FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > EU plotting to place British troops under its 'unified command'
EU plotting to place British troops under its 'unified command'
Jump to: Newest in thread
Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations, a former army officer has warned.
And Frederick Chedham fears recently appointed Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron's push for closer ties with Brussels will see him use the British Army as a bargaining chip to gain "concessions" in other areas of the UK's relationship with the bloc - something Brexit was "precisely" intended to prevent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations, a former army officer has warned.
And Frederick Chedham fears recently appointed Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron's push for closer ties with Brussels will see him use the British Army as a bargaining chip to gain "concessions" in other areas of the UK's relationship with the bloc - something Brexit was "precisely" intended to prevent."
Lolz.
The Daily Express really is less reliable than the Beano. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations, a former army officer has warned.
And Frederick Chedham fears recently appointed Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron's push for closer ties with Brussels will see him use the British Army as a bargaining chip to gain "concessions" in other areas of the UK's relationship with the bloc - something Brexit was "precisely" intended to prevent.
Lolz.
The Daily Express really is less reliable than the Beano."
I would rather read the beano  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations"
And how would that happen? Since we are not in the EU, what pressure could the EU bring to bear if we just refused to send the troops?
Even if there were such a plan, we wouldn't be "shackled", we'd just be agreeing to join in, up until the point we stop agreeing.
"a former army officer has warned."
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations
And how would that happen? Since we are not in the EU, what pressure could the EU bring to bear if we just refused to send the troops?
Even if there were such a plan, we wouldn't be "shackled", we'd just be agreeing to join in, up until the point we stop agreeing.
a former army officer has warned.
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source."
No this is about Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron getting some thing out of it to make him lk good even if he has to agree to the UK working with other armed forces. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"will see him use the British Army as a bargaining chip to gain "concessions" in other areas of the UK's relationship with the bloc"
Key bit for me. Whatever the EUs intentions, we will be consenting to this. It's not inevitable. It's us using our sovereignty in a way that HMG sees us beneficial to UK.
Focus should be on us, not the EU.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations
And how would that happen? Since we are not in the EU, what pressure could the EU bring to bear if we just refused to send the troops?
Even if there were such a plan, we wouldn't be "shackled", we'd just be agreeing to join in, up until the point we stop agreeing.
a former army officer has warned.
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source.
No this is about Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron getting some thing out of it to make him lk good even if he has to agree to the UK working with other armed forces."
Lol.
No this is about the daily express feeding alarmist bollocks to it's readership. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No this is about Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron getting some thing out of it to make him lk good even if he has to agree to the UK working with other armed forces."
And what's wrong with the UK working with other armed forces? We already do that in international training exercises. Why wouldn't we want the ability to join up with other forces if we choose to? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations
And how would that happen? Since we are not in the EU, what pressure could the EU bring to bear if we just refused to send the troops?
Even if there were such a plan, we wouldn't be "shackled", we'd just be agreeing to join in, up until the point we stop agreeing.
a former army officer has warned.
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source."
As per the quote...part of concessions of a new agreement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No this is about Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron getting some thing out of it to make him lk good even if he has to agree to the UK working with other armed forces.
And what's wrong with the UK working with other armed forces? We already do that in international training exercises. Why wouldn't we want the ability to join up with other forces if we choose to?"
Nothing wrong working with.
Under our agreement with joining pesco as a 3rd country. The Netherlands has control ofnour forces on this exercise.
There's differences between cooperation and ceding control.
I dont like pesco never have never will. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations
And how would that happen? Since we are not in the EU, what pressure could the EU bring to bear if we just refused to send the troops?
Even if there were such a plan, we wouldn't be "shackled", we'd just be agreeing to join in, up until the point we stop agreeing.
a former army officer has warned.
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source."
To be fair.
My friend worked in military intelligence for 15 years.
He told me about usa involvement Syria before the wikileaks by about 2 years.
He also told me about our troops staying in Ukrainebefore the recent leaks, even though he'd left by then. A lot more Info gets passed around than you think.
