantic. Are you being pedantic, melmothtw?

[melmothtw]

All this is getting a little far from the original OP, but as you asked...

Following the partition of Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Ireland) and the independence of the Irish Free State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State) in 1922, which left Northern Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland) as the only part of the island of Ireland within the United Kingdom, the name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was adopted.[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#cite_note-49)

I said 1921, but it seems the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland hasn't even been around that long.

Countries come and countries go and countries change, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is no exception. Indeed, it actually proves the point.

[Chugalug2]

I'm not quibbling with the full title for the United Kingdom that was adopted following partition. The title United Kingdom has been used inter alia from the get go, whether it be for Great Britain, or Great Britain and Ireland. Thus Harley Quinn is right, the United Kingdom has existed as an entity, albeit an evolving one, longer than most European countries have existed. Far from being thread drift it is entirely pertinent to the formation of a European Union Army. We had a Union Army and we all know how it was used to enforce the Union. If the European Union survives half as long as the United Kingdom it will be in no small measure thanks to the European Union Army. I for one would not wish to be a part of that Union.

[t43562]

I'm not quibbling with the full title for the United Kingdom that was adopted following partition. The title United Kingdom has been used inter alia from the get go, whether it be for Great Britain, or Great Britain and Ireland. Thus Harley Quinn is right, the United Kingdom has existed as an entity, albeit an evolving one, longer than most European countries have existed. Far from being thread drift it is entirely pertinent to the formation of a European Union Army. We had a Union Army and we all know how it was used to enforce the Union. If the European Union survives half as long as the United Kingdom it will be in no small measure thanks to the European Union Army. I for one would not wish to be a part of that Union.

Do you want to be part of the United Kingdom then? If so, why?

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2 https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/602986-european-army-post10248844.html#post10248844)
I'm not quibbling with the full title for the United Kingdom that was adopted following partition. The title United Kingdom has been used inter alia from the get go, whether it be for Great Britain, or Great Britain and Ireland. Thus Harley Quinn is right, the United Kingdom has existed as an entity, albeit an evolving one, longer than most European countries have existed. Far from being thread drift it is entirely pertinent to the formation of a European Union Army. We had a Union Army and we all know how it was used to enforce the Union. If the European Union survives half as long as the United Kingdom it will be in no small measure thanks to the European Union Army. I for one would not wish to be a part of that Union.

Do you want to be part of the United Kingdom then? If so, why?

Also, the UK has never had a "Union Army" that "enforced the Union". The first army that could arguably be described as a British army was the New Model Army (NMA), which enforced the will of Parliament against the King. With the exception of Ireland/Northern Ireland, the British Army that followed the NMA has never has to "enforce the Union" in the way that you purport a (non-existent) EU Army would have to do for the European Union.

I'm really not quite sure what analogy you are trying to draw between the British Army and the (non-existent) EU Army, but your attempts to draw one come across as a little laboured and wide of the mark if I'm honest.

[Chugalug2]

t43562:-
Do you want to be part of the United Kingdom then? If so, why?

Yes, because I already am, and because it has matured into an established democratic state (albeit via a very bloody past).

[melmothtw]

t43562:-


Yes, because I already am, and because it has matured into an established democratic state (albeit via a very bloody past).

You already are a part of the EU also. It too is democratic (EU elections, anybody?), though not a state. It also has a very bloody past, if that's what draws you in...

[Chugalug2]

melmoth, you seem to have a preoccupation with titles. The various, mainly English, armies that subdued the various Welsh, Scottish, and Irish attempts to resist subjugation may not have been named Union Armies but their effect over the centuries was to cement and ensure the formation of the United Kingdom. If you don't see the parallel with the formation of the European Union Army, I'm afraid that I do.

Edited to add that I would not agree that the EU has a bloody past, though it may well have a bloody future. It is Europe that has the bloody past and the irony of the EU is that its formation was to prevent that past becoming the future. As to me being a member of the EU, you are right of course. Hence the present dilemma the United Kingdom finds itself in...

[melmothtw]

There is no parallel Chug, this is not the Middle Ages.

[melmothtw]

Edited to add that I would not agree that the EU has a bloody past, though it may well have a bloody future. It is Europe that has the bloody past and the irony of the EU is that its formation was to prevent that past becoming the future. As to me being a member of the EU, you are right of course. Hence the present dilemma the United Kingdom finds itself in...

The only irony, Chug, is that the chances of the "bloody future" you fear for the EU are only increased by Brexit, not diminished by it.

[ORAC]

Pots and Kettles, old boy, Pots and Kettles! The EU hasn't taken responsibility for anyone's security for the last 40 odd years Little by little, slowly but surely.

Only, for now, a border force, and under nominal local government control. But paid for by the EU, paid by the EU, trained by the EU and permanently armed and with their own vehicles, boats and aircraft.

Stated, initially, to be deployed in Spain, Italy and Greece to “assist”, but legally allowed to be deployed anywhere in the EU.

European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - State of the Union 2018: A fully equipped European Border and Coast Guard ? Questions and Answers (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-5715_en.htm)

“What are the main features of the new standing corps of 10,000 operational EU staff?

Today's proposal includes:

A reliable intervention force: The standing corps will bring together Agency staff as well as border guards and return experts seconded or deployed by Member States. The corps will be fully operational with 10,000 operating staff by 2020.

Expanded tasks and powers: The staff of the standing corps will be able to carry out border control and return tasks in the same way as the border guards and return specialists of the Member States. This includes tasks requiring executive powers in order to play a useful operational role. Under the authority and control of the host Member State, at the external borders, they will be able to check identity, authorise or refuse entry at border crossing points, stamp travel documents, patrol borders and intercept persons who have crossed the border irregularly. The staff will also be able to assist in the implementation of return procedures, notably by preparing return decisions or escorting non-EU nationals subject to forced return.

Own equipment: The European Border and Coast Guard Agency will acquire its own equipment, such as vessels, planes and vehicles, available to be deployed at all times and for all necessary operations. The Commission has earmarked €2.2 billion under the 2021-2027 EU budget to allow the Agency not only to acquire, but also to maintain and operate the air, maritime and land assets needed for its operations”.........

[melmothtw]

What is the EU to do, ORAC? If it does nothing, it is not-serious about protecting its borders and happy to sponge off the US and NATO. If it stands-up and takes responsibility for its own defence, it is a nefarious tyranny in the making.

Damned it is doesn't, damned if it does.

[glad rag]

You already are a part of the EU also. It too is democratic (EU elections, anybody?), though not a state..

EU commissioners are NOT elected.

Article 18 of the Lisbon treaty sets it out clearly "who is in charge " of the EU Army.
The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, shall appoint the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Council may end his term of office by the same procedure.
The High Representative shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. He shall contribute by his proposals to the development of that policy, which he shall carry out as mandated by the Council. The same shall apply to the common security and defence policy.
The High Representative shall preside over the Foreign Affairs Council.
The High Representative shall be one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission. He shall ensure the consistency of the Union's external action. He shall be responsible within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent on it in external relations and for coordinating other aspects of the Union's external action. In exercising these responsibilities within the Commission, and only for these responsibilities, the High Representative shall be bound by Commission procedures to the extent that this is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 3.
— C 115/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 9.5.2008


Oh for all those fans of the Galileo project the HR is in charge of project security. They are empowered to act if under duress, singularly.
COUNCIL DECISION 2014/496/CFSP

of 22 July 2014

on aspects of the deployment, operation and use of the European Global Navigation Satellite System affecting the security of the European Union and repealing Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas(1)
In view, in particular, of its strategic dimension, regional and global coverage and multiple usage, the European Global Navigation Satellite System (‘GNSS’) constitutes sensitive infrastructure the deployment and usage of which are susceptible to affect the security of the European Union and its Member States.
(2)
Where the international situation requires operational action by the Union and where the operation of the GNSS could affect the security of the European Union or its Member States, or in the event of a threat to the operation of the system, the Council should decide on the necessary measures to be taken.
(3)
For this reason, the Council adopted on 12 July 2004 Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP (1) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0496#ntr1-L_2014219EN.01005301-E0001).
(4)
Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the tasks and responsibilities formerly exercised by the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative should now be exercised by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (‘the HR’).
(5)
The progress of the development, the commencement of the deployment and the forthcoming start of the usage of the system established under the Galileo programme require that the procedure as foreseen in Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP be adapted.
(6)
The information and the expertise concerning whether an event related to the system constitutes a threat to the Union, to the Member States or to the GNSS as such should be provided to the Council and the HR by the European Global Navigation Satellite System Agency (‘the GSA’), the Member States, and the Commission. In addition, third States may also provide such information.
(7)
The respective roles of the Council, the HR, the GSA as operator of the Galileo Security Monitoring Centre (‘GSMC’) and the Member States should be clarified within the chain of operational responsibilities to be set up in order to react to a threat to the Union, to the Member States or to the GNSS.
(8)
In this regard, the basic references to threats are contained in the System-Specific Security Requirement Statement which contains the main generic threats to be handled by the GNSS as a whole, and the System Security Plan which includes the security risk register set up in the security accreditation process. These will serve as references to identify the threats specifically to be dealt with by this Decision and to complete the operational procedures for the implementation of this Decision.
(9)
Decisions in cases of urgency may have to be taken within very few hours of the arrival of the information concerning the threat.
(10)
In the event that the circumstances do not allow for the Council to take a decision to avert a threat or to mitigate serious harm to the essential interests of the Union or of one or more of its Member States, the HR should be empowered to take the necessary provisional measures.
(11)
Regulation (EU) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council (2) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0496#ntr2-L_2014219EN.01005301-E0002) and Regulation (EU) No 1285/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0496#ntr3-L_2014219EN.01005301-E0003) modified the governance of the European GNSS. In particular, Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1285/2013 provides that the GSA is to ensure the operation of the GSMC.
(12)
Regulation (EU) No 512/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0496#ntr4-L_2014219EN.01005301-E0004) assigns to the GSA Executive Director the responsibility to ensure that the GSA, as the operator of the GSMC is able to respond to instructions provided under Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP, as replaced by this Decision. In addition, Decision No 1104/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0496#ntr5-L_2014219EN.01005301-E0005) lays down the rules under which the Member States, the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service, Union agencies, third States and international organisations may access the public regulated service (‘PRS’) provided by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme. In particular, Article 6 of Decision 1104/2011/EU defines the GSMC as the operational interface between the competent PRS authorities, the Council and the HR and the control centres,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

This Decision sets out the responsibilities to be exercised by the Council and the HR to avert a threat to the security of the Union or one or more Member States or to mitigate serious harm to the essential interests of the Union or of one or more Member States arising from the deployment, operation or use of the European Global Navigation Satellite System, in particular as a result of an international situation requiring action by the Union or in the event of a threat to the operation of the system itself or its services.

