European Army

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by 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...

"...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]

Originally Posted by 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....

"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]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by Harley Quinn

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 declared that the kingdoms of England and Scotland were "United into One Kingdom by the Name 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]
[31]
[note 12] 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]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] The Acts of Union 1800 united the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Following the partition of Ireland and the independence of the Irish Free State in 1922, which left 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]Although the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country, England, Scotland, Wales and, to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland are also regarded as countries, though they are not sovereign states.[38]
[39] Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have devolved self-government.[40]
[41] The British Prime Minister's website has used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom.[19] Some statistical summaries, such as those for the twelve NUTS 1 regions of the United Kingdom, also refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "regions".[42]
[43] Northern Ireland is also referred to as a "province".[44]
[45] With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences".[46]The term "Great Britain" refers conventionally to the island of Great Britain, or politically to England, Scotland and Wales in combination.[47]
[48]
[49] However, it is sometimes used as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole.[50][[i]not in citation given][51] GB and GBR are the standard country codes for the United Kingdom (see ISO 3166-2 and 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 competes under the name "Great Britain" or "Team GB".[52]
[53]The term "Britain" is used both as a synonym for Great Britain,[54]
[55]
[56] and as a synonym for the United Kingdom.[57]
[56] Usage is mixed, with the BBC preferring to use Britain as shorthand only for Great Britain[58] 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] While the UK 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] it has been used "informally" by government websites.[61]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.[62] 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, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, or Irish;[63] or as being both.[64]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] 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 and the independence of the Irish Free State in 1922, which left 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.[

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

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

“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]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The High Representative shall preside over the Foreign Affairs Council.
4. 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).
(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) and Regulation (EU) No 1285/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) 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) 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) 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-conten...ATE_180718.pdf