Fwiw it will come out in about 15 years the uk was in Libya when gaddafi got over thrown.
That story is wild. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations
And how would that happen? Since we are not in the EU, what pressure could the EU bring to bear if we just refused to send the troops?
Even if there were such a plan, we wouldn't be "shackled", we'd just be agreeing to join in, up until the point we stop agreeing.
a former army officer has warned.
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source.
As per the quote...part of concessions of a new agreement."
does the fella have any basis for this fear ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Covert ops involving special forces and the intel agencies happen all the time.
So if Mr Trump was to get elected again (stop laughing at the back) he would want to decrease U.S. involvement/commitment to NATO. He would want to see the EU step up its game militarily. While not in the EU, the UK is one of only three nuclear powers in Europe (France and Russia) so would be a linchpin in any western allied arrangement.
The assumption that operational control would only be ceded in one direction is naive. The idea that strategic direction would only be set by the EU is bollocks! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations
And how would that happen? Since we are not in the EU, what pressure could the EU bring to bear if we just refused to send the troops?
Even if there were such a plan, we wouldn't be "shackled", we'd just be agreeing to join in, up until the point we stop agreeing.
a former army officer has warned.
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source.
To be fair.
My friend worked in military intelligence for 15 years.
He told me about usa involvement Syria before the wikileaks by about 2 years.
He also told me about our troops staying in Ukrainebefore the recent leaks, even though he'd left by then. A lot more Info gets passed around than you think.
Fwiw it will come out in about 15 years the uk was in Libya when gaddafi got over thrown.
That story is wild."
Your friend will have signed the Official Secrets Act and is now in breach! He needs to keep his mouth shut Morley! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations
And how would that happen? Since we are not in the EU, what pressure could the EU bring to bear if we just refused to send the troops?
Even if there were such a plan, we wouldn't be "shackled", we'd just be agreeing to join in, up until the point we stop agreeing.
a former army officer has warned.
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source.
To be fair.
My friend worked in military intelligence for 15 years.
He told me about usa involvement Syria before the wikileaks by about 2 years.
He also told me about our troops staying in Ukrainebefore the recent leaks, even though he'd left by then. A lot more Info gets passed around than you think.
Fwiw it will come out in about 15 years the uk was in Libya when gaddafi got over thrown.
That story is wild.
Your friend will have signed the Official Secrets Act and is now in breach! He needs to keep his mouth shut Morley!"
He isn't the only 1. Trust me every 1 I k ow in the armed forces does it.
Justice when police say they won't access case files they aren't working. But Sarah Everard exposed about 30 officers who breaches that agreement.
We also have a military based 600 feet below ground in a middle Eastern country rich with oil no one knows about either.
Ohn and Germany pays the uk 100m year for access to our intelligence agencies after the debacle of Merkel.letting in all the syrians and germanys intelligence not being able to cope with it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Covert ops involving special forces and the intel agencies happen all the time.
So if Mr Trump was to get elected again (stop laughing at the back) he would want to decrease U.S. involvement/commitment to NATO. He would want to see the EU step up its game militarily. While not in the EU, the UK is one of only three nuclear powers in Europe (France and Russia) so would be a linchpin in any western allied arrangement.
The assumption that operational control would only be ceded in one direction is naive. The idea that strategic direction would only be set by the EU is bollocks!"
Are you replying to me here. Its literally in the agreement that the direction is set by thr e.u
You must align to their values.
It's literally about improving the defense of e.u nations, their procurement, other countries can apply to be part of it. But its the e.u dictating what happens in pesco.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Covert ops involving special forces and the intel agencies happen all the time.
So if Mr Trump was to get elected again (stop laughing at the back) he would want to decrease U.S. involvement/commitment to NATO. He would want to see the EU step up its game militarily. While not in the EU, the UK is one of only three nuclear powers in Europe (France and Russia) so would be a linchpin in any western allied arrangement.