Article 2

In the event of such a threat, the Member States, the Commission or the GSA, as appropriate, shall immediately inform the Council and the HR of all the elements at their disposal which they consider relevant.

Article 3

1. The Council, acting unanimously upon a proposal from the HR, shall decide on the necessary instructions to the GSA.

2. The GSA and the Commission shall provide advice to the Council on the likely wider impact on the GNSS of any instructions which it intends to issue.

3. The Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) shall provide an opinion to the Council on any instructions proposed, as appropriate.

Article 4

1. If the urgency of the situation requires immediate action to be taken before the Council has taken a decision under Article 3(1), the HR is authorised to issue the necessary provisional instructions to the GSA. The HR may direct the Executive Secretary-General or one of the Deputy Secretaries-General of the European External Action Service to issue such instructions to the GSA. The HR shall immediately inform the Council and the Commission of any instructions issued pursuant to this paragraph.

2. The Council shall confirm, modify or revoke the provisional instructions of the HR as soon as possible.

3. The HR shall keep his/her provisional instructions under constant review, amend them as appropriate or revoke them if immediate action is no longer required. In any event, the provisional instructions shall expire four weeks after being issued, or upon a decision by the Council pursuant to paragraph 2.

Article 5

Within six months from the adoption of this Decision, the HR shall prepare, with the support of experts from the Member States, and submit for approval to the PSC, the necessary early operational procedures for the practical implementation of the provisions set out in this Decision. Complete operational procedures shall be submitted for approval to the PSC within one year from the adoption of this Decision. The operational procedures shall be reviewed and updated by the PSC at least every two years.

Article 6

1. In accordance with prior international agreements concluded by the Union or the Union and its Member States, including those granting access to PRS pursuant to Article 3(5) of Decision 1104/2011/EU, the HR shall have the authority to conclude administrative arrangements with third States concerning cooperation in the context of this Decision. Such arrangements shall be subject to approval by the Council acting unanimously.

2. If such arrangements require access to Union classified information, the release or exchange of classified information shall be approved in accordance with the applicable security rules.

Article 7

The Council shall review and, as necessary, amend the rules and procedures set out in this Decision no later than three years from the date of its adoption, or at the request of a Member State, or following any measures taken pursuant to Article 3.

Article 8

Member States shall, if appropriate, take the necessary measures to ensure the implementation of this Decision in their respective area of responsibility, in accordance with, inter alia, Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 1285/2013. For this purpose, Member States shall designate points of contact to assist in the operational management of a threat. These points of contact may be natural or legal persons.

Article 9

Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP is hereby repealed.

Article 10

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 2014.

For the Council

The President

C. ASHTON


Finally.

Statement by High Representative/VicePresident Federica Mogherini on latest developments regarding the Palestinian community of Khan al-Ahmar

https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/EUSTATE_180718.pdf

[melmothtw]

EU commissioners are NOT elected.

EU Commissioners are not elected, correct, but they are fully accountable to the EU Parliament which IS democratically elected. Also, every EU member state is represented in the Council of Ministers.

If absolute democracy is the issue, perhaps the royal family that constitutes a branch of our own government should be elected?

[glad rag]

EU Commissioners are not elected, correct, but they are fully accountable to the EU Parliament which IS democratically elected. Also, every EU member state is represented in the Council of Ministers.

If absolute democracy is the issue, perhaps the royal family that constitutes a branch of our own government should be elected?

I have edited my post to make it as clear as possible.
As for accountability, REALLY...melmothtw...

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-oversight-for-thee-but-not-for-me/

One year after European Parliament President Antonio Tajani pledged to bring greater transparency to how MEPs are compensated for expenses, the noble process (https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-corruption-move-to-reform-meps-expenses-wholly-inadequate-say-critics/) ended with a loud thump on the parliamentary floor.
Last night, the 15 members of the Parliament’s governing body — a group that included Tajani — voted down measures (https://www.politico.eu/article/strasbourg-european-parliament-meps-reject-scrutiny-of-expenses/) that would have increased oversight of the so-called General Expenditure Allowance, a fund intended to be used by MEPs to pay for offices and other expenses.
The institution’s 751 MEPs receive €4,416 a month on top of their salaries for expenses, as a lump sum, tax free. This adds up to nearly €200 million in taxpayer money per parliamentary term. These funds are intended to be spent for professional not personal reasons, but MEPs are not required (https://www.politico.eu/article/mep-expenses-should-be-kept-secret-to-avoid-pressure-from-media/) to retain any records or disclose how the money is spent.
Tajani and his colleagues voted against making it mandatory for MEPs to keep receipts of their expenditures — something any business, organization or association has to do for tax reasons, if nothing else.


..really melmothtw...REALLY!

[melmothtw]

I have edited my post to make it as clear as possible even to the likes of yourself.

I stopped reading there. Out.

[friartuck]

this sounds like Jet Blast not an article on the European Army :ugh:

[KenV]

EU Commissioners are not elected, correct, but they are fully accountable to the EU Parliament which IS democratically elected.Hmmmm. As I recall a fellow by the name of Adolf was appointed and "fully accountable" to an elected body. How did that turn out?

[melmothtw]

Hmmmm. As I recall a fellow by the name of Adolf was appointed and "fully accountable" to an elected body. How did that turn out?

***sigh***

[t43562]

melmoth, you seem to have a preoccupation with titles. The various, mainly English, armies that subdued the various Welsh, Scottish, and Irish attempts to resist subjugation may not have been named Union Armies but their effect over the centuries was to cement and ensure the formation of the United Kingdom. If you don't see the parallel with the formation of the European Union Army, I'm afraid that I do.

Edited to add that I would not agree that the EU has a bloody past, though it may well have a bloody future. It is Europe that has the bloody past and the irony of the EU is that its formation was to prevent that past becoming the future. As to me being a member of the EU, you are right of course. Hence the present dilemma the United Kingdom finds itself in...

Is the United Kingdom a good thing on the whole or should we break it?

[dead_pan]

As I said before, why are we Brits even discussing this?? We're leaving FFS! What are (ex) European allies decide to do via the EU is none of our business now.

[BEagle]

Hmmmm. As I recall a fellow by the name of Adolf Donald was appointed and "fully accountable" to an elected body. How did that turn out?

We await with interest...

How can SO many people have been quite SO stupid?

[Chugalug2]

t43562:-
Is the United Kingdom a good thing on the whole or should we break it?

Yes, having gone through a lot of pain the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is now a good thing in my view. However, I am English and other countries within the UK may think differently. That is their right, but so far none have chosen to do so (other than the Irish Republic that caused that new form of the UK). The same is not so for the European Union, as one member has now chosen to leave it. Others may yet follow that lead...

[glad rag]

this sounds like Jet Blast not an article on the European Army :ugh:


Sup? a few unpalatable facts perhaps. [Oh and I have already apologised earlier to melmothtw for my unnecessarily cutting remarks].

[melmothtw]

He has, and no hard feelings.

[t43562]

t43562:-


Yes, having gone through a lot of pain the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is now a good thing in my view. However, I am English and other countries within the UK may think differently. That is their right, but so far none have chosen to do so (other than the Irish Republic that caused that new form of the UK). The same is not so for the European Union, as one member has now chosen to leave it. Others may yet follow that lead...

Didn't Ireland leave?

[friartuck]

Yes and Pakistan has been in and out like a yo-yo. S Africa left and returned and I think places like Fiji may have also come and gone

[ExAscoteer]

Didn't Ireland leave?

No, merely the 26 Counties.

[t43562]

Yes and Pakistan has been in and out like a yo-yo. S Africa left and returned and I think places like Fiji may have also come and gone

If you want to include the empire a lot of countries left actually and some not so peacefully. But the result of all that blood and trouble is apparently good and should not change. But anything bigger (anything that English people are not in charge of?) would be bad.

[Chugalug2]

t43562, the Irish Republic did not leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by definition, let alone "Ireland"!

friartuck, the preceding posts of this thread have been about Unions and their armies, in particular the EU and the UK, and not about the Commonwealth. How that applies you are no doubt about to tell us.

t43562:-
If you want to include the empire a lot of countries left actually and some not so peacefully. But the result of all that blood and trouble is apparently good and should not change. But anything bigger (anything that English people are not in charge of?) would be bad.
?

