EU Army

[ibis]

Nice try there ibis but even you cant spin your way out of this one.
Yes PSC could (and would if we said no) proceed outside the EU framework. The important bit is that while it is inside the EU framework we must support its actions even if we dont directly participate, plus it will act on the EU's behalf (thats our behalf). So we cant wash our hands of it.
Your type of hairsplitting might fool a lot of people but not me.

A friend's mother is fond of the saying "you can't fool me, I'm too ignorant", and it would be the only defence you might reasonably offer of that claim, I'd say. We don't have to support the actions of a group engaged in permanent structured cooperation, because all they are is a group of member states that can be entrusted with an EU mission (intended largely for UN actions):

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.

Without a unanimously adopted position, there is no EU mission. Without an EU mission, a group of EU states cooperating through the permanent structured cooperation mechanism has no EU mission to carry out. It's pretty black and white.

[SilverSpurs]

A friend's mother is fond of the saying "you can't fool me, I'm too ignorant", and it would be the only defence you might reasonably offer of that claim, I'd say. We don't have to support the actions of a group engaged in permanent structured cooperation, because all they are is a group of member states that can be entrusted with an EU mission (intended largely for UN actions):



Without a unanimously adopted position, there is no EU mission. Without an EU mission, a group of EU states cooperating through the permanent structured cooperation mechanism has no EU mission to carry out. It's pretty black and white.

Again you react with more strawmen. I am fully aware that unanimity is required to authorise EU action. However once the PSC group gets the green light "internal unanimity" applies and we must unreservedly support their actions unless we can show they went beyond the scope of their mandate.
Again you split hairs; so now PSC is armies "entrusted with an EU mission" and not an EU army.

[The Field Marshal]

How does the German Foreign Minister confirm the legal guarantees are a sham?

Hew said the "long-term goal" should be an EU Army. That can be his "goal" if he wants but it can't happen under Lisbon.

If EU states want an EU Army they need a new treaty and that needs the unanimous support of all EU states.

Even then it needs a change to the Irish constitution and that needs another referendum here. The Irish people have a veto on any EU Army.

How difficult is that to understand?

That has been said already several times.

Why do you feel the need to continually repeat the same point over and over.?

I suppose you probably think that by repeating it ,it will give you added protection.

Im reminded of the child shouting"Mammy,Mammy theres a bold man out there' "as he hides behind his mothers skirts.

[The Field Marshal]

I enclose below a verbatim extract of a report to the president of the EU parliament who has just told the Americans to get lost wrt to co-operating on the war against terror.

EP.president Buzek comes from a very strong pro European nationalist background.

The writing is clearly on the wall in this report that the groundwork is being carefully prepared to forge public acceptance of the idea of an EU army.

Extract from report:
- 52 - Developing a common European Security Strategy

• The area of security and defence under the Common Foreign and Security
Policy (CFSP) is likely to be one of the most important strategic policy areas
to be developed by the European Union in coming decades.

• The current global mood reflects a high measure of geopolitical insecurity and
gives the impression of an overwhelming range of conflicts and challenges.
The European Security Strategy adopted and revised by the Council of
Ministers in recent years needs to be adjusted to changing needs and given
greater democratic legitimacy and underpinning. A new, clearly structured
debate could help focus 'European minds' on a targetted number of attainable
priorities. In the process of defining strategic interests and key priorities upon
which the EU can focus its comprehensive, even if limited, resources, the
shortcomings of the present situation will need to be analysed.

• The European Parliament - in conjunction with national parliaments - has the
potential to become the key "public space" for the debate about strategy and
through which broader public legitimacy is built for responding to the global
challenges. This may help achieve a greater unity of purpose and public
legitimacy for the EU's role in responding to geopolitical trends.




EU Policy Challenges 2009-2019


mmm

[Earnest]

I enclose below a verbatim extract of a report to the president of the EU parliament who has just told the Americans to get lost wrt to co-operating on the war against terror.

EP.president Buzek comes from a very strong pro European nationalist background.

The writing is clearly on the wall in this report that the groundwork is being carefully prepared to forge public acceptance of the idea of an EU army.