The assumption that operational control would only be ceded in one direction is naive. The idea that strategic direction would only be set by the EU is bollocks!
Are you replying to me here. Its literally in the agreement that the direction is set by thr e.u
You must align to their values.
It's literally about improving the defense of e.u nations, their procurement, other countries can apply to be part of it. But its the e.u dictating what happens in pesco.
"
what agreement are you refering to? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations
And how would that happen? Since we are not in the EU, what pressure could the EU bring to bear if we just refused to send the troops?
Even if there were such a plan, we wouldn't be "shackled", we'd just be agreeing to join in, up until the point we stop agreeing.
a former army officer has warned.
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source.
To be fair.
My friend worked in military intelligence for 15 years.
He told me about usa involvement Syria before the wikileaks by about 2 years.
He also told me about our troops staying in Ukrainebefore the recent leaks, even though he'd left by then. A lot more Info gets passed around than you think.
Fwiw it will come out in about 15 years the uk was in Libya when gaddafi got over thrown.
That story is wild.
Your friend will have signed the Official Secrets Act and is now in breach! He needs to keep his mouth shut Morley!
He isn't the only 1. Trust me every 1 I k ow in the armed forces does it.
Justice when police say they won't access case files they aren't working. But Sarah Everard exposed about 30 officers who breaches that agreement.
We also have a military based 600 feet below ground in a middle Eastern country rich with oil no one knows about either.
Ohn and Germany pays the uk 100m year for access to our intelligence agencies after the debacle of Merkel.letting in all the syrians and germanys intelligence not being able to cope with it"
There are levels of information though and your average squaddie will not know what your friend will have known if he worked for the intelligence services (and even then there are levels of knowledge). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Covert ops involving special forces and the intel agencies happen all the time.
So if Mr Trump was to get elected again (stop laughing at the back) he would want to decrease U.S. involvement/commitment to NATO. He would want to see the EU step up its game militarily. While not in the EU, the UK is one of only three nuclear powers in Europe (France and Russia) so would be a linchpin in any western allied arrangement.
The assumption that operational control would only be ceded in one direction is naive. The idea that strategic direction would only be set by the EU is bollocks!
Are you replying to me here. Its literally in the agreement that the direction is set by thr e.u
You must align to their values.
It's literally about improving the defense of e.u nations, their procurement, other countries can apply to be part of it. But its the e.u dictating what happens in pesco.
what agreement are you refering to? "
PESCO. There’s a good enough article on it on wikipedia.
Interesting extract...
Canada, Norway, and the United States have applied to participate in the project to improve military mobility in Europe. Norway had been active in past EU military operations. The EU governments will soon decide on the applications in a multi-stage admission process.
In May 2021, Turkey (Turkey) applied to participate in the Military Mobility project, but this was opposed by Austria in addition to the existing tensions with Greece and Cyprus. In June 2022, Finland and Sweden committed to "support the fullest possible involvement of Turkey and other non-EU Allies in the existing and prospective initiatives of the European Union's Common Security and Defence Policy, including Turkey's participation in the PESCO Project on Military Mobility" in a trilateral memorandum agreed to at the 2022 Madrid summit to facilitate Turkey's ratification of Finland and Sweden's NATO membership application.
On 6 October 2022, at the 1st European Political Community Summit, British Prime Minister Liz Truss committed the United Kingdom to joining PESCO and its Military Mobility project. On 15 November 2022, the Council of the EU invited the UK to participate in the Military Mobility project |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Covert ops involving special forces and the intel agencies happen all the time.
So if Mr Trump was to get elected again (stop laughing at the back) he would want to decrease U.S. involvement/commitment to NATO. He would want to see the EU step up its game militarily. While not in the EU, the UK is one of only three nuclear powers in Europe (France and Russia) so would be a linchpin in any western allied arrangement.
The assumption that operational control would only be ceded in one direction is naive. The idea that strategic direction would only be set by the EU is bollocks!
Are you replying to me here. Its literally in the agreement that the direction is set by thr e.u
You must align to their values.
