EU presses ahead with military plans, UK opposes any EU army
40 replies, posted
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-opposes-eu-army-plan-but-avoids-any-veto-threat/2016/09/27/dd323ace-8489-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.html[/url]
[quote]BRUSSELS — European Union nations pressed ahead Tuesday with plans to boost military cooperation as Britain vowed to oppose the creation of an EU army or headquarters.
With Britain leaving the EU, France and Germany have been spearheading moves to boost Europe’s capacity to run its own security operations.
Britain insists the NATO military alliance is the only forum for European security, and London has routinely blocked deeper EU cooperation in the past.
“We’re going to oppose any idea of an EU army or an EU army headquarters, which would simply undermine NATO,” British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said at EU defense talks in Slovakia Tuesday.
[/quote]
[quote=What Michael Fallon really means]“We’re going to oppose any idea of an EU army or an EU army headquarters, which would simply undermine the US"[/quote]
Aren't most of the countries in the EU part of NATO anyway?
It's rich seeing the UK try and tell an organization it's leaving what to do.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51116668]It's rich seeing the UK try and tell an organization it's leaving what to do.[/QUOTE]
After they've been told to invoke article 50 to start leaving but refuse to. While the PM disagrees with the Secretary of State for International Trade on what Brexit is. Our resident nut MEP Farage insults the EU while Boris talks about cakes and us getting a better deal.
I really can't believe the idea of EU trying to start their own little commonwealth, destabilizing NATO and making sure that americans can start yelling about how much NATO doesn't need to exist since we have the EU Commonwealth Army soon.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51116652]Aren't most of the countries in the EU part of NATO anyway?[/QUOTE]
That's what I was thinking. Wouldn't the European armed forces basically be a part of NATO either way?
From what I understand, the idea isn't to replace NATO, but rather work as a supplement of sorts to it. As it stands right now, most EU countries are heavily reliant on the US in case of an attack, and the purpose of this army is simply to improve EU countries' military capacities on their own continent, and become less reliant on the intervention of the US.
They would still remain a part of NATO.
"Fuck the EU and we want to leave it and have nothing to do with it but the EU should do this and that and that.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51116652]Aren't most of the countries in the EU part of NATO anyway?[/QUOTE]
The idea is for europe to be less dependent on the US for defence, talking points during the meeting were a joint EU military headquarters, strengthenging of the already existing EU-battlegroups aswell as uniting development efforts for military assets on a larger scale, like the recent merger between nexter and kmv
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;51116651]“We’re going to oppose any idea of an EU army or an EU army headquarters, which would simply undermine the US"[/QUOTE]
The EU will now be funding two military organisations which effectively undermines both - making them weaker. Furthermore, America wants the EU nations to defend themselves, so I don't get where your comment is coming from.
It's amusing that some people that claimed the EU would attempt to form a federal army was scaremongering but literally 2 months later can see no wrong in it.
This could be taken slightly out of context because according to the article:
[QUOTE] Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign policy chief who is chairing the talks, said the EU’s treaties do not allow a European army to be created. [/QUOTE]
I will be surprised if every member-state actually agreed to do their requested contribution to the EU Army.
bit fooken hypocritical for britian to decide it's fed up being told what to do by a bunch of foreigners but then we turn around and tell the same group of foreigners what to do
[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51116791]bit fooken hypocritical for britian to decide it's fed up being told what to do by a bunch of foreigners but then we turn around and tell the same group of foreigners what to do[/QUOTE]
It's not just the UK who is proposed to the idea.
[QUOTE=Niklas;51116725]The idea is for europe to be less dependent on the US for defence, talking points during the meeting were a joint EU military headquarters, strengthenging of the already existing EU-battlegroups aswell as uniting development efforts for military assets on a larger scale, like the recent merger between nexter and kmv[/QUOTE]
So what I'm getting from this is, "We'll pay more into NATO but only for ourselves."
Meanwhile the US has footed the majority of bill for 20 years.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51116771]It's amusing that some people that claimed the EU would attempt to form a federal army was scaremongering but literally 2 months later can see no wrong in it.
This could be taken slightly out of context because according to the article:[/QUOTE]
you made this point before in the other thread, and i'm going to make exactly the same response to it
an EU army was scaremongering when the UK was in the EU, because as this thread and the other thread plainly say, the UK has always vetoed the idea of the army
but now that we're leaving, surprise surprise, it's back on the table
(except that it's not, because as the source clearly says, they're talking about greater military co-operation, not the EU army storming the cliffs of dover with ode to fucking joy blaring through loudspeakers)
lol the uk are fuckin retards
[QUOTE=Swilly;51116846]So what I'm getting from this is, "We'll pay more into NATO but only for ourselves."
