David Cameron flies to Brussels to fight EU drones programme

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...programme.html

David Cameron fights off EU army plan

David Cameron tells a Brussels summit that "it isn't right" for the EU to have its own army and air force

David Cameron arrives for a European Council Summit, at the European Council headquarters in Brussels

David Cameron has blocked plans for European Union owned military forces and told a summit of Europe's leaders that Nato is the "bedrock" of defence in Europe.

The Prime Minister has told a Brussels summit that there can be no question of British support for proposals from Baroness Ashton and the European Commission for the EU to run its own military.

"It makes sense for nation states to co-operate over matters of defence to keep us safer," he said. "But it isn't right for the European Union to have capabilities, armies, air forces and all the rest of it. We need to get that demarcation right."

Diplomats told the Daily Telegraph that Mr Cameron personally intervened to ensure that references to "Europe's armed forces" were removed from a draft EU summit communique on defence cooperation.

Britain has blocked EU proposals, backed by France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany, that would have paved the way for developing a new fleet of unmanned surveillance drones and a European Air Force comprised of heavy transport and air-to-air refuelling planes.

A recent report by Lady Ashton's EU External Action Service revealed that work had already begun on ﾓremotely piloted aircraft systems", known as drones.

The drones will be known as Males, standing for "Medium Altitude Long Endurance" and under commission proposals would have been "directly purchased, owned and operated by the Union" along with military aircraft.

"There can be no question of the Commission owning dual-use military capabilities such as drones. Defence kit must be nationally owned and controlled and that should be clear to everyone," said a British diplomatic source.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary-general, attended the talks at Mr Cameron's request and backed him by insisting that there could be no question of military assets being owned by the EU, or the Alliance.

"Nato will remain the bedrock of Euro-Atlantic security," he said. "This is not about creating a European army. I am not talking about Nato or the EU possessing its own military capabilities. Iﾒm talking about nations investing in much needed capabilities. European nations need to invest."

During a "heated" summit debate, Martin Schulz, the speaker of the European Parliament called for the creation of a European army.

"If we wish to defend our values and interests, if we wish to maintain the security of our citizens, then a majority of MEPs consider that we need a headquarters for civil and military missions in Brussels and deployable troops," he said.

Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, the Conservative spokesman on European defence, said that the prime minister had "turned the tide on an EU army". "It's been a long haul to get to this position," he said.

Whilst i'm glad - if it's true - that these plans have been or are being blocked (for now), what do Mr Cameron and supporters of our membership of the European Union not understand? The treaties make quite clear that the principle aim of the organisation is "ever closer union" and that means a continual surrender of powers from the national level to the EU. From agriculture to fisheries, from welfare to immigration, from local government to the armed forces - it's all going to go to Brussels.

For the 1000th time, it's either in or out. Time to make the choice.

Thoughts?

[Chippiewill]

what do Mr Cameron and supporters of our membership of the European Union not understand? The treaties make quite clear that the principle aim of the organisation is "ever closer union" and that means a continual surrender of powers from the national level to the EU. From agriculture to fisheries, from welfare to immigration, from local government to the armed forces - it's all going to go to Brussels.

This has zero to do with the article. I get that you don't like the EU but it's just spam if you use every news story coming out involving the EU as another excuse to get on your soap box about leaving the EU.

[Inseriousity.]

inb4 males/long endurance joke.

Europe isn't a country so shouldn't have its own army as defence needs to be accountable to a nation rather than a group of nations. That would muddy the waters if there was ever any wrongdoing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This has zero to do with the article. I get that you don't like the EU but it's just spam if you use every news story coming out involving the EU as another excuse to get on your soap box about leaving the EU.

No it's not.

It's written in the treaties that ever closer union must take place, therefore steps like this are going to happen and keep happening. It's only deluded Tories who think you can have a pick n'mix membership of the EU. That is the total opposite of both the history of the EU and of what the treaties state.