It's literally about improving the defense of e.u nations, their procurement, other countries can apply to be part of it. But its the e.u dictating what happens in pesco.
what agreement are you refering to?
PESCO. There’s a good enough article on it on wikipedia.
Interesting extract...
Canada, Norway, and the United States have applied to participate in the project to improve military mobility in Europe. Norway had been active in past EU military operations. The EU governments will soon decide on the applications in a multi-stage admission process.
In May 2021, Turkey (Turkey) applied to participate in the Military Mobility project, but this was opposed by Austria in addition to the existing tensions with Greece and Cyprus. In June 2022, Finland and Sweden committed to "support the fullest possible involvement of Turkey and other non-EU Allies in the existing and prospective initiatives of the European Union's Common Security and Defence Policy, including Turkey's participation in the PESCO Project on Military Mobility" in a trilateral memorandum agreed to at the 2022 Madrid summit to facilitate Turkey's ratification of Finland and Sweden's NATO membership application.
On 6 October 2022, at the 1st European Political Community Summit, British Prime Minister Liz Truss committed the United Kingdom to joining PESCO and its Military Mobility project. On 15 November 2022, the Council of the EU invited the UK to participate in the Military Mobility project"
Truss did something other than the budget !
Interesting to see who else appears willing to dance to the EU tune. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I mean, in light of the threat from Russia, China, and islamists, western military cooperation seems like a good idea to me?
We already have NATO. Do we need a 'copy' of that?"
That is indeed a good point. I wonder what the answer is? Perhaps the EU feel the writing may be on the wall for ongoing support and commitment from the USA? One of our regular across the pond posters often advocates a more isolationist policy for the USA. Maybe it is time for Europe to look to itself? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I mean, in light of the threat from Russia, China, and islamists, western military cooperation seems like a good idea to me?
We already have NATO. Do we need a 'copy' of that?
That is indeed a good point. I wonder what the answer is? Perhaps the EU feel the writing may be on the wall for ongoing support and commitment from the USA? One of our regular across the pond posters often advocates a more isolationist policy for the USA. Maybe it is time for Europe to look to itself?"
Even if the US pull out of NATO (I personally don't see that), the Europeans will still be in it.
To be honest, I don't know much about this but it seems a bit pointless unless it's actually replacing NATO. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I mean, in light of the threat from Russia, China, and islamists, western military cooperation seems like a good idea to me?
We already have NATO. Do we need a 'copy' of that?
That is indeed a good point. I wonder what the answer is? Perhaps the EU feel the writing may be on the wall for ongoing support and commitment from the USA? One of our regular across the pond posters often advocates a more isolationist policy for the USA. Maybe it is time for Europe to look to itself?
Even if the US pull out of NATO (I personally don't see that), the Europeans will still be in it.
To be honest, I don't know much about this but it seems a bit pointless unless it's actually replacing NATO. "
Read up on PESCO, it is pretty interesting. There are approx 50 defence related projects underway seeking to develop joint solutions collaboratively. The main one the UK has applied to join is “Military Mobility” which in layperson’s terms is about enabling the easy travel of military assets from one allied country across the border of another. The UK’s support of Ukraine triggered our application to join. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Covert ops involving special forces and the intel agencies happen all the time.
So if Mr Trump was to get elected again (stop laughing at the back) he would want to decrease U.S. involvement/commitment to NATO. He would want to see the EU step up its game militarily. While not in the EU, the UK is one of only three nuclear powers in Europe (France and Russia) so would be a linchpin in any western allied arrangement.
The assumption that operational control would only be ceded in one direction is naive. The idea that strategic direction would only be set by the EU is bollocks!
Are you replying to me here. Its literally in the agreement that the direction is set by thr e.u
You must align to their values.
It's literally about improving the defense of e.u nations, their procurement, other countries can apply to be part of it. But its the e.u dictating what happens in pesco.
what agreement are you refering to? "
The agreement between usa and e.u
A d the actual pesco agreement.