[friartuck]

sorry

I was responding to a post by t43562 who was quoting a post by you which I took to refer to the Commonwealth /Empire

Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick

[Chugalug2]

No apology needed (but thanks for the offer ;-)

[Harley Quinn]

I think it is rather laughable that for the majority of its existence NATO has made a huge contribution to peace in Europe, and many European countries have sheltered under the umbrella of the USA and to a lesser degree the UK and France (outside of NATO for a long time) and have not put their short arms in their very deep pockets to share the financial burden, yet now 27 countries are going to form an army. Who is going to put up the money, because going on past performance they might just actually have enough shekels to buy a nice limousine or two for the top bods to drive around the EU inspecting the vanity project.

[t43562]

I think it is rather laughable that for the majority of its existence NATO has made a huge contribution to peace in Europe, and many European countries have sheltered under the umbrella of the USA and to a lesser degree the UK and France (outside of NATO for a long time) and have not put their short arms in their very deep pockets to share the financial burden, yet now 27 countries are going to form an army. Who is going to put up the money, because going on past performance they might just actually have enough shekels to buy a nice limousine or two for the top bods to drive around the EU inspecting the vanity project.

If its a vanity project then why is anyone bothered by it?

[Harley Quinn]

If its a vanity project then why is anyone bothered by it?

Because it could weaken NATO at a time when the USA has an unpredictable president and the Russian Federation are still in the Crime under a dubious pretext.

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/06/macron-calls-for-real-european-army-at-start-of-war-centenary-tour

Maxron calls for ‘real European army at start of war centenary tour

Emmanuel Macron (https://www.theguardian.com/world/emmanuel-macron) has used the first world war armistice centenary (https://www.theguardian.com/world/armistice-centenary) commemorations to call for a “real” European army, warning that rising nationalism and populism threaten the fragile peace on the continent

https://www.westmonster.com/verhofstadt-integrate-european-defences-into-eu-army/

Verhofstadt: Integrate European defences into EU Army

The European Parliament’s ‘Brexit Coordinator’ and senior MEP, Guy Verhofstadt, has backed President Macron’s call for a full EU Army.

Verhofstadt has gone one step further however, demanding that existing defences forces across Europe are ‘integrated’ into a European Army – making the point with an EU flag bang next to the suggestion, of course.

Writing on Twitter, the EU nationalist said: “President Macron draws the right conclusions from Trump’s ‘America-First’ policy. If we want to guarantee our European security, we need to take our destiny into our own hands by progressively integrating European defence forces into a European Army.”

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1060241394319740928?s=20

[dead_pan]

Because it could weaken NATO at a time when the USA has an unpredictable president and the Russian Federation are still in the Crime under a dubious pretext.

And us leaving the EU will not?

I still can't quite compute why it is apparently good for EU member states to commit to participating more in NATO, yet bad for them to be thinking of organising their own defence outwith of NATO (especially in light of Trump's comments). TBH I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump really ratchets up the rhetoric on NATO given his thoughts are now turning to 2020, also the Asia pivot.

[Chugalug2]

dp:-
TBH I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump really ratchets up the rhetoric on NATO

I think that by seeing the USA as a potential enemy for the 'real' EU Army to deal with, Macron encapsulates exactly what this is all about; an EU Army to confront NATO, not to complement it.

[melmothtw]

That makes absolutely no sense, as most of the members would also be members of NATO.

[Harley Quinn]

That makes absolutely no sense, as most of the members would also be members of NATO.

None of it makes sense. How do the EU think this is going to be funded? If most NATO members can't be ar$ed to make paltry contribution in supporting the presence of US forces just what do they think will happen when the economic basket cases in the EU fail to cough up or turn out when the going gets a bit tough?
If Macron and Co think that they have a big stick to play with I'm pretty certain they will be disappointed, and the UK would be stupid to get involved.

[Chugalug2]

mmw:-
That makes absolutely no sense, as most of the members would also be members of NATO.

Well exactly, that's probably how the 'real' EU Army will be used to confront NATO, by undermining any support from its European members. We await the inevitable EU demand that all US Forces be removed from its territory. No doubt the US government will once again be obliged to query if that includes those buried there...

[Cyberhacker]

Curious... I recall Nick Clegg telling us during the Referendum Campaign, in no uncertain terms, that the prospect of an EU army, airforce and navy was “total fantasy and that "the impending arrival of an EU army is about as fictional as that vanishing £350 million".

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/nigel-farages-warnings-european-army-real-promises-350m-nhs/

[dead_pan]

I remember Nick Clegg telling us lots of things that turned out to be total bolloc*s.

​​​​​​As for this European army confronting NATO...FFS.

[air pig]

Curious... I recall Nick Clegg telling us during the Referendum Campaign, in no uncertain terms, that the prospect of an EU army, airforce and navy was “total fantasy and that "the impending arrival of an EU army is about as fictional as that vanishing £350 million".

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/nigel-farages-warnings-european-army-real-promises-350m-nhs/

Where is that nice Mr Clegg so I may reposition his testicles where his tonsils are, with a swift sharp kick for his lies. Oh yes, he's going to America, well California.

[langleybaston]

This would be Sir Nicholas William Peter Clegg
of "I agree with Nick" blessed memory.

To be fair, to cast him as a SH1T hardly makes him unique. Name me a current UK politician who commands widespread respect for integrity, honesty and probity.
See?

[West Coast]

Would there be the political will amongst member states to deploy the troops? Can’t help but reflect back on the inaction by European governments to act in the Balkans in the 90s until Clinton forced their hands.

[melmothtw]

EU army or internal police force ?With NATO having kept Europe’s external security since WW2 the only reason for an EU army can be one of internal security, it would make it impossible for a state to leave the EU and can be used to put down any opposition to the EU.

This is a very worrisome trend towards totalitarian control of Europe.

Talk about Project Fear.

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-biggest-enemy-threadbare-army-bundeswehr/

Germany’s soldiers of misfortune

[Asturias56]

Come on guys! get real..

No-one is going to spend a whole lot more on the military in Europe

They'll form a "European Army" and it will employ a few staff guys and be a useful spot to dump moribund officers at the end of their careers..... and it will be located somewhere where they need the votes

Units currently "declared" to NATO will also be "declared" to the EU Army. Once or twice a year there'll be some maneuvers where the French & German politicians will turn up, be photographed and everyone will go home

In Italy we still fondly remember the Terzo corpo designato d'Armata

"Though commanded by a real Lieutenant General, headquartered in Padua, Italy's so-called Terzo corpo designato d'Armata was a fiction - a giant cold-war bluff. It was dreamed up in the early 50s to convince Moscow that Nato's frontline was altogether more solid than was the case. Successive commanders and their minuscule staffs generated mountains of paperwork to show that any commie troops breaching the Yugoslav border would have to reckon with an entire army corps, up to 300,000-strong, on the flat Venetian hinterland. Troops - most of them imaginary - were recruited and promoted, fuel was notionally stored, and ammunition supposedly distributed in perhaps the most elaborate exercise ever in Italian fantasia."

[Chugalug2]

Thanks for the reassurance As56. More such from the tail end of ORAC's link:-

With Merkel on her way out, fixing the Bundeswehr will likely be up to her successor. Until then, plans for a “European Army” that includes Germany have about as much chance of getting off the ground as the German Air Force.


One must be grateful for small mercies.

[Asturias56]

Of course the worst thing about the Terzo Corpo came later.......... no-one was ever sure the Russians fell for it given the penetration of the CPI in Italian life but you never know.

It was closed down in 1972 - unfortunately they forgot about two issues - Paperwork 1 & paperwork 2

The diligent few had, as required , generated a mountain of paperwork as only Italians can when they put their mind to it. This was all carefully stored - by the late 80's the cost was becoming noticeable and it was proposed to shred it all. However of course it was all classified information. To shred it you had to declassify it - and who could sign off the declassification? Only the people who classified it in the first place - but these were either dead or never existed................... (I once came across this sort of thing with a Company Bank Account in Rome.... months of fun)..............................

Paperwork 2 was Pensions & Benefits... those "real " people who served were of course given all the relevant pensions etc etc - the problem was the couple of hundred thousand "unreal" people who were on the books... as part of the maskirova they had all got pensions, even been awarded medals, featured in the newspapers etc etc - and worse they were all on the books of several other Ministries who had processed them thinking they actually DID exist. It is/was impossible to remove their benefits without a major legislation, which would also set an unfortunate precedent.

We were assured that none of these "pensions" had actually ever been paid but being Italy the natives feel it was unlikely that such a vast sum would be allowed to go to waste on the books as it were... who knows........ :ok:

[ORAC]

https://www.dw.com/en/angela-merkel-backs-plan-for-eu-aircraft-carrier/a-47860895

Angela Merkel backs plan for EU aircraft carrier

Angela Merkel has voiced support for some major aspects of CDU leader Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer's EU vision. The proposals include a joint European aircraft carrier and a permanent EU seat on the Security Council.

[Asturias56]

AKK is Merkel's clone/puppet choice so no surprises there

[Pontius Navigator]

The French have both. Job done.

[minigundiplomat]

I’ve heard about the EU carrier.

The Bulgarians are supplying the steel, the Italians are taking Friday off to build it and the French will design it, alongside the Latvians. The Dutch will write the ROE, and the Slovakians will design the galley, and the flight deck will be operated by both the Austrians and Luxembourg.
Romanians will do the budget and accounting, Spain and Portugal and Greece will jointly design the bunks. Hungary will map out the force protection elements and a mixed group of Germans, French and Maltese manufacturers will design the aircraft.