Extract from report:
- 52 - Developing a common European Security Strategy

• The area of security and defence under the Common Foreign and Security
Policy (CFSP) is likely to be one of the most important strategic policy areas
to be developed by the European Union in coming decades.

• The current global mood reflects a high measure of geopolitical insecurity and
gives the impression of an overwhelming range of conflicts and challenges.
The European Security Strategy adopted and revised by the Council of
Ministers in recent years needs to be adjusted to changing needs and given
greater democratic legitimacy and underpinning. A new, clearly structured
debate could help focus 'European minds' on a targetted number of attainable
priorities. In the process of defining strategic interests and key priorities upon
which the EU can focus its comprehensive, even if limited, resources, the
shortcomings of the present situation will need to be analysed.

• The European Parliament - in conjunction with national parliaments - has the
potential to become the key "public space" for the debate about strategy and
through which broader public legitimacy is built for responding to the global
challenges. This may help achieve a greater unity of purpose and public
legitimacy for the EU's role in responding to geopolitical trends.

EU Policy Challenges 2009-2019

mmm

There is, of course, nothing in this that justifies you talking of a European army. It is the President of the European Parliament (which cannot decide on foreign and security policy anyway) saying that the EU's response to geopolitical trends should be improved.

[Grumpy Jack]

That has been said already several times.

Why do you feel the need to continually repeat the same point over and over.?

I suppose you probably think that by repeating it ,it will give you added protection.

Im reminded of the child shouting"Mammy,Mammy theres a bold man out there' "as he hides behind his mothers skirts.

For the slow learners like yourself on P.ie.

[The Field Marshal]

There is, of course, nothing in this that justifies you talking of a European army. It is the President of the European Parliament (which cannot decide on foreign and security policy anyway) saying that the EU's response to geopolitical trends should be improved.

Its being said in the context of EU defence.


The whole EU trend for all you blind people is this.



The EU intends long term to increase the powers of all its institutions including the parliament.

All talk of an EU army is embronic. This can not be denied.

There can be no doubt therefore that in the long term the EU desires to have its own army.

What the EU desires is usually what the EU gets.



This is a very very long term project and the vested interests and historical
forces that drive it are deep and powerful.


The think tanks therefore behind core EU policy are operating on 3 & 4 decade long time scales.

No short term national government can really now keep abreast of or effectively resist their influence.

[SilverLining]

Too late to be crying about all this now. We had our chance and were repeatedly bullied and conned into passing the Lisbon Referendum. A Federal EU is now on track and all the politicians of the establishment parties here sold their souls in selling us a pack of lies.

[ibis]

Again you react with more strawmen. I am fully aware that unanimity is required to authorise EU action. However once the PSC group gets the green light "internal unanimity" applies and we must unreservedly support their actions unless we can show they went beyond the scope of their mandate.

Really? Would you happen to have some sort of reference for that "unreservedly support" bit, or is this another SilverSpurs special?

Again you split hairs; so now PSC is armies "entrusted with an EU mission" and not an EU army.

That's because it isn't. It's a joint member-state force, and not under the control of the EU but the states involved, as you've just pointed out yourself.

Tell me something - where is the UN's army?

[The Field Marshal]

Really? Would you happen to have some sort of reference for that "unreservedly support" bit, or is this another SilverSpurs special?



That's because it isn't. It's a joint member-state force, and not under the control of the EU but the states involved, as you've just pointed out yourself.

Tell me something - where is the UN's army?

The UN is an international and universal entity.



The EU is neither .

I say it is not international because ,in its own deliberate language it is not composed of nations any more but is composed of states

ie EU member states.


This language has been deliberately chosen to downgrade nationhood to statehood.


This is why the United States of America function so well

A state is a created entity capable of being controled and manipulated
much more easily than a nation.

States can easily go to war.

Much much harder to get a nation to go to war.


It would clearly be impossible to have an Army of the European Nations.

It is very very possible and very very likely that in the medium term future there will, indeed be, an Army of the European Union drawings its resources from member states of that union.