3rd countries wanting to join must fall under the terms the e.u drafted |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I mean, in light of the threat from Russia, China, and islamists, western military cooperation seems like a good idea to me?"
Not when it's under the power of the centralised European command.
They were warned NOT to build I frastructure to improve logistics in East Europe because it would aid a Russian invasion march across. They did the opposite. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
"I mean, in light of the threat from Russia, China, and islamists, western military cooperation seems like a good idea to me?
We already have NATO. Do we need a 'copy' of that?"
Of course Putin does, division and confusion in the western world and EU suits him fine.
European defence force, EDC anyone, tjought eould have cropped up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I mean, in light of the threat from Russia, China, and islamists, western military cooperation seems like a good idea to me?
We already have NATO. Do we need a 'copy' of that?
That is indeed a good point. I wonder what the answer is? Perhaps the EU feel the writing may be on the wall for ongoing support and commitment from the USA? One of our regular across the pond posters often advocates a more isolationist policy for the USA. Maybe it is time for Europe to look to itself?
Even if the US pull out of NATO (I personally don't see that), the Europeans will still be in it.
To be honest, I don't know much about this but it seems a bit pointless unless it's actually replacing NATO. "
If anything I advocate for a isolationist policy. But it seems like we are going to have to look at a retrenchment policy. Military recruitment is way down here. Other nations know that and with the current political climate Other nations need to look at other options. We are slowly becoming pacifists to other nations commitments. Our military is slowly being degraded because of cultural ideals. When the DOD sends out letters to 8000 military personnel asking them to rejoin after getting kicked out for refusing mandatory covid vaccines. Something is seriously wrong with recruitment levels and readyness. So the EU is going to have to start looking elsewhere for Europes security commitments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have the USA entered an agreement that puts their troops under de central control ?
(That's what various parts of this thread could suggest) "
Pesco is about 60 different projects. Should tbe usa choose to take part in any under the banner where troops are under the command of general van der loan then yes. The troops would Benenden that command
Joining pesco projects is joining on e.u terms.
I do ot want any of that occurring for the uk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Have the USA entered an agreement that puts their troops under de central control ?
(That's what various parts of this thread could suggest)
Pesco is about 60 different projects. Should tbe usa choose to take part in any under the banner where troops are under the command of general van der loan then yes. The troops would Benenden that command
Joining pesco projects is joining on e.u terms.
I do ot want any of that occurring for the uk."
Why? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple
over a year ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
This thread was gonna be silly from the start, the clue was using the word “plotting”. Are there still those who believe there are secret rooms in the Berlaymont where Gaullists sit around crying over the Battle of Castillon (oh no, it was Agincourt they lost, Castillon’s the one we don’t talk about) with old Nazis singing the Horst-Wessel-Lied, and together “plotting” the downfall of the United Kingdom? I think the EU has more important things to worry about than a country which was a pain in the arse when it was a member and has now voted itself into the last century and “Third Country” status.
As for “Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union “, I think Charles Michel or even Roberta Metsola would have something to say about that! It’s like suggesting the UK is “run by” Simon Case.
Western military forces co-operate and work together continuously, at sea the “Big Boys” (Gerald R. Ford, Queen Elizabeth, Charles de Gaulle) in particular need considerable support from air defence frigates, destroyers and submarines which make up multi-national fleets.
EU military forward thinking is more about common research and procurement than anything else, cooperation rather than competition. The scaremongering that British troops might be ordered into battle by foreign powers is as silly as saying the EU bans bendy bananas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have the USA entered an agreement that puts their troops under de central control ?
(That's what various parts of this thread could suggest)
Pesco is about 60 different projects. Should tbe usa choose to take part in any under the banner where troops are under the command of general van der loan then yes. The troops would Benenden that command
Joining pesco projects is joining on e.u terms.
I do ot want any of that occurring for the uk.
Why?"
Because as with the e.u over the years. We co tonally were told we'd " have our say" instead the government's gave away more and more freedoms.