The USE Bismark is expected to enter service in 2029

[melmothtw]

The Bulgarians are supplying the steel, the Italians are taking Friday off to build it and the French will design it, alongside the Latvians. The Dutch will write the ROE, and the Slovakians will design the galley, and the flight deck will be operated by both the Austrians and Luxembourg.
Romanians will do the budget and accounting, Spain and Portugal and Greece will jointly design the bunks. Hungary will map out the force protection elements and a mixed group of Germans, French and Maltese manufacturers will design the aircraft.

..and the British will moan about it.

[Chugalug2]

melmothtw:-

and the British will moan about it.


No doubt, if we're still trapped in the EU while having endless Peoples Votes....

[melmothtw]

It's endearing you think the moaning will end with Brexit, assuming it happens. Wait until the real negotiations begin - this is the easy bit.

[Royalistflyer]

With a Brexit crash out as may now be possible, the real negotiations will begin the next day as the EU spurred by all the German-French major manufacturers. Then it will become interesting as reality sets in on both sides. As far as the EU Army-Navy-Air Force is concerned, we are best off out of it. Personally I think we would be better off out of NATO too.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/eu_eeas/status/933657281979404288?s=21

[Willard Whyte]

The USE Bismark is expected to enter service in 2029 2059


Fixed that for ya.

[Haraka]

Federica being an Italian communist of course..

[minigundiplomat]

Federica being an Italian communist of course..

Every cloud has a silver lining.... at least she'll have a red flag to hand when Putin parks his tanks in Brussels.

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-military-projects-draft-plan-uk-post-brexit-involvement/UK, US could take part in EU military projects under draft plan

A post-Brexit U.K. and the United States could take part in projects under the EU's new military pact while leaving China — and possibly Turkey — on the outside, according to a new draft proposal.

The draft, seen by POLITICO, was put forward by the Finnish presidency of the Council of the EU and is on the provisional agenda of a meeting of EU ambassadors on Wednesday. The document appears intended to respond to EU members with close military ties to the U.K. and U.S., who want to see those countries involved in projects, while also addressing concerns from other members anxious to exclude others including China and Turkey.

The five-page document proposes that a non-member of the EU's military pact, known as Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), could be invited to take part in a project on condition that “it shares the values on which the EU is founded” — referring to an article (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/thinktank/index.php/Article_2_TEU) in the Treaty on European Union that spells out values such as the respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

In May, Washington wrote to the EU expressing concerns (https://www.politico.eu/article/european-military-defense-army-nato/) that PESCO risks shutting American companies out of defense contracts and undermining NATO. The latter argument has always been rejected by PESCO's leading advocates, such as France and Germany, who contend that the pact is complementary to NATO rather than a rival.

According to a diplomat taking part in the discussions, it's unclear whether the language in the draft would be enough to stop Turkey from taking part — a key concern of EU member Cyprus, in particular — but it should be sufficient to keep out China. The draft spells out many other conditions for a so-called third state to take part in a PESCO project, including that “its participation must not lead to dependencies on that third state.”

To take part, the third state would have to submit a request to a country in charge of one of the 34 PESCO projects (https://pesco.europa.eu/) launched so far. The country would also need to secure unanimity from all the governments involved in the project.

The document also sets out conditions that would allow the participation of the third country to be "reassessed.” If one or more EU members consider that the country no longer meets the conditions for participation, they can refer the issue to the Council. The third country “may also be heard” and the member states concerned along with the EU's high representative for foreign and security policy will “seek adequate solutions within a period of two months,” the draft says........ (more)

[Chugalug2]

Why would an organisation founded on "the respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights" need an Army? To defend itself from outside threats? It already has that in the form of NATO, for which it has a thinly disguised contempt. To defend itself from internal insurrection? Far more likely, and if the UK and USA have any sense they won't have any part in it.

Union Armies are there for one principal reason, to protect and defend the Union against threats from within. I imagine we will be seeing an ever increasing number of those arising as Le Grand Projet moves inexorably onwards to an ever closer unity.

[Mil-26Man]

Don't be silly, Chugalug. The EU does not have "contempt" for NATO - the EU exists as a collective of 28 member nations,. many of which are members of NATO. So for your premise to hold any water, the EU would have to have contempt for itself.

Union Armies are there for one principal reason, to protect and defend the Union against threats from within.

You would include the UK army in that then?

[Chugalug2]

Don't be silly, Chugalug. The EU does not have "contempt" for NATO - the EU exists as a collective of 28 member nations,. many of which are members of NATO. So for your premise to hold any water, the EU would have to have contempt for itself.



You would include the UK army in that then?

The reason for the EU taking this initiative is because of the unease of some of the member nations of which you speak with the direction that EU security, as against European Security, is taking. You identify the 28 member nations as being 100% behind the aims and direction of EU planning. Good luck with that!

What the present UK Govt plans are for the British Army wrt to the EU may well change after the dust has settled over Brexit, never mind following the upcoming election. We live in interesting times! As for our own Union, may I recommend a study of the history of its formation and the aftermath?

[Mil-26Man]

If the EU 28 collectively take responsibility for their own security they are damned for 'raising an army'. If they don't and leave it up to the Americans they are damned for not pulling their weight. Can't really win either way.

You don't have to recommend any studies for me, thanks.

[Chugalug2]

If the EU 28 collectively take responsibility for their own security they are damned for 'raising an army'. If they don't and leave it up to the Americans they are damned for not pulling their weight. Can't really win either way.

You don't have to recommend any studies for me, thanks.

Well, those in NATO could simply pull their weight by contributing their required annual subscription. Those not in NATO will no doubt continue to ride on the coat tails of others who are. I doubt if the EU will lose much sleep in being damned by the likes of me. I'm damned forever, as evidently there is a place in Hell reserved just for me!

Everyone should study and learn from History. When they don't they tend to be faced by unexpected consequences...

[Cat Techie]

Have I missed anything? Oh, no. Nothing of any importance.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/ukdefjournal/status/1193233997838667776?s=21

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-berlin-braindead-defense-debate-nato-annegret-kramp-karrenbauer-angela-merkel-foreign-policy-security/Germany’s ‘braindead’ defense debate

[West Coast]

Partial quote from the article Orac has posted.

“undermine NATO,” adding that neither Germany nor Europe would be able to effectively defend themselves without the support of the U.S.

What was truly meant was that Germany nor Europe want to spend the money to effectively defend themselves. NATO is an anachronism of a time past and some fundamental restructuring is needed. If Germany/Europe wanted to, they could effectively manage any threat to Europe, it’s just easier to rely on the hired gun instead.

[Chugalug2]

West Coast, you are quite right to castigate European nations of NATO who do not pull their weight in contributing to their common security. With respect though, I think you are quite wrong to characterise NATO as an anachronism. If there were any doubt in the USA as to the lack of merit in a policy of isolation then that should have been settled by WWII. If the USA had remained neutral would it even exist now? Very little has changed in real politick since then, whether in the threat to Europe or the Far East. The threats may or may not come from different capital cities but they are as real now as they were in the 30s. Because we prevaricated then we had together to fight and defeat them in the 40s or confront them together for another four decades.

This is no time to prevaricate either. The EU Grand Projet is built on hubris, NATO is built on a mutual need. Because Berlin and Paris can't see that yet is no reason for Washington not to see it. Together we are stronger than apart and should stand together!

[West Coast]

Would you prefer to say the primary threat Western Europe faced during the Cold War is no more?

Russia isn’t the USSR, the threat of Soviet tanks rolling down the Fulda Gap is long gone. Brush fire wars which Europe should be able to handle minus massive US support are the norm.

[Chugalug2]

Would you prefer to say the primary threat Western Europe faced during the Cold War is no more?

Russia isn’t the USSR, the threat of Soviet tanks rolling down the Fulda Gap is long gone. Brush fire wars which Europe should be able to handle minus massive US support are the norm.


The last bout of unpleasantness can be traced back to the humiliation heaped upon a defeated Germany. The next outbreak of unpleasantness may well be a product of the humiliation heaped upon the Soviet Union by the USA and NATO. Just as the former was preceded by rapid rearmament of a nation that was reduced to economic impotency, much the same might be said of modern Russia.

The strain on the economy of Germany meant it was almost obliged to go to war in order to plunder the treasuries of the countries that it occupied, and a similar cause and effect could well occur with Russia.

This from a publisher not a million miles from you West Coast:-

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-aron-putin-russia-military-20190425-story.html

In the meantime the assassinations using ever more terrifying methods will no doubt continue. No doubt the trains run on time though!

[West Coast]

Interesting and all, but doesnt really speak to the continued need for NATO. A European army with member states who vigorously pursue their collective defense can oppose Vlad without US support. A lot of new highways and hospitals can be built in the US with the money spent defending those who have become too reliant on the US for their own defense.

It'a easy to do when that's been ops normal for decades now. I blame the US government to the same degree as the underfunding Euro nations. The federal govermment is suppossed to exist in part to effectively manage where US funds get the most bang for the buck.

[Chugalug2]

Oh, hospitals and schools trump (sorry about that!) everything else here too. Russia remains a threat to Europe and the World in my view, whatever flag it flies.

The echoes of the 30s are striking. First you start 'liberating' neighbouring countries with large populations sharing your own language and culture, when you run out of them you carry on 'liberating' all the others. The lack of resolve of others about what to do about your rampage serves your purpose well until it is too late to do anything other than go to war. Even then a lack of resolve allows your successes to continue until your own hubris brings about a downfall that leaves death and ruin in its wake for entire populations.

NATO is as important to world peace now as ever it were. Otherwise it is Deja Vu all over again!

[West Coast]

Oh, hospitals and schools trump (sorry about that!) everything else here too. Russia remains a threat to Europe and the World in my view, whatever flag it flies.

