Britain will veto EU army, says Defence Secretary

[Gib Lover]

They voted to leave, they shouldn't get a say on anything EU from there on.

Isn't the process to leave like 2 years long? Why would they be barred from having a say in things when those things can still effect them?

[Narwal]

An army is fine, every country should have an army. If these countries want to pool their army resources into one army, and lose the ability to make the decisions around their own defense, that's their choice to make. The question is who controls the army. One must remember, that over the history of this world, everyone's been friends and enemies at sometime. I hope for your sake EU, that you all remain friends, and that the controller of that army doesn't become your enemy, or even just indifferent to you.

[Deleted]

For the record, this isn't Britain vetoing an EU army. It's America. Do you seriously think they actually care for their own sake? If anything, an EU army would be wonderful for them. They're at the corner of Europe and would be guaranteed protection in every instance should the continent face a threat.

This is their cross-Atlantic puppet-master vetoing the greatest threat to its hegemony imaginable, an EU army. Simple, really.

[Deleted]

They are just worried that France, Germany are trying to distance themselves from NATO and might leave it if a alternative exists. Americas pet standing up for American interests. Nothing else. A united EU military will not have the UK in it, so they need NATO to remain.

The plan is for the army to be opt in. So no country is forced in.

[zorkuus]

Isn't the process to leave like 2 years long?

yes

Why would they be barred from having a say in things when those things can still effect them?

Because their say will affect those who stay. They can basically vote for the lol's on any issue because they don't have to deal with the aftermath.

[Deleted]

Americas pet standing up for American interests. Nothing else.

I said this seconds before you, and I am very glad other people besides myself see this as it really is.

It should be pretty easy. Puppet defending its puppet-master. Nothing else.

[bladeXcrasher]

Let the EU army come, so we can leave.

[Dsc]

Y need to look closely at who controls the money and the power.
They are Marxists of Jewish decent.

I'm pro Israel btw. So please don't take this as a racist post.

I'm nearly pointing out the facts. Look at who Soros is for example, funds and puppeteers the overthrow of governments.

You have people seizing control and power via an unaccountable beurocracy.

The ends justify the means is their mantra.

DO NOT give them an army.

[Liftbrul]

On one hand, it would distance us from American-led NATO, which really only serves their interests. On the other, who would want to die and fight for the Union? This garbage entity isn't worth a single drop of native European blood.

[shrunken]

On one hand, it would distance us from American-led NATO, which really only serves their interests. On the other, who would want to die and fight for the Union? This garbage entity isn't worth a single drop of native European blood.

Presumably the wet dream is poor southern europeans dying for a military bankrolled by their northern "compatriots". Can't blame EU for wanting to indulge in a tried and true practice.

[Deleted]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7313081.html

We need this army badly. Good thing they are leaving soon.

Maybe someone should tell him that once you say 'I want a divorce' - The other party can do what the fuck ever they want.

- - - Updated - - -

No leverage? Lol.

No, they dont have any leverage.

Before you ask me what leverage, think.

No, see they dont - Once they hand in their article 50 they can be ignored, because once two years are up, they cease to be a member of the EU.
Lets say they hand in their papers in a few months, a year tops, then they have 3 years to stall this - Mighty leverage.
I mean even if the UK was magically not a part of the EU, and all EU countries were really keen on this idea (population and government) - It would still take longer than 3 years.

Read and think about what kind of action the UK could take, and what the UK offers the EU economically, politically and militarily when acting as an independent (or more independent) entity.

This is a different question, still zero.
The UK gains 15% of its GDP selling shit to the EU, the Eu gains 3% of its GDP selling shit to the UK.

You may wish to bear in mind that some people believe there to be a growing force of anti-EU sentiment across EU member states.

So? - This improves the UK's hand in no way whatsoever.
It actually weakens it as making the UK as much of a clusterfuck as possible, is a warning to the rest of the electorate that the brexiters are fucking idiots.

[Xarkan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7313081.html

We need this army badly. Good thing they are leaving soon.

Denmark seems to be slowly without allies though. The UK and US would never honor the NATO treaty if anyone attacked us (heck they already gave Bornholm to the soviet union for laughs once) and if the EU forms a military union then we stand outside that part since the Edinburgh agreement thingie and the 4 exceptions so the EU members of NATO would be disinclined to protect us if anyone attacked us.

We are soon only protected by a shortage of true enemies. Granted that might be the best protection you can get but still.. We used to have allies.

[Deleted]

Why do EU need this?

because the EU is a continent with 500 million people in it, and its armed forces is shit.

Why do we need an army?

We can continue to mooch of the US, sure.