I dont want the e.u receiving any money from the uk or any intelligence service from us without giving something up.
It's just a way for e.u to get more infra from the uk coffers because it suits those in charge of the country.
I dont want any military power given away to the e.u which could happen on certain pesco projects on purchasing of equipment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Have the USA entered an agreement that puts their troops under de central control ?
(That's what various parts of this thread could suggest)
Pesco is about 60 different projects. Should tbe usa choose to take part in any under the banner where troops are under the command of general van der loan then yes. The troops would Benenden that command
Joining pesco projects is joining on e.u terms.
I do ot want any of that occurring for the uk.
Why?
Because as with the e.u over the years. We co tonally were told we'd " have our say" instead the government's gave away more and more freedoms.
I dont want the e.u receiving any money from the uk or any intelligence service from us without giving something up.
It's just a way for e.u to get more infra from the uk coffers because it suits those in charge of the country.
I dont want any military power given away to the e.u which could happen on certain pesco projects on purchasing of equipment."
But how do you know the UK won’t benefit? How do you know the UK won’t be a leading partner? How do you know the UK arms industry won’t secure major contracts? How do you know the UK intelligence services won’t be seen as the jewel in the crown and a major bargaining chip, or the UK’s nuclear deterrent for that matter (France is the only other nuclear power in this arrangement)? Why should the UK be fearful but the USA and Canada are not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Have the USA entered an agreement that puts their troops under de central control ?
(That's what various parts of this thread could suggest)
Pesco is about 60 different projects. Should tbe usa choose to take part in any under the banner where troops are under the command of general van der loan then yes. The troops would Benenden that command
Joining pesco projects is joining on e.u terms.
I do ot want any of that occurring for the uk.
Why?
Because as with the e.u over the years. We co tonally were told we'd " have our say" instead the government's gave away more and more freedoms.
I dont want the e.u receiving any money from the uk or any intelligence service from us without giving something up.
It's just a way for e.u to get more infra from the uk coffers because it suits those in charge of the country.
I dont want any military power given away to the e.u which could happen on certain pesco projects on purchasing of equipment.
But how do you know the UK won’t benefit? How do you know the UK won’t be a leading partner? How do you know the UK arms industry won’t secure major contracts? How do you know the UK intelligence services won’t be seen as the jewel in the crown and a major bargaining chip, or the UK’s nuclear deterrent for that matter (France is the only other nuclear power in this arrangement)? Why should the UK be fearful but the USA and Canada are not?"
the USA and Canada are not fearful of getting involved in some of the projects that is! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""a former army officer has warned."
Ah. Someone that knows nothing about politics, and isn't involved in today's army. Good source."
Depends on how high up they were but unless they were involved in strategic command as opposed to tactical level we doubt they'll know much more than the rest of us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If they are actively participating on the same side in the same conflict, this is a sensible thing. You don’t want one army running about messing up strategy while the rest of the combatants are working as a unit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have the USA entered an agreement that puts their troops under de central control ?
(That's what various parts of this thread could suggest)
Pesco is about 60 different projects. Should tbe usa choose to take part in any under the banner where troops are under the command of general van der loan then yes. The troops would Benenden that command
Joining pesco projects is joining on e.u terms.
I do ot want any of that occurring for the uk.
Why?
Because as with the e.u over the years. We co tonally were told we'd " have our say" instead the government's gave away more and more freedoms.
I dont want the e.u receiving any money from the uk or any intelligence service from us without giving something up.
It's just a way for e.u to get more infra from the uk coffers because it suits those in charge of the country.
I dont want any military power given away to the e.u which could happen on certain pesco projects on purchasing of equipment.
But how do you know the UK won’t benefit? How do you know the UK won’t be a leading partner? How do you know the UK arms industry won’t secure major contracts? How do you know the UK intelligence services won’t be seen as the jewel in the crown and a major bargaining chip, or the UK’s nuclear deterrent for that matter (France is the only other nuclear power in this arrangement)? Why should the UK be fearful but the USA and Canada are not?"