The echoes of the 30s are striking. First you start 'liberating' neighbouring countries with large populations sharing your own language and culture, when you run out of them you carry on 'liberating' all the others. The lack of resolve of others about what to do about your rampage serves your purpose well until it is too late to do anything other than go to war. Even then a lack of resolve allows your successes to continue until your own hubris brings about a downfall that leaves death and ruin in its wake for entire populations.

NATO is as important to world peace now as ever it were. Otherwise it is Deja Vu all over again!

By the level of financial support from those closest, they don’t seem to share your POV. I do see Vlad as a threat, but one that is manageable without US involvement.

[Chugalug2]

No, I don't think they do, just as they didn't last time around. Clever people thought they could manage Hitler. That didn't turn out too well, did it?

I guess it has to be Deja Vu after all, just as in 1917 and 1941. See you then. :ok:

[Mil-26Man]

NATO is an anachronism of a time past...

It wasn't an anachronism on 4 October 2001, the effects of which continue through to today.

[Chugalug2]

It wasn't an anachronism on 4 October 2001, the effects of which continue through to today.

Good to know, but I wish that I felt as confident about the resolve of NATO member nations as you appear to be. 'An attack on one is an attack on all' is a simple enough concept but somewhat overtaken by the shiny eyed resolve of those attracted by the anticipated founding of a United States of Europe fielding its own military. The internal contradictions will supplant any will to confront possible external threats. Now who might possibly benefit from that?

I take it that your cryptic comment refers to the speech by the then Secretary General, Lord Robertson :-

https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm

NATO resolve then or now is not the issue. It is the resolve and commitment of NATO member nations that is in question. Without the latter the former quickly becomes irrelevant.

[Mil-26Man]

My 'cryptic comment' refers to the time that NATO invoked Article 5, in support or the United States. Find it a little disconnecting that it tends to be Americans these days who question the relevance of NATO, forgetting that it was their NATO allies who came to their aid when the call came, and not the other way around.

[Chugalug2]

Americans these days have a variety of views, just as do the French, Germans, Dutch, Brits, and even the Russians. It is their regimes however who act on their behalves, for better or worse. What NATO invoked in 2001 and what member nations aim for in 2019 are not necessarily in step with each other. Regimes come and go, others persist in various forms to threaten the security of others. That is what NATO is supposed to be about, but only if it is given the moral support to do so from both sides of the pond.

[t43562]

Americans these days have a variety of views, just as do the French, Germans, Dutch, Brits, and even the Russians. It is their regimes however who act on their behalves, for better or worse. What NATO invoked in 2001 and what member nations aim for in 2019 are not necessarily in step with each other. Regimes come and go, others persist in various forms to threaten the security of others. That is what NATO is supposed to be about, but only if it is given the moral support to do so from both sides of the pond.

Out of interest, how much military unity do you think can be maintained indefinitely without some level of political unity?

[Chugalug2]

Out of interest, how much military unity do you think can be maintained indefinitely without some level of political unity?

Out of interest, what do you mean by political unity? In the past we have had a mixture of left and right wing governments of NATO member nations supporting (to varying degrees it is true) the aim of the Treaty, which is one of common security. Now we are faced with a rival European organisation, the EU, which espouses policies and ambitions that are in conflict with NATO. We all know what drives that, the anti US sentiment of certain European Governments. They should be careful what they wish for. If they succeed in tipping US policy into washing its hands of its NATO commitments, they may well find that they have cut off their nose to spite their face.

[t43562]

Out of interest, what do you mean by political unity? In the past we have had a mixture of left and right wing governments of NATO member nations supporting (to varying degrees it is true) the aim of the Treaty, which is one of common security. Now we are faced with a rival European organisation, the EU, which espouses policies and ambitions that are in conflict with NATO. We all know what drives that, the anti US sentiment of certain European Governments. They should be careful what they wish for. If they succeed in tipping US policy into washing its hands of its NATO commitments, they may well find that they have cut off their nose to spite their face.

I mean when people have different interests that conflict and no pre-agreed way to resolve them how long will their military co-operation continue? As an example, Turkey or as in another example "trade wars". So as an example, inside a country one maintains peace through law and compromises - and if you do that well then there's no need to have a huge army to suppress anyone. If law and compromises are how it's done inside countries, how will we do it between countries without the same strategy?

[Chugalug2]

The only interest that is at stake here is that of a perceived common external military threat. If that is agreed upon then that is enough, simply sign a Treaty to that effect or support one previously committed to. As to internal security, law and compromises work only by mutual consent. When that fails you are faced with the worst of all wars, a civil war. I contend that is far more likely to happen if nation states surrender their sovereignty to a union of member states. That is why such unions need a huge army, as you put it. As to law and compromises working between countries, best to carry a big stick and speak softly. Unless of course you are a believer in World Government, in which case please refer to comments above re Unions.

[West Coast]

My 'cryptic comment' refers to the time that NATO invoked Article 5, in support or the United States. Find it a little disconnecting that it tends to be Americans these days who question the relevance of NATO, forgetting that it was their NATO allies who came to their aid when the call came, and not the other way around.

Some missions over the homeland sans action is hardly a shining example of any usefulness NATO had or may still have.

It’s time to wind down US participation in NATO. As I’ve said before, Europeans should lead in the defense of Europe.

[Mil-26Man]

Some missions over the homeland sans action is hardly a shining example of any usefulness NATO had or may still have.

It’s time to wind down US participation in NATO. As I’ve said before, Europeans should lead in the defense of Europe.

I agree about Europeans leading the defence of Europe, but then comes the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the European Army. Damned if they do, damned if they don't...

[t43562]

The only interest that is at stake here is that of a perceived common external military threat. If that is agreed upon then that is enough, simply sign a Treaty to that effect or support one previously committed to. As to internal security, law and compromises work only by mutual consent. When that fails you are faced with the worst of all wars, a civil war. I contend that is far more likely to happen if nation states surrender their sovereignty to a union of member states. That is why such unions need a huge army, as you put it. As to law and compromises working between countries, best to carry a big stick and speak softly. Unless of course you are a believer in World Government, in which case please refer to comments above re Unions.

i.e. without Russia, Western Europe won't have any perceived external threat and will have the big disincentive against fighting each other removed. And order won't maintained by law and compromise but will rely on everyone arming to the teeth. So it's pre-medieval times externally and 21st century democracy internally. It seems like an argument that would prevent the UK itself from ever having been created - let alone the US.

[Chugalug2]

i.e. without Russia, Western Europe won't have any perceived external threat and will have the big disincentive against fighting each other removed. And order won't maintained by law and compromise but will rely on everyone arming to the teeth. So it's pre-medieval times externally and 21st century democracy internally. It seems like an argument that would prevent the UK itself from ever having been created - let alone the US.

The two Unions you mention, the UK and the USA, were both secured and retained in bloodshed (the USA in a rather shorter timescale than the UK). There is nothing special about the 21st Century, or any other century for that matter. We are a warlike species that has developed its technology, its culture, its extent, at the cost of those stood in our way. When we boldly go where no man has gone before no doubt the same will apply, the Prime Directive not withstanding.

That is what makes the EU so dangerous. It's proponents sincerely believe that it will prevent future European Wars. I fear that it could well be the cause of the next one, when those who get in its way try to resist ever closer unity. As to Russia, how do you do "without Russia"? That certainly sounds intriguing!

[Mil-26Man]

The two Unions you mention, the UK and the USA, were both secured and retained in bloodshed (the USA in a rather shorter timescale than the UK). There is nothing special about the 21st Century, or any other century for that matter. We are a warlike species that has developed its technology, its culture, its extent, at the cost of those stood in our way. When we boldly go where no man has gone before no doubt the same will apply, the Prime Directive not withstanding.

That is what makes the EU so dangerous. It's proponents sincerely believe that it will prevent future European Wars. I fear that it could well be the cause of the next one, when those who get in its way try to resist ever closer unity. As to Russia, how do you do "without Russia"? That certainly sounds intriguing!

To the total contrary, it is precisely what makes the EU such an essential guarantor of peace and stability for its members. Removing the conditions for hostile competition between the member states and replacing them with incentives for cooperation are exactly why there have been no wars whatsoever between any member states since it was created.

As a wise man once said (well, Boris Johnson actually, but every clock is right twice a day), "If the EU didn't exist, we would have to invent it!"

[Chugalug2]

To the total contrary, it is precisely what makes the EU such an essential guarantor of peace and stability for its members. Removing the conditions for hostile competition between the member states and replacing them with incentives for cooperation are exactly why there have been no wars whatsoever between any member states since it was created.

As a wise man once said (well, Boris Johnson actually, but every clock is right twice a day), "If the EU didn't exist, we would have to invent it!"

The only thing that removes possible hostility is the injection of very large amounts of monetary contributions from the successful economies into those economies dependent upon those injections. Pre the Euro, those economies got by with regular devaluations of their own currencies, which worked well enough unless you were foolish enough to try to save. Now they have to cope with the Deutschmark in all but name. They are not Germans and the result has been a disaster for them. Once the injections dry up (Germany is teetering on recession and we are pulling the plug, though ever so slowly!) things will get worse, much worse! Never mind hostile competition, more like the making of insurrection I'd say.

The reason there have been no wars in Western Europe since the war was because it faced an external threat from the USSR. Hence NATO. It again faces an external threat from Moscow but is too busy contemplating its own navel and the glorious sunny uplands it dreams of. It needs to wake up and smell the coffee. NATO kept the peace since WWII, and is needed to keep it still. The European Army will be there to defend the EU/USE from internal threat, just like the armies of other newly formed Unions.

