Germany to push for EU Army *AFTER* British referendum

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html#axzz47Wzb4nDt

Germany to push for EU Army

Germany delays the push for an EU Army - that would end the Royal Navy, British Army and RAF - until after the British June referendum


http://www.federalists.eu/typo3temp/_processed_/csm_20150512_EUArmy_f99cd513c6.jpg



Germany is to push for progress towards a European army by advocating a joint headquarters and shared military assets, according to defence plans that could ricochet into Britain’s EU referendum campaign.

Although Berlin has long paid lip-service to forming a “European defence union”, the white paper is one of the most significant for Germany in recent years and may be seized by anti-integration Brexit campaigners as a sign where the bloc is heading.

Initially scheduled to emerge shortly before the June 23 referendum vote but now probably delayed to July, the draft paper seen by the Financial Times outlines steps to gradually co-ordinate Europe’s patchwork of national militaries and embark on permanent co-operation under common structures.

In this and other areas, its tone reflects Germany’s growing clout and confidence in pursuing a foreign policy backed by elements of hard power. Initiatives range from strengthening cyberwarfare abilities to contentious proposals to relax the postwar restrictions on army operations within Germany.

“German security policy has relevance — also far beyond our country,” the paper states. “Germany is willing to join early, decisively and substantially as a driving force in international debates . . . to take responsibility and assume leadership”. Jan Techau, a former defence official at Carnegie Europe, said: “This is the time of a new Germany. This is probably the first time a German defence white paper is something like important.”

At the European level, the paper calls for “the use of all possibilities” available under EU treaties to establish deep co-operation between willing member states, create a joint civil-military headquarters for EU operations, a council of defence ministers, and better co-ordinate the production and sharing of military equipment.

“The creation of a European army is a long way off, but it is a strategic necessity to implement important steps to pave the way towards it now,” wrote Roderich Kiesewetter, a Bundestag foreign affairs committee member, in a recent paper. Berlin is aware that its call for more European defence — long a bugbear of British Eurosceptics — could inadvertently resonate in the UK referendum campaign. Although publication was first expected in early June, this has been delayed to July, according to people familiar with the process.

Liam Fox, former UK defence secretary and Brexit supporter, said that “many in the European project see Nato as an impediment to ever closer union”.
Mr Fox added: “Their every instinct is to move towards European defence co-operation. The problem is that while they are unwilling to spend money, it is a dangerous fantasy that diverts money away from Nato.”

The end of our own independent armed forces and the end of a thousand years of independence. How much more clearer do they need to spell it out before some will wake up and smell the coffee? Even worse, they're delaying pushing ahead with it until AFTER the British referendum.

As my Dad said a few weeks ago... if we do vote to Remain inside, imagine how badly we're going to be treated once they know we're not going to withdraw. They're going to take us for the ride of our lives: both in terms of how much we have to pay in and how many powers they can seize.

Of course @abc (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); & @The Don (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475); will tell you that I can't debate, I am just making it all up, you should ignore me and that it's just a trade bloc.

Thoughts?

[scottish]

that would end the Royal Navy, British Army and RAF

it wouldn't though would it.


At the European level, the paper calls for “the use of all possibilities” available under EU treaties to establish deep co-operation between willing member states, create a joint civil-military headquarters for EU operations, a council of defence ministers, and better co-ordinate the production and sharing of military equipment.

[-:Undertaker:-]

it wouldn't though would it.

That's the beginning. They're aiming for the creation of a European army through closer initial integration measures like you quoted.

My evidence?


"The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of the common defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides." - The Treaty of Lisbon, Article 42

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#Development_that_is _provided_for


The creation of a single European armed land force, air force and naval force is already at prototype stage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#Membership


Angela Merkel calls for the creation of a European army

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11861247/Merkel-expects-Cameron-to-back-EU-army-in-exchange-for-renegotiation.html


European Commission President Juncker and the German Defence Minister call for an EU army (2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31796337

All this is much the same as the way the single currency (Eurozone) was formed. It was not created immediately, but firstly by steps to peg each European currency to the next so that the next stage would be monetary union. This was known as the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Exchange_Rate_Mechanism


The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was a system introduced by the European Economic Community on 13 March 1979, as part of the European Monetary System (EMS), to reduce exchange rate variability and achieve monetary stability in Europe, in preparation for Economic and Monetary Union and the introduction of a single currency, the euro, which took place on 1 January 1999.

Now tell me Scot, when the German Chancellor/Defence Minister/Foreign Office/EU treaties & Commission President are all saying it is going to happen and I am simply repeating what they are saying is going to happen, it seems strange for you to post here as though I and the Financial Times are making it up.

Do you know something the rest of Europe does not yet know?