More co-operation is great but an army?

We effectively already have an EU army - or rather, we have a joint heavy airlift 'command' - because no EU country has the defense budget to have those heavy airplanes, so we share.
We also don't have the money for logisitcal, intelegence, and control structures for forward operations, but those cant really be shared.

No one dare to lower their weapons, dismantle their army and change for the better.

You do get that if we have an EU army, the logical end point is that Only the EU has an army?

- - - Updated - - -

Presumably the wet dream is poor southern europeans dying for a military bankrolled by their northern "compatriots". Can't blame EU for wanting to indulge in a tried and true practice.

I think the best option is to invite (buy) russia and then let the russians do the dying.

[Deleted]

And that's why, when you're Irish and travel abroad, you NEED to specific you're not English or you're going to drink a lot of spit in the coffees you order.
Oh sorry, I meant, teas.

[Tico]

Why do EU need this? Why do we need an army? More co-operation is great but an army? A brave nation would lay down arms and focus there resources on more important things then cock measurements. As a naïve and hopeful human being I think that the money spent on weapons, war and conflict were instead spent on science, education and charity we would not need weapons and would not have war and war related conflict. It just seems as a catch 22 problem. No one dare to lower their weapons, dismantle their army and change for the better. Which, of course is understandable, sadly.

Very much agreed. However, we are a still bit utopistic. Yet.

[Deleted]

I did advise you to think, and I even gave you a hint. The UK can, and minimally could always threaten to, stoke greater anti EU sentiment among remaining member states. This could be done either publicly, by say, declaring any nation that wishes to leave the EU would be guaranteed free trade with Britain, or indeed privately in much the way the USA and Russia are often accused of stoking sentiment.

This is just one example of one manoeuvre that can be made. I have no doubt there are countless more. EU countries would be far better off, all things considered, ensuring the UK is kept very closely and as very well regarded. It would do better economically and politically. Economically due the massive challenges the EU already faces, both from the Mediterranean member states and the shrinking global importance of the block. Politically, again for multiple reasons, one of which is Britain’s position on Russian aggression, and a second of which is that Europhiles need to encourage solidarity, not division.

It would be exceedingly myopic and petty to try and punish Britain when so many millions of people are advocating for their own countries to leave the EU; punishment doesn’t dissuade so much as galvanise support for leaving the union. A positive case is necessary for EU continuation, not a negative one. This was a key mistake made here in Britain by the Remain campaign.

If you believe that the manoeuvres and considerations above are irrelevant, and are instead under the impression that the total sum of EU British relations comes down to economics, then I’m afraid you are both sorely and sadly mistaken.

I did advise you to think.

If Brexit has no consequences we will have a frexit too. That would be MUCH more costly to Europe.

[Deleted]

I find it somewhat humorous when people consider the eu's military weak, for one it doesn't exist however it is effectively now an unbreakable alliance between countries that have their own military. What the eu plans is instead of improving cooperation between these militaries they would rather an entirely seperate entity that will be at the behest of the elected president and his table. I have no idea why. We don't need an army that can rival Russia or America and quite frankly we can't afford it.
The UK would rather this not occur not just because of the beurocracy as suggested but because they could easily attempt to force the UK to participate in its construction. Bear in mind the UK is leaving the trade agreement and the agreement to be governed partially by Brussels lawmakers. They aren't guaranteed to leave the human rights act and other background policies the eu has since created as a "seperate" system. The eu may use the UK not paying for the army that most likely protects us too as an excuse to shaft us elsewhere.

[Deleted]

didnt all the remoaners in brexit say that the EU isnt building an army lol

[Tierbook]

I find it somewhat humorous when people consider the eu's military weak, for one it doesn't exist however it is effectively now an unbreakable alliance between countries that have their own military. What the eu plans is instead of improving cooperation between these militaries they would rather an entirely seperate entity that will be at the behest of the elected president and his table. I have no idea why. We don't need an army that can rival Russia or America and quite frankly we can't afford it.
The UK would rather this not occur not just because of the beurocracy as suggested but because they could easily attempt to force the UK to participate in its construction. Bear in mind the UK is leaving the trade agreement and the agreement to be governed partially by Brussels lawmakers. They aren't guaranteed to leave the human rights act and other background policies the eu has since created as a "seperate" system. The eu may use the UK not paying for the army that most likely protects us too as an excuse to shaft us elsewhere.

The combined military force of the EU minus GB is rather weak. At least compared to the US but that's a rather unfair comparison.

[Deleted]

didnt all the remoaners in brexit say that the EU isnt building an army lol

Source that all the Pro Remainers said that?