Johnson said that? You learn something new every day! When and where please?

[t43562]

The two Unions you mention, the UK and the USA, were both secured and retained in bloodshed (the USA in a rather shorter timescale than the UK). There is nothing special about the 21st Century, or any other century for that matter. We are a warlike species that has developed its technology, its culture, its extent, at the cost of those stood in our way. When we boldly go where no man has gone before no doubt the same will apply, the Prime Directive not withstanding.

That is what makes the EU so dangerous. It's proponents sincerely believe that it will prevent future European Wars. I fear that it could well be the cause of the next one, when those who get in its way try to resist ever closer unity. As to Russia, how do you do "without Russia"? That certainly sounds intriguing!

So in other words the next big grouping of EU size will have to be created by a big war and that will satisfy you. Perhaps the Russians will eventually do it.

[Mil-26Man]

The only thing that removes possible hostility is the injection of very large amounts of monetary contributions from the successful economies into those economies dependent upon those injections. Pre the Euro, those economies got by with regular devaluations of their own currencies, which worked well enough unless you were foolish enough to try to save. Now they have to cope with the Deutschmark in all but name. They are not Germans and the result has been a disaster for them. Once the injections dry up (Germany is teetering on recession and we are pulling the plug, though ever so slowly!) things will get worse, much worse! Never mind hostile competition, more like the making of insurrection I'd say.

The reason there have been no wars in Western Europe since the war was because it faced an external threat from the USSR. Hence NATO. It again faces an external threat from Moscow but is too busy contemplating its own navel and the glorious sunny uplands it dreams of. It needs to wake up and smell the coffee. NATO kept the peace since WWII, and is needed to keep it still. The European Army will be there to defend the EU/USE from internal threat, just like the armies of other newly formed Unions.

Johnson said that? You learn something new every day! When and where please?

Can't be bothered going round the houses again refuting the same tired arguments, but here's the Johnson quote you asked for https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-brexit-speech-changed-his-mind-remain-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

[Chugalug2]

So in other words the next big grouping of EU size will have to be created by a big war and that will satisfy you. Perhaps the Russians will eventually do it.

I think you'll find that "the Russians" have already done a big grouping and had a big war. 20 million of them died. Does that satisfy me? No, why should it? It did help free Europe of one tyranny though, but only to replace half of it with another. The trick now is to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself, which it has a nasty habit of doing.

[t43562]

I think you'll find that "the Russians" have already done a big grouping and had a big war. 20 million of them died. Does that satisfy me? No, why should it? It did help free Europe of one tyranny though, but only to replace half of it with another. The trick now is to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself, which it has a nasty habit of doing.

History is that the entities we can manage get bigger so there probably will be a grouping of states and it's just a matter of whether it's created by war or by agreement - makes me think eventually we have to learn to do it peacefully as we have learned not to keep our latrines near our wells.

[Chugalug2]

History is that the entities we can manage get bigger so there probably will be a grouping of states and it's just a matter of whether it's created by war or by agreement - makes me think eventually we have to learn to do it peacefully as we have learned not to keep our latrines near our wells.

I think that we have hogged enough of the limelight here, don't you? We are clearly not going to agree. My preference is for countries, with their own histories, cultures, and languages, to seek common security in treaty arrangements like NATO. Yours is for super states where those countries join together in federations and unions.

My feeling is that such unions create tensions between other such blocks which the looser arrangements of treaties tend to avoid. History can provide examples of both arrangements leading to war rather than peace. I would only say that the threats to blocks come from both within and without. Look at Hong Kong, Catalonia, Scotland, and Wales! We might try to resolve such tensions democratically, but the other ways are shown on our TV screens nightly. You pays your money and you makes your choice...

[Asturias56]

"History can provide examples of both arrangements leading to war rather than peace"

And of course vice-versa - the US has not had a war between States in 18565, England has not fought Scotland since the 1500's, the Italian States have not fought each other since the 19th Century.

[Chugalug2]

There have certainly been wars in the name of Scotland since 1500, the Jacobite Rebellion being the prime example. A classic case of a Union suppressing an uprising. Ditto the Easter Rebellion. The constituent states may not have rebelled, but such uprisings are usually in their name. When the states themselves rebel it means civil war of course, witness the bloodletting of the US one.

I take your point though. Usually these uprisings occur in the early years of Unions. Hence they need the means to supress them from day one. The Red Army and the PLA were thus in place in good time to ensure and defend their respective regimes.

[t43562]

I think that we have hogged enough of the limelight here, don't you? We are clearly not going to agree.

I thought it was only religious differences that can't be reasoned out. I'm from Zimbabwe - the Rhodesians made the same mistake by choosing not to become part of South Africa....and haven't stopped paying since. Of course joining up with some Afrikaaners didn't appeal....hence Mugabe and military coups and so on ad infinitum.

[SARF]

An EU army will truly be a sight to behold. Some of that European marching is wonderful.
as for it’s military effectiveness. I can’t see what’s left of the Russian army quaking in its boots. ..
the us marine corp trainees could probably dispatch it in acouple of days..... 2 para in an afternoon. As long as there wasn’t a decent match on telly

[minigundiplomat]

Look at Hong Kong, Catalonia, Scotland, and Wales!

Ahem, and Yugoslavia.

[Asturias56]

"wars in the name of Scotland since 1500, the Jacobite Rebellion being the prime example."

Chug I hate to tell you but that was 1745 - you can put away your pitchfork and blunderbuss and sleep easy tonight. :)

[ORAC]

Sophistry - it is has had an uprising - exclude it from your definition of Europe.

So the Baltic States, Hungary, Poland etc are in.....

But Exclude Armenia (Nagorno-Karabakh); Georgia (South Ossetia); Ukraine (Donbas); and Moldova (Transdniestria).

[Asturias56]

But even countries that can be described as Nation States have "Uprisings" ORAC - most famously the USA but just about every country has had to resort to armed reaction to keep the state intact at one time or another. Spain fought a Civil War in living memory and is still not settled but that's been a Nation State for over 500 years.

[Chugalug2]

But even countries that can be described as Nation States have "Uprisings" ORAC - most famously the USA but just about every country has had to resort to armed reaction to keep the state intact at one time or another. Spain fought a Civil War in living memory and is still not settled but that's been a Nation State for over 500 years.

A rose by any other name. Unions try to assume the form of being a nation ASAP. In hardening their identity they simultaneously reduce the identity of their component states. Even if they don't formally declare themselves as Unions, if their "nation" is composed of previously separate cultures with their own language and traditions then they are in effect a Union. Go ask the Basques and Catalonians.

Yes, nations can have civil wars of course, but Unions are more likely to because of the sharp divisions within the population. Again these tensions are more likely to erupt in the early years but they are there forever. A mature Union should recognise that and have some form of democratic process to provide for secession if the majority so wish.

[Mil-26Man]

A rose by any other name. Unions try to assume the form of being a nation ASAP. In hardening their identity they simultaneously reduce the identity of their component states. Even if they don't formally declare themselves as Unions, if their "nation" is composed of previously separate cultures with their own language and traditions then they are in effect a Union. Go ask the Basques and Catalonians.

Yes, nations can have civil wars of course, but Unions are more likely to because of the sharp divisions within the population. Again these tensions are more likely to erupt in the early years but they are there forever. A mature Union should recognise that and have some form of democratic process to provide for secession if the majority so wish.

Like the European Union, you mean? The only reason we haven't left is because of the hardliners in the ERG.

[Chugalug2]

Like the European Union, you mean? The only reason we haven't left is because of the hardliners in the ERG.

Actually I was thinking of the United Kingdom. We can hardly point the finger at other unions without making leaving ours possible. Personally I think that the UK works well for all its component nations, but if a majority therein think otherwise...

I'm pretty certain that in a hundred years time historians will still be discussing the whys and wherefores of us not leaving after some three and a half years and counting. After all, leave means leave! Or does it?

[West Coast]

But even countries that can be described as Nation States have "Uprisings" ORAC - most famously the USA but just about every country has had to resort to armed reaction to keep the state intact at one time or another. Spain fought a Civil War in living memory and is still not settled but that's been a Nation State for over 500 years.

What would NATO do in the event of an internal domestic dispute in a member state that threatened to topple the government?

Obviously this Euro army is notional and its charter is but a dream, but NATO doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to showing initiative to countering violence in Europe until forced.

[t43562]

What would NATO do in the event of an internal domestic dispute in a member state that threatened to topple the government?

Obviously this Euro army is notional and its charter is but a dream, but NATO doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to showing initiative to countering violence in Europe until forced.

It would probably behave in some non-optimal way and the desirable, achievable outcomes are probably few and difficult to reach anyhow. The point of having laws and courts, compromises and so on is to have ways to solve problems before they get to the point of fighting. Tensions build up between countries and inside countries without the need for them to be part of a union but a country/union has some mechanisms to cope with these issues besides a fight.

[Asturias56]

"What would NATO do in the event of an internal domestic dispute in a member state that threatened to topple the government?"

depends on the political hue of the insurgents:-

Left Wing - "police action and intervention"

Right Wing - "the next NATO meeting is a week on Sunday - dress informal"

[West Coast]

https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/european-security-in-crisis-what-to-expect-if-the-united-states-withdraws-from-nato/

[BVRAAM]

I don't think any European Army would be something the UK would ever be involved in - not after Brexit anyway.
Those who say we will, seem to be just doing it to stir up hatred, which is irresponsible.

[weemonkey]

We will what exactly?