[FlyingJesus]

I don't like the idea of it either way but it definitely looks and sounds a lot more like having a general command for joint EU measures rather than any suggestion of getting rid of anyone's military


The creation of a European army is a long way off
- your own post

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't like the idea of it either way but it definitely looks and sounds a lot more like having a general command for joint EU measures rather than any suggestion of getting rid of anyone's military

That's how the EU always works, it is known as the salami slice method. We've already got intergovernmental NATO.... so why would they require this?

Once there's a joint command structure in place (under the command of whom I ask?) calls will follow to "streamline" the command centre and introduce Qualitied Majority Voting (QMV) by which it only needs a majority to take action. Next to follow will be merging the various national units to make it more "efficient". Then next we'll be told that - probably after a terrorist attack - for the good of security in Europe we need to "work together" more closely aka hand over control of the armed forces to the European Commission. It's the same arguments they gave for the Eurozone repeated all over again whilst they salami slice away at the power of national governments.

They're very serious about this and have been for a long time.


“The world needs a Europe that is capable of deploying military missions." - Former President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso (September 2012)



“The European Union is a state under construction.” - Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs


“In the end, our goal must be a common European Army." - Wolfgang Schauble, German Foreign Minister (2015)

[FlyingJesus]

That's a hell of a lot of supposition

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's a hell of a lot of supposition

Hardly supposition when it is the people driving the project themselves. Merkel, Barroso and Schauble are hardly low-calibre politicians.


The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of the common defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. (TEU, Article 42)

The treaties have already legally paved the route to an EU army via a common EU defence policy just as the European Exchange Rate Mechanism did so for the European Monetary Union which exists today. Now they're also using the EMU to push ahead with banking, treasury, taxation and eventual political union.

In the academic literature it is commonly (and correctly) known as the 'rachet effect' by which more powers are gradually acquired resulting in the stated aim.

[FlyingJesus]

What when I say that's a lot of supposition I'm quite clearly on about your random predictions on how the future "will" go not the quotes at the end which don't include any predictions at all

[abc]

Military of the European Union already exists. Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union provides for substantial military integration within the institutional framework of the union. The paper has been delayed till after the referendum as it requires unanimous support of all member states and UK's position in the EU is current unclear, hence it is being delayed till after the EU referendum. This would not end the "Royal Navy, British Army and RAF".

What you do not realise is that 37 EU security missions have already been launched since 2003. Further the EU army will "establish deep co-operation between willing member states, create a joint civil-military headquarters for EU operations, a council of defence ministers, and better co-ordinate the production and sharing of military equipment" .... meaning it will not end the British Army, it will mean joint EU missions can be better organised meaning less resources are wasted and coordination will be better.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What when I say that's a lot of supposition I'm quite clearly on about your random predictions on how the future "will" go not the quotes at the end which don't include any predictions at all

My "predictions" are the stated legal aims of the European Union and what it alludes to in the legally binding treaties.


“The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights… against which a subsequent act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail”

(European Court of Justice Case 6/64)

I mean, the first part of the first ever treaty - the Treaty of Rome - could not be more clear. It states the very clear intention of "ever closer union (http://civitas.org.uk/content/files/TR.1.Treaty-of-Rome.pdf)".

- - - Updated - - -


Military of the European Union already exists. Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union provides for substantial military integration within the institutional framework of the union. The paper has been delayed till after the referendum as it requires unanimous support of all member states and UK's position in the EU is current unclear, hence it is being delayed till after the EU referendum. This would not end the "Royal Navy, British Army and RAF".[

Oh don't give us that rubbish. They're delaying it because they know like all EU power grabs it is not wanted and will damage their prospects of keeping us in.


What you do not realise is that 37 EU security missions have already been launched since 2003. Further the EU army will "establish deep co-operation between willing member states, create a joint civil-military headquarters for EU operations, a council of defence ministers, and better co-ordinate the production and sharing of military equipment" .... meaning it will not end the British Army, it will mean joint EU missions can be better organised meaning less resources are wasted and coordination will be better.

And what did I say? :P FlyingJesus;


Next to follow will be merging the various national units to make it more "efficient".

[FlyingJesus]

When you're telling me that the words


"streamline" the command centre and introduce Qualitied Majority Voting (QMV) by which it only needs a majority to take action. Next to follow will be merging the various national units to make it more "efficient". Then next we'll be told that - probably after a terrorist attack - for the good of security in Europe we need to "work together" more closely aka hand over control of the armed forces to the European Commission

are the same as


This Treaty organises the functioning of the Union and determines the areas of, delimitation of, and arrangements for exercising its competences.

