Bring Back Boris?

[BeElBeeBub]

They don't take centralised commands YET.  As as I have been saying, that is the plan.  Brussels does not need to compel anyone.  Our own politicians would love an EU army.  Maybe they can get a nice job in the EU or the WHO or the WEF, afterwards.

If our own politicians want British formations to be part of an EU army, commanded by the EU commission in Brussels, then not being a member of the EU won't stop them.

[BeElBeeBub]

You're going back almost 80 years, and fail to mention the Italians / Japan with the German army. German can't fight, it's in their constitution, and you think Italy or France will get involved? Both having more reverse gears that forward on their tanks. You still don't acknowledge that the EU army is still on the cards.

 i'm savoring the irony of a brexiter telling me ww2 is too long ago to be particularly relevant! I couldn't agree more.

Yes, Germany is constitutionally blocked from military adventures abroad and frankly their military is in a bit of a state.  However they do have an excellent defence industry and some very useful niche capabilities (the Wiesel1/2 would be a really useful weapon for Ukraine right now). France is the real big hitter, comparable to the UK, ahead in some areas, maybe a bit behind in others. They have waged a protracted series of operations across Africa and are probably better equipped and trained for African peacekeeping and evacuation operations than the UK. The Swedes and Finns have very good winter capabilities and some good equipment (the NLAW has proved useful and the Gripen would be very useful for Ukraine right now). Poland has a tank fleet twice the size of the UK and a self-propelled artillery artillery fleet 5x the UKs, the Krab being at least the equal of the UK AS90, and so on. The blanket dismissal of European armies as being cowards etc is again a very typical brexiter trait.

As far as I know, the "more reverse than forward gears" thing is an urban legend. Love to see some proof there (and the Panhard EBR doesn't count, it was designed to drive in both directions)

[Scott777]

Well they don't take centralised commands so on that definition, not an EU Army.  A designated lead nation provides the command structure.

And crucially Brussels cannot compel any EU nation to provide resources to any battle group so again not an EU Army

They don't take centralised commands YET.  As as I have been saying, that is the plan.  Brussels does not need to compel anyone.  Our own politicians would love an EU army.  Maybe they can get a nice job in the EU or the WHO or the WEF, afterwards.

[Scott777]

Yes I get that you feel every politician is out to get you 

That would be presumptuous.  I think people go into politics because they like power, and dishonesty is the most effective route to the top.  Therefore, politicians at the top are mostly dishonest and serve corporate interests.  Nothing to do with getting people,

[BeElBeeBub]

Acts can be repealed.  Politicians can lie.  You seem to have tremendous faith in them.  Even while integration is happening, you imagine it would never lead to a centralised military command centre, just because some politicians say it won't.  If we are not in the EU, we cannot be part of an EU army project.  Get it?

And if we *were* in the EU, we wouldn't need to be part of any hypothetical EU army because we not only had a veto on it being formed, we also had the fact defence and foreign affairs were reserved forember states anyway.

And then there is the purely practical point of how do you force a country to join your military if it doesn't want to?

[Nick]

Classic blinkered response.

Go on say it....."cheese eating surrender monkeys".

I seem to remember the German army had a pretty fearsome reputation once, requiring the.combined might if the British empire, the US and Soviet Union to crush it.

The Europeans have been somewhat reticent to get involved in the US's little adventures in the sand over the last two decades..... Whilst we followed along. I don't think we can call that a resounding success.

You're going back almost 80 years, and fail to mention the Italians / Japan with the German army. German can't fight, it's in their constitution, and you think Italy or France will get involved? Both having more reverse gears that forward on their tanks. You still don't acknowledge that the EU army is still on the cards. 

[Nick]

I will have PMd you to explain why you are seeing an illusion.

It's no illusion, I've PM'd you also. 

[BeElBeeBub]

How do you know what the binding commitments are?  Who says so?  These "European battlegroups", who cares what they say they are for?  Either they are army groups taking centralised commands, or they are not.  If they are, or they will be, then it's an EU army.  So stop splitting hairs.

How do I know what the binding commitments are? I look them up. You can too.

https://www.pesco.europa.eu/binding-commitments/

These are from the annex to the council decision that created PESCO

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D2315&from=EN

The commitments are more in the realm of committing to spend a certain amount on defence, committing to cooperate with the other members and committing to keep enough troops/equipment in such a state that they are able to form a battlegroup when required.

And as for who commands them, that is also laid out on the decision.

Article 4 PESCO Governance 1. The governance of PESCO shall be organised:

— at the level of the Council, and
— in the framework of projects implemented by groups of those participating Member States which have agreed among themselves to undertake such projects.

The council is the council of member states. Not the commission.

As has been pointed out, any EUBG would be commanded and staffed by an appointed country. 

The commitments are an order of magnitude less that the binding commitments the UK has made to NATO. We are (to pluck an example) bound to place forces under the command of whichever commander is picked (probably American) by NATO to defend another NATO.member.  this could see UK forces (say a fleet and expeditionary force) fighting and dying against China because China sunk a USN vessel during a confrontation over Taiwan.  Are you screaming about that? Where is your indignation over the loss of our sovereignty?