Meanwhile the US has footed the majority of bill for 20 years.[/QUOTE]
meaning the US pays less for defending europe???
or is this one of those things where certain american posters complain about european nations being a drain on NATO resources, but when european nations talk about increased military co-operation to improve capacity, you complain about that as well
[QUOTE=Vasili;51116764]The EU will now be funding two military organisations which effectively undermines both - making them weaker. Furthermore, America wants the EU nations to defend themselves, so I don't get where your comment is coming from.[/QUOTE]
I might be wrong on this, or I might misunderstand the targets of your argument, but money isn't "pooled" into NATO from what I understand it. Isn't it more of a national quota of defence spending that is required to be met?
I don't know how the suggested EU army would work, neither how the economy behind it will be driven. But I would [I]assume[/I] (please correct me if I'm wrong), that each EU nation's military spending is instead pooled together into a unified army fund, which is then distributed accordingly to fit the needs of the Union and the NATO quota. If this is the case, then I fail to see how anything will weaken.
[QUOTE=Marzipas;51116946]lol the uk are fuckin retards[/QUOTE]
Well, it's funny cause by holding the Brexit referendum and voting to leave, this is exactly the sort of thing the UK gave up the rights to put a stop to. Fucking Farage.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51116942]you made this point before in the other thread, and i'm going to make exactly the same response to it
an EU army was scaremongering when the UK was in the EU, because as this thread and the other thread plainly say, the UK has always vetoed the idea of the army
but now that we're leaving, surprise surprise, it's back on the table
(except that it's not, because as the source clearly says, they're talking about greater military co-operation, not the EU army storming the cliffs of dover with ode to fucking joy blaring through loudspeakers)[/QUOTE]
The constant barrage of the UK on all matters related to the EU amuses me.
As people constantly repeat here, we haven't left yet so we are still active members and our stance on greater military cooperation hasn't changed in the few weeks since we voted.
What is more amusing is your hyperbole when trying to make a point:
[QUOTE] they're talking about greater military co-operation, not the EU army [B]storming the cliffs of dover with ode to fucking joy blaring through loudspeakers[/B] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51117116]The constant barrage of the UK on all matters related to the EU amuses me.
As people constantly repeat here, we haven't left yet so we are still active members and our stance on greater military cooperation hasn't changed in the few weeks since we voted.
What is more amusing is your hyperbole when trying to make a point:[/QUOTE]
and the opinion of key nations within EU seems to be "we're going to do this thing that we wanted and you didn't because you've said you're leaving"
poor old UK
[QUOTE=Kazumi;51116708]That's what I was thinking. Wouldn't the European armed forces basically be a part of NATO either way?[/QUOTE]
It'd end up being like a smaller NATO with a "no girlz alloud" sign hanging on the door. A way for just the EU member states to work together to reach goals that NATO member states are vetoing because "ughh why would we want to do that though".
[editline]27th September 2016[/editline]
It's not impossible to work with both organisations after all.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117211]and the opinion of key nations within EU seems to be "we're going to do this thing that we wanted and you didn't because you've said you're leaving"
poor old UK[/QUOTE]
I don't think the UK think of themselves as victims tbh, they are just fulfilling their obligations whilst still being members and expressing their opinions as they would normally.
As far as I am concerned the EU can do whatever they see fit.
Enjoy your political integration, courtesy of the Marxist EU superstate.
We might not be in a better situation in the view of the globalists who want marxism for the people and capitalism for the multinationals - but at least the next Soviet Union won't include the UK for a while and that's better than nothing.
With that out of the way, you may now begin the name-calling tactics!
[QUOTE=Niklas;51116725]The idea is for europe to be less dependent on the US for defence, talking points during the meeting were a joint EU military headquarters, strengthenging of the already existing EU-battlegroups aswell as uniting development efforts for military assets on a larger scale, like the recent merger between nexter and kmv[/QUOTE]
They could just start paying their share in NATO instead of letting the us do all the work for them
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;51117913]Enjoy your political integration, courtesy of the Marxist EU superstate.
We might not be in a better situation in the view of the globalists who want marxism for the people and capitalism for the multinationals - but at least the next Soviet Union won't include the UK for a while and that's better than nothing.
With that out of the way, you may now begin the name-calling tactics![/QUOTE]
Sod off. The EU will be just fine, and it's not going to become Soviet Union 2.0.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;51118228]Sod off. The EU will be just fine, and it's not going to become Soviet Union 2.0.[/QUOTE]
Thank You for your insight
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;51117913]Enjoy your political integration, courtesy of the Marxist EU superstate.
We might not be in a better situation in the view of the globalists who want marxism for the people and capitalism for the multinationals - but at least the next Soviet Union won't include the UK for a while and that's better than nothing.
With that out of the way, you may now begin the name-calling tactics![/QUOTE]
If your intention was to parody the daily mail comment section, gratz, you succeeded.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.