I feel pretty safe assuming that you've never looked at the Treaty of Rome. No legal document about the aims of the EU states the specific bollocks that you're spouting, hence it all being SUPPOSITION on your part. It may happen, it may not, but don't pretend that it's anything other than a guess

[-:Undertaker:-]

@FlyingJesus (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24753); Sigh. Now you're just turning to personal attacks so I shall end our direct engagement from this point onwards.

For the record and for the readers, I have read the Treaty of Rome and I have read how the European courts interpret it. For the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the EU as a whole, the Treaty of Rome is pretty much the founding legal document of the project and is strongly adhered to in all the court rulings as all EU treaties extend the scope of EU competences over national governments and EU law is supreme: hence the 'rachet effect' or 'salami slice' method. The clause of "ever closer union" is the principle on which the whole thing is driven hence why David Cameron's renegotiation aim of securing an opt-out from this was not successful: ever closer union is written into the treaties and the treaties remain in the practical sense politically and legally binding unless amended otherwise or if a signatory state withdraws from the legal auspices of the treaties (which is why I advocate withdrawal to remedy this 40 year old conundrum).

If you're signed up to a series of treaties which make clear over & over "ever closer union" is the aim, then you get ever closer union. I mean, duh.

[FlyingJesus]

No I'm not lol and I don't understand how you can't see that what you said in that post was SUPPOSITION. As in your SUPPOSED that those things will happen. This isn't about the words "ever closer union" it's about you claiming that the entirety of the EU wants to take military control of Britain through some very specific steps that no-one but you has ever mentioned. Inferences do not count when you're stating very deliberate actions as being in the pipeline when they're not, and moving the goalposts doesn't make you any more correct

[-:Undertaker:-]

The political intention has already been stated from the start for defence integration and the legal framework is already in place with the Treaty of Lisbon. Now they simply have to push forward with it and set up the agencies required to push for it. End result: a "defence union" aka single EU armed forces.

And that is what they are planning to do (assuming we stay in) following our referendum in June. It's really all incredibly simple to see & understand.

[FlyingJesus]

Cool story, still not what I was saying

you
made
shit
up

Admit that and we can all move on

[-:Undertaker:-]

What. What is being made up?

Deliberate actions are in the pipe line as they're stating they want an EU army, their treaties give legal scope for the creation of EU defence agencies and they're delaying pushing forward with it until after we have our referendum in the hope that once we've voted to Remain they can push onwards with a defence union and eventual single armed forces like they've pushed onwards with every single other part of integration for the last forty years without any consultation as to whether the British people want it or not. Currency, borders, economy, regulation, trade, social policy - you name it.

There's only two honest positions in this whole debate. You either want ever more powers to go to the EU or you want to withdraw. Choose this June.

[scottish]

That's the beginning. They're aiming for the creation of a European army through closer initial integration measures like you quoted.

My evidence?









All this is much the same as the way the single currency (Eurozone) was formed. It was not created immediately, but firstly by steps to peg each European currency to the next so that the next stage would be monetary union. This was known as the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Exchange_Rate_Mechanism



Now tell me Scott, when the German Chancellor/Defence Minister/Foreign Office/EU treaties & Commission President are all saying it is going to happen and I am simply repeating what they are saying is going to happen, it seems strange for you to post here as though I and the Financial Times are making it up.

Do you know something the rest of Europe does not yet know?

FTFY.

My quote was in regards to your post contradicting what you quoted.

You said It'll end our military while your quote said willing member states.

[FlyingJesus]

What. What is being made up?

The same things I've been telling you that you've made up all thread while you ignore me in preference of inventing an argument that never existed.


Once there's a joint command structure in place (under the command of whom I ask?) calls will follow to "streamline" the command centre and introduce Qualitied Majority Voting (QMV) by which it only needs a majority to take action. Next to follow will be merging the various national units to make it more "efficient". Then next we'll be told that - probably after a terrorist attack - for the good of security in Europe we need to "work together" more closely aka hand over control of the armed forces to the European Commission

This chain of events is supposition. It is guesswork. It is fiction. You made it up.

[abc]

And what did I say? :P FlyingJesus;

BECAUSE WHAT I POSTED IS THE ACTUAL AIM?! Have you even read Article 42? All you keep doing is twisting every piece of fact into some delusional thing where you then make yourself believe a total different thing to what they are actually trying to achieve... IT IS IN WRITING.
I didn't see you running around screaming during the 37 EU security missions.

It's like me going "tomorrow I am going to the shop to do shopping". And you twisting that to "omg Saurav is going to the shop to rob it, ban all brown people from shops". That is how you are coming across and actually doing. Grow up. A debate is not conducted with made up things, it is done with facts and good reasoning.

If you think all countries will go "hey let's end our army and join a big EU army. Germany, France etc you will have NO army. Your army will belong to EU. If you get bombed tomorrow, you have to seek EUs permission to retaliate"... yeah you think their leaders will give up that power? You are so deluded.