Yet another example of Leave misrepresenting something.

[Unlucky4Sum]

You might be able to argue that it was a lie as they believed it could be true  . . .

  that should have said wasn't not was (too late to edit it)

[BeElBeeBub]

Yes we did have a veto but it didn't look like Cameron was even thinking about using it David Cameron: I still want Turkey to join EU, despite migrant fears (telegraph.co.uk)

He did say just before the referendum that it now looked highly unlikely they would join but  he had already done the damage to the remain campaign with his ongoing support right up to the weeks before the referendum when he realised it was getting a bit close for comfort

David Cameron accused of risking national security by helping fund Turkey's EU bid (telegraph.co.uk)Of course we knew they wouldn't be joining   They were miles off

And there we go. You admit that one of the talking points Leave raised was bollocks. I cannot* think why leave would raise such a point they knew to be untrue. Taken along with some of the other literature Leave out out around this point and other "deliberate confusions".similar one might be tempted to think they were going for a certain vote segment. The sort of vote segment for whom immigration from counties with a different ethnic profile was a really big issue.
*I can

[Unlucky4Sum]

How do you know what the binding commitments are?  Who says so?  These "European battlegroups", who cares what they say they are for?  Either they are army groups taking centralised commands, or they are not.  If they are, or they will be, then it's an EU army.  So stop splitting hairs.

Well they don't take centralised commands so on that definition, not an EU Army.  A designated lead nation provides the command structure.

And crucially Brussels cannot compel any EU nation to provide resources to any battle group so again not an EU Army

[Unlucky4Sum]

Yes we did have a veto but it didn't look like Cameron was even thinking about using it David Cameron: I still want Turkey to join EU, despite migrant fears (telegraph.co.uk)

He did say just before the referendum that it now looked highly unlikely they would join but  he had already done the damage to the remain campaign with his ongoing support right up to the weeks before the referendum when he realised it was getting a bit close for comfort

David Cameron accused of risking national security by helping fund Turkey's EU bid (telegraph.co.uk)Of course we knew they wouldn't be joining   They were miles off

Actually he said this

"It is not remotely on the cards that Turkey is going to join the EU any time soon. They applied in 1987. At the current rate of progress, they will probably get round to joining in about the year 3000."

But as the PM he couldn't be seen to say to a military ally 'they can F@@@ right off' could he.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/22/david-cameron-defence-minister-penny-mordaunt-lying-turkey-joining-eu 

[Unlucky4Sum]

Acts can be repealed.  Politicians can lie.  You seem to have tremendous faith in them.  Even while integration is happening, you imagine it would never lead to a centralised military command centre, just because some politicians say it won't.  If we are not in the EU, we cannot be part of an EU army project.  Get it?

Yes I get that you feel every politician is out to get you and you either ignore or plain don't know how our democracy works.

[Scott777]

This is exactly what I mean by misrepresenting things

PESCOmisnorimarily about coordinating procurement and training between members so as to reduce duplication and to be more efficient.

The binding commitments.are about defense spending levels and committing to coordinate defence reviews.

There is a project about "European battlegroups". These are small (1,500ish) self contained formations of troops for.deployment on humanitarian,.evacuation and stabilization missions.  Eg evacuating EU citizens from.Sudan or Kabul.  Crucially they are not under the control of the EU commission (as far as I know, none of the defence capabilities are). They are controlled by a dedicated.council *made up of member states foreign ministers*.

What Brexiters always failed (possibly deliberately) to.inderatwnd is that all the major decisions on EU direction come from councils made up of the member states.

The Comission is just the body charged with carrying out those decisions


A bit like a.large building managed by a residents council. The committee meets to decide what to do on shared matters (leaky roof, vermin in the basement, old lifts etc) but they don't actually carry out the work. Their decisions.are.given to a day to day management firm they appoint to implement the decisions.

How do you know what the binding commitments are?  Who says so?  These  "European battlegroups", who cares what they say they are for?  Either they are army groups taking centralised commands, or they are not.  If they are, or they will be, then it's an EU army.  So stop splitting hairs.

[Scott777]

Look there's no doubt that a few EU politicians wanted a superstate with ownership of all the military resources of the EU nations and other similar powers.  For people like Juncker it was the only way that they'd ever have real power.

But the rest of the EU doesn't want such and have multiple times effectively told them to F@@@ right off.  Moreover at the time of our referendum we had the 2011 Act that made it mandatory on the UK to veto any such measures unless a specific to measure referendum gave the government of the day permission.

But that truth didn't suit Vote Leave or their more gobby followers who needed to portray the false spectre of government from Brussels to scare 17 million into voting to leave.  Whether you were one of the conners or the conned I know not.

Acts can be repealed.  Politicians can lie.  You seem to have tremendous faith in them.  Even while integration is happening, you imagine it would never lead to a centralised military command centre, just because some politicians say it won't.  If we are not in the EU, we cannot be part of an EU army project.  Get it?