I'm merely stating facts that the only realistic way to avoid programmes such as these from beginning is to leave the EU. It's the Tory Party who say the opposite - and completely false - myth of 'renegotiation'. I'm the one being honest in that I think we should be independent and make our own laws and run our own military.

[Chippiewill]

We already know that. You have provided zero political insight in your statements here.

[The Don]

What's so wrong with an EU army? Isn't that essentially what NATO is anyway?

[-:Undertaker:-]

We already know that. You have provided zero political insight in your statements here.

Uh what? I've said that the Tories are talking rubbish and acting tough - that's my political insight based on many years of lies being fed to the British public by these bunch of two-faced charlatans in the Tory Party. I have to keep repeating myself as so many people out there continue to fall for the Conservative line of 'in Europe but not run by Europe' as though you can pick and choose a la carte.

For example, yesterday in my class in university I was again fuming at the fact that people in the class - usually Conservative Party activists and members - continue to say that they don't like most of the EU but they do like the Single Market. As I pointed out with the tutor agreeing with me, this line (and it's the same as the one David Cameron outlined in his EU referendum speech earlier this year) is completely false. You cannot be against the numerous regulations, rules and directives of Brussels and still want to be in - or 'complete' (as Cameron said) the Single Market as that's exactly what the Single Market is: a SINGLE MARKET.

Yet this seemingly still doesn't sink in for most hence why the pro-EU side are increasingly calling the EU the 'Single Market' nowadays.

What's so wrong with an EU army? Isn't that essentially what NATO is anyway?

No, and yet i'm the one accused of giving zero political insight.

As for what's wrong with it, well do you think handing over control of your armed forces to a foreign power is a sensible and sane thing to do as a supposed independent nation state? What does the EU wanting to build an army suggest to you about the EU? Think about it.

[GommeInc]

This has zero to do with the article. I get that you don't like the EU but it's just spam if you use every news story coming out involving the EU as another excuse to get on your soap box about leaving the EU.

I'd say the bit about joint/combined military controls has all to do with the TFEU which is about greater or "ever closer" union, and this treaty is quite dangerous really and as the name suggests, it's about the basic functioning and key aims of the EU - linking in with the topic of the EU for some daft reason wanting to make an "EU army". Seeing as the EU is unaccountable (to quite an extent), and using Obama and the US as an example (and he is accountable to the public), it can only spell trouble seeing as the US has set a dangerous undemocratic principle with regards to drone warfare.

Given how poorly the EU operates, the last thing they should do is arm themselves. It will be like giving babies shotguns - they're to naive and stupid to know what to do and will probably act before thinking. It's worked wonders with the banking sector and done so well with the farming sectors (incl. fish, agricultural etc)

[AgnesIO]

No it's not.

It's written in the treaties that ever closer union must take place, therefore steps like this are going to happen and keep happening. It's only deluded Tories who think you can have a pick n'mix membership of the EU. That is the total opposite of both the history of the EU and of what the treaties state.

I'm merely stating facts that the only realistic way to avoid programmes such as these from beginning is to leave the EU. It's the Tory Party who say the opposite - and completely false - myth of 'renegotiation'. I'm the one being honest in that I think we should be independent and make our own laws and run our own military.

In fairness, everyone I ever speak to who want to leave the European Union go on about how we could still have certain things "because Switzerland do". That is essentially the pick n mix mentality.

Sent from my TouchPad using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

In fairness, everyone I ever speak to who want to leave the European Union go on about how we could still have certain things "because Switzerland do". That is essentially the pick n mix mentality.

Sent from my TouchPad using Tapatalk

Switzerland isn't a member of the EU nor is Norway.

Indeed Switzerland isn't a member of the Single Market whereas Norway is. I personally prefer the Swiss model although if the Norway model is a 'stepping stone' for us in terms of leaving then i'd take it rather than not leaving and remaining in the belly of the beast.

Point is, if you are signed upto ever closer union then you are going to get ever closer union. Period.