[Asturias56]

Well there are already all sorts of non -NATO military groupings around Europe - for example the Swedes and the Finns are involved with the Danes, Germans & Poles in various naval set-ups in the Baltic. Maybe a "European Army" as such is a ways off but there is more to European security than just NATO - and it seems to be growing.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/05/european-union-erects-legal-hoops-for-outsiders-to-join-defense-programs/

European Union erects legal hoops for outsiders to join defense programs

[pr00ne]

It's almost as if it's a club with a membership, rules, subscription and benefits for those members...

[Chugalug2]

It's almost as if it's a club with a membership, rules, subscription and benefits for those members...

So rather like the Warsaw Pact, Pr00ne?

[Asturias56]

Or the local golf club...............

[Blossy]

I love the terminology used for the great and the good in EU land and expect to see 'The Supreme Panjandrum' being accepted and applied just before the whole unnatural edifice tumbles under its own absurdity.

[pr00ne]

So rather like the Warsaw Pact, Pr00ne?

Chugalug2,

Er, no, couldn't be more different and diametrically opposed actually.

What a strange thing to say.

[pr00ne]

Blossy,

You appear to be mixing up what you want to see with what you actually see.

[Finningley Boy]

All this interest, occasionally denied, in a Euro Army (Euro Armed Forces) and other similar European defence organizations either in practice but with no announced formal identity or vice versa, has a ring of irony about it with consideration to NATO. The latter owes its formation to the immediate years following the end of the Second World War, initially called the West European Defence Union, with ourselves, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands as the original subscribers.
The whole idea was to prepare for any westward lurch by the USSR seeing as they were settled across the rest of Europe, right up to the new border between the American, British and French zones of occupation in Germany with the Red Army on their Eastern patch. Concerns about Joe Stalin's reactions after his nose was put out of joint at the Paris Conference to thrash out who would get what from the 'Marshal Plan' arose after Joe was told, directly, that free and democratic elections would be a pre-requisite among the beneficiaries. This wouldn't do as far as he was concerned.
Next, the Berlin Blockade tested everyone's resolve, which was predominantly confronted by the US, and I will say advisedly, ourselves. Before the blockade was lifted, the WEDU members lobbied the US to join a wider defence alliance, therefore the re-tread as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). As NATO, the membership expanded to include Canada, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Italy, Portugal as well as the much sought after, by the euro states then, United States of America. Admittedly, America wasn't presided over at the time by a character like Donald Trump. I think the EU leaders today, particularly those with ambitions about shutting the US (so it might appear from time to time) out of their security affairs, and likely ourselves now, shouldn't place too much store by Trump's America, not under current circumstances.

Ok over extending ramble over.

FB

[ORAC]

The shorter version being the WEU and then NATO were formed in Europe to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down....


https://www.cvce.eu/en/education/unit-content/-/unit/803b2430-7d1c-4e7b-9101-47415702fc8e/6d9db05c-1e8c-487a-a6bc-ff25cf1681e0

[Asturias56]

I love the terminology used for the great and the good in EU land and expect to see 'The Supreme Panjandrum' being accepted and applied just before the whole unnatural edifice tumbles under its own absurdity.

Blossy - people (especially those in the UK) have been saying that about the Eu and its various institutions for over 70 years. I think it's time to realise it is a permanent feature of the landscape even if you don't like it. :ok:

[Finningley Boy]

Blossy - people (especially those in the UK) have been saying that about the Eu and its various institutions for over 70 years. I think it's time to realise it is a permanent feature of the landscape even if you don't like it. :ok:

Asturia,

Until 1993 the EU as we recognise it today didn't exist and the title was different, it was the less ambitious EC European Community, previously the EEC European Economic Community. The latter is what the British voters in 1975 agreed to, what was suggested in the title, economic cooperation. Since the EU appeared, the Brussels commissariat have introduced a single currency and have imposed a raft of laws, ok each member state votes on them, but we can lose against laws our government object to and have to accept, this isn't independence at all. This, I'm sure, is a very similar argument to the one the SNP have for Scottish independence, ie the Scots don't get the overall government they vote for. However, Scotland had been in union with England and Wales since 1707. Recognised as one nation state, the United Kingdom, for essentially defence and economic reasons. The UK, at the point of leaving the EU, was still to all intents and purposes, a sovereign state. My personal belief is those who remain, for better or worse, will become a single nationality, like the British. They will be Europeans and hitherto national governments will continue very much in the role of State/Regional Governor. However, as I understand, it is claimed that the UK were on the losing side of EU law votes only 2% of the time. To take the opposite point of view to Brexit, its a shame that the remain campaign treated the British public with such sweeping contempt, that they didn't emphasize such points, instead of telling everyone they would simply be poor and the country would without EU oversight, for that is what it increasingly is, become insignificant.

FB

[Big Pistons Forever]

The Military threat to Europe, too much history, too little memory....

[NutLoose]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/05/european-union-erects-legal-hoops-for-outsiders-to-join-defense-programs/

European Union erects legal hoops for outsiders to join defense programs

Rather short sighted isn’t it, you may well need those outsiders if the world turns to poo and by making it difficult for them to join in just compounds inter operability issues.

[Asturias56]

I had and have no intention of reopening the BREXIT wars here - maybe on Jetblast - I was only making the point that people are always saying "the EU (or one of its constituent parts) is about to collapse" - history now tells us otherwise.

[minigundiplomat]

Since the EU consists mainly of 25 former sovereign states that traditionally either don't fight, can't fight or have a 'surrender first' policy, and one nation that has an awkward habit of invading the other 25, plucky Malta will probably be the only effective contribution.

[etudiant]

Since the EU consists mainly of 25 former sovereign states that traditionally either don't fight, can't fight or have a 'surrender first' policy, and one nation that has an awkward habit of invading the other 25, plucky Malta will probably be the only effective contribution.

I thought Malta's main contribution was sanitizing the airspace by shooting everything that moves during migration season.

[Finningley Boy]

Since the EU consists mainly of 25 former sovereign states that traditionally either don't fight, can't fight or have a 'surrender first' policy, and one nation that has an awkward habit of invading the other 25, plucky Malta will probably be the only effective contribution.
A droll if ever so slightly sweeping assessment sir, I think we might look at forming a separate FTA with Malta, along with Australian, Japan and whoever else etc. Mind you of the 25 I'd say at least Poland was worthy.

FB

[hunterboy]

[However, as I understand, it is claimed that the UK were on the losing side of EU law votes only 2% of the time.
That is an interesting statistic. It could be argued that is because we were generally good Europeans and complied with the rules whereas other EU countries ignored what wasn’t good for them?
I look forward to reading an honest appraisal and history of the U.K. in the EU where much of the rhetoric and propaganda has been stripped out , and we will be able to assess the pro’s and con’s objectively. At the moment , we are still too close to the decision for the truth to come out . I just hope that I’m still alive to be able to read it in 25 years .

[Asturias56]

"Since the EU consists mainly of 25 former sovereign states that traditionally either don't fight, can't fight or have a 'surrender first' policy,"

MGD - can we see you make that statement in public at say 10:30 pm in any major square of the 25? :E

[Haraka]

As a slightly tongue in cheek aside:
Years ago I sat in the cockpit of the Fiat CR 42 that is now with the RAFM
The pilot defected to the U.K. from Belgium.
He said he didn't want to fight, hated the Belgian weather and the food more so. .
Finally, he couldn't stand his German " colleagues".
As a cynical German officer once asked me:
"What is the Italian war flag?"
"A white cross................... on a white background".

But that was years ago of course...

[minigundiplomat]

MGD - can we see you make that statement in public at say 10:30 pm in any major square of the 25?

Unfortunately, the ability to puff out ones chest after a couple of vin rouge does not win wars. Ask any elderly inhabitants of Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Warsaw etc, etc, etc

[etudiant]

With a birth rate that is well below replacement value, Europe is doing just fine at disappearing without the bother of war.
A side effect is that kids are suddenly a whole lot more valuable, so why waste them in stupid wars?

[Asturias56]

Unfortunately, the ability to puff out ones chest after a couple of vin rouge does not win wars. Ask any elderly inhabitants of Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Warsaw etc, etc, etc


You know I've been to museums and war memorials in all those places - and a hell of a lot of people died in every one of them fighting for their country - they didn't win but they did fight. No-one in the UK, USA or Australia had to fight door to door through their own neighbourhoods.

Your arm-chair wit is sadly misplaced :(

[wiggy]

Well said Asturias..I'll just drop in a link to one of our local battles...it's in French but the pictures tell a lot of the story..


https://cras31.info/IMG/pdf/1944_bataille_de_rimont_et_de_castelnau_durban.pdf

[Bergerie1]

Well said Asturias and wiggy.

I live in the south of France and have lived in Belgium and France for 25 years. It is well worth taking the time to look at local museums and war memorials and to see what the local people had to suffer. People in Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and other occupied countries fought just as bravely as us.

Britain was very lucky to have had 20 miles of sea between it and the continent, other wise we would have gone the same way. There was no way Britain could have stood alone with out La Manche, and the RAF.

And if you want to see what happened in some places I suggest people go to Oradour-sur-Glane:-
https://www.oradour.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane

It could so easily have happened to us.

[minigundiplomat]

I used to live very close to Oradour and it is a sombre reminder of inhumanity, but I don't understand the context of a massacre of unarmed civilians by the Germans on European nations being able to defend themselves.

Maybe next time skip a museum and go and visit the miles of headstones at the allied war cemeteries before telling me you don't need the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other non-european help to stop yourselves from killing each other. Remember Bosnia, when the EU sat on their hands and the Dutch troops stood by and watched genocide take place?

