Europe should control British army, says traitor Labour MSP

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26692400

Europe should control army says Labour MSP Jenny Marra


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73738000/jpg/_73738943_012455698-1.jpg
Europe should control army says Labour MSP Jenny Marra


Sovereignty over defence should be removed from nation states and handed to a European defence force, a Labour MSP has said.

Jenny Marra said the current crisis in the Crimea revealed "the folly of nation states".

Her comments came during a fringe meeting at the Scottish Labour conference in Perth.

Ms Marra also rejected criticism of the "centralising" force of Brussels and dismissed an in/out EU referendum.

She said: "Anyone who has been watching the coverage following the media's reflections on the precipitation towards World War One a hundred years ago would see the folly of nation states.

"Defence forces constantly being in the power of nation states' hands is quite a dangerous place to be.

"I think the EU, looking to the future, perhaps a single defence force is certainly an idea that appeals to me, having been a Labour member who marched outside my own party's conference in 2003 against the invasion of Iraq."

The North East Scotland MSP went on: "The idea of taking defence out of the hands of nation states appeals to me.

"I know it's not necessarily a view that is commonly shared but I think it's one in 2014, a hundred years since World War One, we should reflect on.

"Certainly with the awful situation that is happening in the Crimea at the moment."

Yes, because the centralisation of power across a continent into the hands of an unelected few always works out so well, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Where do they get these (restrains self) .... people... from? What exactly is it about this country that our politicians, especially those on the left, hate so much so they want to outsource our defence out to foreign officials in Brussels? The Labour Party - if it has anybody patriotic left within it - should be calling for her immediate resignation. Call me hyperbolic & unparliamentary, but I view this as outright treason.

I'd take up arms for President Putin anyday over President Van Rompuy. Either way, she's helping my own cause and hurting her own. Cheers love.

Thoughts?

[Aiden]

Again I'm not even going to pretend I get any of this stuff but I think the British Army should stay controlled by which ever British people do it now! Woo!

[The Don]

Lol at comparing Herman Van Rompuy to Putin. I think you need to google the definition of treason too if you think "I think the EU, looking to the future, perhaps a single defence force is certainly an idea that appeals to me, having been a Labour member who marched outside my own party's conference in 2003 against the invasion of Iraq." resembles treason in any form.

I do think a joint defence force within the EU would be a good thing, that's not me saying we should give away control of our army though. The EU at the moment, or it's member states, are not currently willing to cooperate enough for this to work. People are still thinking independently rather than cooperatively. I do think the EU needs a joint foreign policy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lol at comparing Herman Van Rompuy to Putin.

I mean in the context of who I would fight for if called up - would I fight for a federal European Union as part of a European army under Van Rompuy or would I take more pleasure in serving under Putin in the Russian army? The latter.

As it happens, i'd only serve the British sovereign: hence why I think we should retain control of our own armed forces.


I think you need to google the definition of treason too if you think "I think the EU, looking to the future, perhaps a single defence force is certainly an idea that appeals to me, having been a Labour member who marched outside my own party's conference in 2003 against the invasion of Iraq." resembles treason in any form.

If somebody wishes to de facto hand over the sovereignty of their own country to a foreign power - and especially control of the army which is a key symbol and reality of being independent - then yeah, I do regard that as treason. Absolutely.

She's a disgrace and she should resign.


I do think a joint defence force within the EU would be a good thing, that's not me saying we should give away control of our army though. The EU at the moment, or it's member states, are not currently willing to cooperate enough for this to work. People are still thinking independently rather than cooperatively. I do think the EU needs a joint foreign policy.

And what's wrong with thinking independently? Can you tell me why, or explain to me rather, why exactly Britain would want to surrender it's foreign policy and control of it's armed forces to the European Commission in Brussels? It was after all, in the context of the Falklands War, our European 'friend' France that sold Argentina military supplies just before the Falklands war.

What purpose would this serve other than render us powerless to steer our own future in the world?

[The Don]

I mean in the context of who I would fight for if called up - would I fight for a federal European Union as part of a European army under Van Rompuy or would I take more pleasure in serving under Putin in the Russian army? The latter.

As it happens, i'd only serve the British sovereign: hence why I think we should retain control of our own armed forces.



If somebody wishes to de facto hand over the sovereignty of their own country to a foreign power - and especially control of the army which is a key symbol and reality of being independent - then yeah, I do regard that as treason. Absolutely.

She's a disgrace and she should resign.



And what's wrong with thinking independently? Can you tell me why, or explain to me rather, why exactly Britain would want to surrender it's foreign policy and control of it's armed forces to the European Commission in Brussels? It was after all, in the context of the Falklands War, our European 'friend' France that sold Argentina military supplies just before the Falklands war.

What purpose would this serve other than render us powerless to steer our own future in the world?

You seemed to have missed the part where I said "that's not me saying we should give away control of our army though".

We can have a joint defence policy whilst still retaining control.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You seemed to have missed the part where I said "that's not me saying we should give away control of our army though".

We can have a joint defence policy whilst still retaining control.

No you cannot. If it is set up like other EU policy then you'd be under QMV which would mean that Britain's voice would count for 1 of 28 in the military meeting room. The British Government would be as powerful as a US state in matters of war.

This is the classic EU troll argument, that we need to be in the EU to be able to do anything together. We can have joint military drills and training that is true - but that can be done on an intergovernmental basis (NATO) without the help of the gormless Baroness Ashton.

Ultimately, having one foreign policy for the EU means having one central government (the European Commission) in which sovereignty would be held by - otherwise how would such a state or military structure work in times of emergency, ie war, when half of the EU members want one thing and half want another?

[The Don]

No you cannot. If it is set up like other EU policy then you'd be under QMV which would mean that Britain's voice would count for 1 of 28 in the military meeting room. The British Government would be as powerful as a US state in matters of war.

This is the classic EU troll argument, that we need to be in the EU to be able to do anything together. We can have joint military drills and training that is true - but that can be done on an intergovernmental basis (NATO) without the help of the gormless Baroness Ashton.

Ultimately, having one foreign policy for the EU means having one central government (the European Commission) in which sovereignty would be held by - otherwise how would such a state or military structure work in times of emergency, ie war, when half of the EU members want one thing and half want another?

Why are you making assumptions? One way would be having a similar system as NATO which has articles which dictate how to act in specific circumstances.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why are you making assumptions? One way would be having a similar system as NATO which has articles which dictate how to act in specific circumstances.

We already have a NATO.

So seeing as you said earlier - which I asked you to explain exactly why - that the EU should have a foreign policy and pooled defence, there's clearly no need in an EU defence policy as we already have an intergovernmental body [NATO] that meets for defence matters across the European continent.

I'm therefore confused as to why you think the EU should have a "joint foreign policy". Why should it?