Leading aprtner is the e.u
You join on their terms.
The uk Arms industry can still gain contracts without joining.
Intelligence services have already been given away
The uk nuclear deterrent isn't ours to use exclusively. We do rely on the usa on this programme and can't make guarantees going forward on it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Have the USA entered an agreement that puts their troops under de central control ?
(That's what various parts of this thread could suggest)
Pesco is about 60 different projects. Should tbe usa choose to take part in any under the banner where troops are under the command of general van der loan then yes. The troops would Benenden that command
Joining pesco projects is joining on e.u terms.
I do ot want any of that occurring for the uk.
Why?
Because as with the e.u over the years. We co tonally were told we'd " have our say" instead the government's gave away more and more freedoms.
I dont want the e.u receiving any money from the uk or any intelligence service from us without giving something up.
It's just a way for e.u to get more infra from the uk coffers because it suits those in charge of the country.
I dont want any military power given away to the e.u which could happen on certain pesco projects on purchasing of equipment.
But how do you know the UK won’t benefit? How do you know the UK won’t be a leading partner? How do you know the UK arms industry won’t secure major contracts? How do you know the UK intelligence services won’t be seen as the jewel in the crown and a major bargaining chip, or the UK’s nuclear deterrent for that matter (France is the only other nuclear power in this arrangement)? Why should the UK be fearful but the USA and Canada are not?
Leading aprtner is the e.u
You join on their terms.
The uk Arms industry can still gain contracts without joining.
Intelligence services have already been given away
The uk nuclear deterrent isn't ours to use exclusively. We do rely on the usa on this programme and can't make guarantees going forward on it.
"
I don’t think we would join exclusively on their terms. The UK is still a big player militarily. I think we could use that as leverage in any negotiation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Have the USA entered an agreement that puts their troops under de central control ?
(That's what various parts of this thread could suggest)
Pesco is about 60 different projects. Should tbe usa choose to take part in any under the banner where troops are under the command of general van der loan then yes. The troops would Benenden that command
Joining pesco projects is joining on e.u terms.
I do ot want any of that occurring for the uk.
Why?
Because as with the e.u over the years. We co tonally were told we'd " have our say" instead the government's gave away more and more freedoms.
I dont want the e.u receiving any money from the uk or any intelligence service from us without giving something up.
It's just a way for e.u to get more infra from the uk coffers because it suits those in charge of the country.
I dont want any military power given away to the e.u which could happen on certain pesco projects on purchasing of equipment.
But how do you know the UK won’t benefit? How do you know the UK won’t be a leading partner? How do you know the UK arms industry won’t secure major contracts? How do you know the UK intelligence services won’t be seen as the jewel in the crown and a major bargaining chip, or the UK’s nuclear deterrent for that matter (France is the only other nuclear power in this arrangement)? Why should the UK be fearful but the USA and Canada are not?
Leading aprtner is the e.u
You join on their terms.
The uk Arms industry can still gain contracts without joining.
Intelligence services have already been given away
The uk nuclear deterrent isn't ours to use exclusively. We do rely on the usa on this programme and can't make guarantees going forward on it.
I don’t think we would join exclusively on their terms. The UK is still a big player militarily. I think we could use that as leverage in any negotiation. "
Oh and joint projects are exactly that. It has been done before such as the Typhoon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ogo1189Man
over a year ago
Rossendale |
"Ursula von der LeyenLink's European Union wants to shackle the UK military to a 'unified command' structure which would enable Brussels to commit British troops in military operations, a former army officer has warned.
And Frederick Chedham fears recently appointed Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron's push for closer ties with Brussels will see him use the British Army as a bargaining chip to gain "concessions" in other areas of the UK's relationship with the bloc - something Brexit was "precisely" intended to prevent.
Lolz.
The Daily Express really is less reliable than the Beano."
I take issue with this comment. I’ve never had any issues with reliability when reading the Beano |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