I'm more than happy for Europe to form an 'army club' and have some new badges, but when, and it will, it all goes wrong and you start killing each other again, don't expect us to pick up the tab with the blood of youth again. I wish you well, but if you want responsibility, you have to take responsibility and all it entails.

[Asturias56]

There really is no answer to that ...................... :(

[ORAC]

EU’s first uniform - Frontex.

They do use aircraft, but mainly drones and chartered surveillance - not sure if they have designed any wings or other aviation badges...

https://twitter.com/florianeder/status/1348654851975208963?s=20

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1781685820915975

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germanys-greens-back-creation-of-european-army-rcn6vjlvq

Germany’s Greens back creation of European army

The Green Party’s candidate to succeed Angela Merkel has called for “steps towards” a European army as she set out the first detailed account of her foreign policy agenda.

Annalena Baerbock (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-novice-green-is-ready-to-bounce-into-merkels-chair-jbwcbgmqj), 40, an MP with no ministerial experience, is coming under greater scrutiny as polls suggest that she has a credible chance of becoming her country’s first Green chancellor. Two surveys published over the weekend indicate that her party has pulled level with Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

A third poll, of 1,500 business executives and public-sector “decision-makers”, found that 27 per cent intended to vote for Baerbock but only 14 per cent supported her CDU opponent, Armin Laschet (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germanys-cdu-party-pays-for-angela-merkels-dithering-over-successor-t36np6qlb), 60.

The prospect of a Green-led German government has drawn increased attention to the party’s foreign and defence policies. Traditionally pacifists who campaigned for Germany to withdraw from Nato and banish US atomic weapons from its territory, the Greens have adopted a more atlanticist tone in recent years.

The party has strongly criticised Moscow and Beijing and called for an end to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. One of its leading intellectuals recently suggested that it should abandon its opposition to the American nuclear umbrella.

Yesterday Baerbock left open the possibility that US atomic bombs could provisionally remain on German soil as she criticised the “foreign policy passivity” of Merkel’s government.

She argued that Nato could offer to give up its “first strike” option — the freedom to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack — in exchange for Russia withdrawing its atomic warheads from Kaliningrad, an exclave on the Baltic coast.

“A world free of nuclear weapons would be a safer world,” Baerbock told Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. She called for the creation of joint EU military units under the control of the European parliament.

“In my view we have to bundle our capabilities together more strongly as Europeans,” she said. “Europe’s defence spending is three or four times as high as Russia’s but our capabilities are limited because we duplicate a lot. That’s inefficient.”

She avoided a question about arming Ukraine with anti-aircraft guns after a build-up of Russian troops on its border and described Nato’s defence budget targets as outdated and absurd.

China, she said, should be handled with “dialogue and steeliness”, but she noted that it was too large a market for Germany to risk cutting off trade......

[hunterboy]

I’ve gotta say, as a Brit living on the continent, with the way the EU has treated the UK during and post Brexit, it is apparent that there is no love lost between them. Why should the UK come to the aid (and vice-versa) of Europe should it be necessary in the future? Who is seen as the future threat? The Russians? What would their motive be? They seem to be doing very well buying up the best places to live in the UK and the EU already.
Let’s leave them to their games and concentrate on making the UK wealthy by getting trade deals signed as well as upskilling our workforce. After all, you don’t see Singapore and Switzerland constantly sticking their nose into other’s business.

[jmmoric]

......with the way the EU has treated the UK during and post Brexit....

Who will go first?

[langleybaston]

I sat on medium/high level specialist NATO committees for six years, and was previously a TACEVAL trapper.

NATO served its purpose but relied heavily on the USA [thank you, Uncle Sam] and to a lesser degree on the UK.

Having seen how "Europe" has become dysfunctional in recent years, surely a Europe Army would be a toothless talking shop, a refuge for superannuated generals, with troops armed with broomsticks and ADAC helicopters.and a decision-making process that would still be mulling over Phase One at ENDEX.

Risible, and UK should have nothing to do with SUCH bogus entities, just stick to the wreckage of NATO.

[Asturias56]

"Why should the UK come to the aid (and vice-versa) of Europe should it be necessary in the future"

Well

a) its 22 miles away

b) 43% of UK exports go there

c) ever since Tudor times the English have fought to stop one country ruling Europe

other than that I guess there's no reason at all........................... :E

[SaulGoodman]

I sat on medium/high level specialist NATO committees for six years, and was previously a TACEVAL trapper.

NATO served its purpose but relied heavily on the USA [thank you, Uncle Sam] and to a lesser degree on the UK.

Having seen how "Europe" has become dysfunctional in recent years, surely a Europe Army would be a toothless talking shop, a refuge for superannuated generals, with troops armed with broomsticks and ADAC helicopters.and a decision-making process that would still be mulling over Phase One at ENDEX.

Risible, and UK should have nothing to do with SUCH bogus entities, just stick to the wreckage of NATO.

you describe exactly why it is that the EU must integrate more towards an EU army

[t43562]

Originally Posted by hunterboy View Post (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/602986-european-army-post11034047.html#post11034047)
......with the way the EU has treated the UK during and post Brexit....
Who will go first?

I think it's always good to hear the Russian point of view.

[minigundiplomat]

"Why should the UK come to the aid (and vice-versa) of Europe should it be necessary in the future"

Well

a) its 22 miles away - sadly true, but across water that has held petty dictators at bay in the past (all of whom have been European....)

b) 43% of UK exports go there - no longer true, and even when it was, included exports routed to non-EU countries via Europort.

c) ever since Tudor times the English have fought to stop one country ruling Europe - possibly true, but no longer a sustainable strategy now the eurotrash all want to be one country.

other than that I guess there's no reason at all...........................

If the Russians invaded Europe, I would pour a beer, grab some popcorn and watch the show from the white cliffs of Dover.

[Asturias56]

I guess sitting in Asia Pacific you'd be quite happy having Mr Putin sitting right across from Dover?

How long do you think he'd stay there? The genius of the English long term strategy is that all the fighting, and most of the combatants are kept in Europe, not at home

And the EU countries (forget Europort) is still Britain biggest customer by a country mile

[jmmoric]

"Why should the UK come to the aid (and vice-versa) of Europe should it be necessary in the future"

Well

a) its 22 miles away - sadly true, but across water that has held petty dictators at bay in the past (all of whom have been European....)

b) 43% of UK exports go there - no longer true, and even when it was, included exports routed to non-EU countries via Europort.

c) ever since Tudor times the English have fought to stop one country ruling Europe - possibly true, but no longer a sustainable strategy now the eurotrash all want to be one country.

other than that I guess there's no reason at all...........................

If the Russians invaded Europe, I would pour a beer, grab some popcorn and watch the show from the white cliffs of Dover.

If I remember correctly the British Isles has been invaded and occupied in the past? Like the Romans, Vikings, Normans etc.....

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

But yes, not in "modern times".... but honestly, there should be a reason to go there.... and I really can't find any.....:E

[Asturias56]

Yeah but the last successful invasion was a quite a while ago............................ the Scots kept on trying but even they seem to want to leave now.......... :ok:

[Beamr]

Yeah but the last successful invasion was a quite a while ago............................ the Scots kept on trying but even they seem to want to leave now.......... :ok:
well... the americans landed in 1942 without resistance and they haven't left since :}

[minigundiplomat]

Asturius,

have you been reading the Guardian again?

[Asturias56]

You seem to think that it doesn't matter to the UK what happens in Europe. A quick look at any news feed will show issues with trade, with certification (just look on here for the shambles re certifying UK pilots etc) ,with illegal immigration, with fishing, with national security - all these things have to be dealt with as partners, not as some sort of Little Englander - especially ones who don't live in the UK

[jmmoric]

You seem to think that it doesn't matter to the UK what happens in Europe. A quick look at any news feed will show issues with trade, with certification (just look on here for the shambles re certifying UK pilots etc) ,with illegal immigration, with fishing, with national security - all these things have to be dealt with as partners, not as some sort of Little Englander - especially ones who don't live in the UK

The UK assembled a fleet and sent it to Asia..... everything will be fine now.

[minigundiplomat]

Hundreds of thousands of troops from across the Commonwealth have died saving Europe from itself, many didn’t live in the UK; my Grandfather landed on the beach at Normandy and I served over 20 years in the UK military, so my location is irrelevant and I don’t need your approval to comment.

This being a military forum, I’ll explain using those terms. The EU has a nice flag, a currency, anthem and policies for every situation, and I get it, you all love each other and want to be the new USA. Good luck to you.

What you don’t have is any military weight, and neither are you prepared to invest in such. Military equipment is a horse trade on who gets what share of the booty. You don’t invest and very few allocate the NATO minimum. Trump was wrong about many things, but when it came to many EU members being defence and security freeloaders, he was spot on.

And so, when the EU’s ambition outstrips capability, it will go horribly wrong. Ukraine is a prime example of EU miscalculation in foreign policy, and possibly a portent of future mis-steps. When it does go wrong, I will crack a beer and watch as you all shove the might of the Luxembourg and Belgian militaries to the front.

The idea of some EU Army holding back the Russians is pure fantasy, and as usual, you’ll look to the US, UK and Commonwealth to bail you out - again. I will be melting marshmallows on the fire, amigo,

[t43562]

What you don’t have is any military weight, and neither are you prepared to invest in such. Military equipment is a horse trade on who gets what share of the booty. You don’t invest and very few allocate the NATO minimum. Trump was wrong about many things, but when it came to many EU members being defence and security freeloaders, he was spot on.

So step 1 on fixing that would be to have an EU Army, presumably.

[minigundiplomat]

If they wish, or they could live up to their NATO responsibilities.