[-:Undertaker:-]

727382432157171712

I wonder why...


My quote was in regards to your post contradicting what you quoted.

You said It'll end our military while your quote said willing member states.

We are signatories to the treaties so unless another treaty came along we will be involved. In addition to that, given they are heading towards political union with merging the defence forces of Europe which Britain clearly cannot accept, do you now accept my argument that our departure within the next decade is an inevitable political fact and therefore it is better that we simply acknowledge this fact now on our own circumstances rather than at a later point?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmu0D_pca1Q


Not building an EU Army, right guys? That's a real video and not a spoof I kid you not.


This chain of events is supposition. It is guesswork. It is fiction. You made it up.

So wait.

I am making up what the treaties, European Commission President, German Chancellor, German Defence Minister, German Foreign Minister and Italian Prime Minister are saying? Did I also write up the Five Presidents Report which states an acceleration (which would involve military) towards political union by 2025?

Nobody claims an EU Army will appear on June 24th. But it is already being built and they intend to speed up that process, as they state themselves.


If you think all countries will go "hey let's end our army and join a big EU army. Germany, France etc you will have NO army. Your army will belong to EU. If you get bombed tomorrow, you have to seek EUs permission to retaliate"... yeah you think their leaders will give up that power? You are so deluded.

Yes they will and will have to given the aim is the creation of a federal state. Just as many countries in the EU including ourselves have already given up control of the key tools of national independence such as their currency, have given up control of their courts, control of their own central banking, are planning to give up control of taxation, have given up control of their borders, are now being pressured to even given up control of asylum policy and much more.

If politicians will give up the basic right of a nation to control who comes in and who leaves the country, then they'll sure as hell give up control of the armed forces.


“the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decade”. (PRO/FCO 30/789)


“that the aim of the Community was not merely harmonisation but the unification of policies in every field of the economic union, i.e. economic policy, social policy, commercial policy, tariff policy and fiscal policy. That this was not just pie in the sky needed to be made clear to the politicians”. (based on PRO/FO 371/150363, Bell p.22)

They say they are building a federal state and they are serious about it. Why do you continue to deny it? Of course the armed forces will be next, especially if they're aiming for political union by 2025 as the recent Five Presidents Report makes clear. The Lisbon Treaty has already laid the legal groundwork for it.

[FlyingJesus]

So wait.

I am making up what the treaties, European Commission President, German Chancellor, German Defence Minister, German Foreign Minister and Italian Prime Minister are saying? Did I also write up the Five Presidents Report which states an acceleration (which would involve military) towards political union by 2025?

No you're making up THE BIT THAT I FUCKING QUOTED Christ almighty do you think I've just been repeating that part of your post for fun or something

[-:Undertaker:-]

No you're making up THE BIT THAT I **** QUOTED Christ almighty do you think I've just been repeating that part of your post for fun or something

lol what. that's obviously my prediction for how it'll go hence why i put probably into the paragraph you chump.

you understand my comparison to how the single currency came into being was like..... an example. parts of which have already come true.

do you deny they're building an EU army?

[FlyingJesus]

No I don't deny that, and that wasn't the bloody argument I was making... ever. You've been saying for however many paragraphs of nonsense that that post was not full of supposition, which you've now finally admitted it was. That's literally all that was needed. It wasn't about the inferences on long term plans or anything like that, it was about you making up a scenario.

And the only bit you said "probably" about was what you think will prompt the demilitarisation of Britain - the rest you had laid out as a timeline of events, which I quite rightly have said over and over is a bunch of guesswork. You denied that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

just seen this clip come up on twitter, very relevant from the horse's mouth.

727616025898835968


No I don't deny that, and that wasn't the bloody argument I was making... ever. You've been saying for however many paragraphs of nonsense that that post was not full of supposition, which you've now finally admitted it was. That's literally all that was needed. It wasn't about the inferences on long term plans or anything like that, it was about you making up a scenario.

And the only bit you said "probably" about was what you think will prompt the demilitarisation of Britain - the rest you had laid out as a timeline of events, which I quite rightly have said over and over is a bunch of guesswork. You denied that.

because your post didn't make sense and looked to me like you were denying it was going to happen simply because it hadn't happened. but surely you can see my logic given how other EU structures have come into being via the ratchet effect? it starts off with the "just co-operation" argument that Akeam put forward, then it ratches up over time and before you know it we have formerly British and French naval ships flying the EU flag and taking orders from the unelected European Commission which intends to become the government of Europe.

do you agree my point though in all of this how this is clearly not what Britain wants therefore it is best to leave now on our own terms?

[FlyingJesus]

My post made complete sense and I've explained it several times, you just refused to read what was actually being argued. Yes I said in my first post that I don't like the sound of this, again simple reading