Saturday, September 17, 2016

Britain Vows To Veto Any Formation Of An EU Army

The Independent: Britain will veto EU army, says Defence Secretary

For as long as the UK is a member of the EU, it will block plans for an EU army, says Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon

The UK would exercise its power of veto to block the creation of an EU army while it remains a member of the European Union, according to Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon.

EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has spoken of the possibility of a “common military force” at a meeting of EU leaders in Bratislava, to which Britain was not invited.

Sir Michael told The Times newspaper. "That is not going to happen. We are full members of the EU and we will go on resisting any attempt to set up a rival to Nato."

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Bad idea .... and if implemented what is the point of having NATO. This is also (to me) just more evidence on how out of touch the EU leadership is with the rest of Europe.

More News On Talks To Form An EU Army

No rivals to NATO: Britain will veto joint EU army as long as it’s in the bloc -- RT
Britain will veto creation of EU army, vows Michael Fallon -- Politics Home
Baltic States, Poland Up in Arms Over Creation of 'EU Army' -- Sputnik
Juncker proposes EU military headquarters -- BBC
European Leaders Debate Proposals for Closer Military Ties -- New York Times
Will the European Union build an EU army? -- Express


RRH said...

The Fauxit continues with the UK playing Washington's catspaw in the EU. Whether an EU army is a good idea or bad, the Brits voted to leave the EU and should conduct themselves accordingly. This veto threat is just one more indication that the people who really run things are counting on the Leave result to just go away.

James said...

This is the sordid world legacy of the British military:

B.Poster said...

I'm not aware that the UK ever plays "catspaw" to Washington. The UK is a sovereign country with it's own interests and goals. How it chooses to conduct itself here is up to the British and their leadership not to the US.

The EU is actually at best a strategic competitor the United States and at worst an out right enemy of the United States, much closer to an enemy. Anything that weakens the EU is actually good for the United States. Some people may be so blinded by ideology that they fail to recognize just what their interests are.

It is a "bad idea" in the sense that such talk will only accelerate the forces pushing for the various "exits" from the EU in the various member states. After Brexit one would have thought EU leadership might have been more circumspect, perhaps thinking about how they might best address the needs of the citizens of the various member states and perhaps even taking some time to assess what happened and why. Instead these people double down on the same polices that causes the problem in the first place. Doubling down on stupid typically does not change the end result but only accelerates the end result. Adherence to an ideology at any and all costs often means ignoring the facts at hand when making policy decisions.

Since the Brits did vote to leave the EU, this should be none of their concern. Whether or not this is a good idea or not is not their concern or at least it should not be.

"...what is the point of having NATO." I think this is and has been the idea all along. The current situation has accelerated things. Several factors to be considered are 1.) Donald Trump is going to be the next US president, at the very least that is a possibility that is going to need to be considered. When elected, he is likely to make a big push to alter America's position within "alliances" such as NATO. 2.) The United States military is badly worn down in terms of men and equipment, the morale is low, an at this point they'd be hard pressed to defend the American mainland let alone keep a commitment to NATO. 3.)The US national debt combined with a crumbling infrastructure likely means the funds are not going to be available for a very long time for the US to address any of this. 4.) The American people are fed up with such commitments that re non reciprocal especially while they understand the dire straits the US military would be in simply trying to defend America at this point and they are not going to tolerate this situation for much longer.

As such, EU leaders are likely thinking along the lines of being ready to "step up" when the inevitable American redeployment does occur. I tend to think this would be a bad idea for them. Trying to integrate all of the different cultures into one unified military whole would seem an undoable task. Of course such an attempt may be a good idea for the United States in the sense that attempts to do this will only accelerate the inevitable breakup of the EU which would be good for America. when the EU finally does end, good riddance to it!!

Anonymous said...

A whole new army of ineffectual euro-wussies is in the pipeline!

RRH said...


They are and have been a catspaw so much so that their concept of "sovereignty", much like Canada's, means being in lockstep with Washington.


I'm not quite sure how the neoliberal EU project, (the maintenance of which has been a staple policy of the U.S. for years) breaking up would be "good" for them.

I do agree that an EU army is a non_starter. I don't foresee the Germans wanting to switch out with the Americans and carry the others around.

B.Poster said...


If they are in "lockstep" with Washington on the idea of "sovereignty" it is because they agree with Washington on this. As such, even if Washington's concepts on this or anything else changed the positions of countries like the Canada and the United Kingdom might not change. Given this situation, it would be equally accurate to say Washington is the "cats paw" of these other countries.

Each country needs to adopt policies that best meet their needs and interests. If the UK wants to adopt a certain concept of sovereignty, who are we to question the policies of an ally? As I've stated before, the country in the world that Americans admire the most is Canada. This includes America's leadership. As such, there is no way the US is going to question Canada's position on this or pretty much anything else.

While perhaps comforting to blame America for policies of other countries that we do not like, it is a mistake to assign to more power and influence to America than it actually has. At times, the media messaging against America seems little different than the messaging against the Jews before the holocaust during WWII. That one ended VERY badly. I pray this one ends better.

Sometimes men and women carry out "staple" policies based upon ideology rather than their interests based in large part on an ideology. This is pretty much the case with supporting the EU. Essentially the United States supported an enemy. So far the costs of this have not been as dire as they could be. The breakup of this entity would be very good for the USA. As I've said, when the EU does finally break up, good riddance to it!! Congratulations to the Brits for beginning this.

I agree that the Germans are not going to carry the EU nations. I think they are already tired of the bail outs. With that said, as far as Germany goes, they will need to "switch out" with the Americans. One of the things the next POTUS is going to be dealing with is the loss of the US dollar as world reserve currency. When this happens, in all likelihood, it will mean the end of US involvement in NATO. It will not be able to be sustained. If I'm aware of this, I'm pretty sure the German and other Western European leaders are aware of this.

B.Poster said...

I might also add that the leadership of the EU and the United States were/are on the same page with regards to the EU with the EU leaders being in the drivers seat calling the shots with the United States going along. As such, Brexit could be seen as a "slap in the face" to them. Of course president Obama as the ultimate EU poodle would be expect to dutifully campaign for Britain to remain in the EU.

The fact that the British leadership wanted him to campaign on behalf of the EU indicates just how out of touch these people really are. Frankly they'd have had a better chance had they told him to stay home.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like leverage in Brexit negotiations to me.

B.Poster said...

"...leverage in Brexit negotiations..." Britain is leaving the EU. There's nothing to negotiate. In fact, since Britain is leaving, they have no "veto" power. If I were the EU, which thankfully I'm not as I utterly DESPISE that entity and see it for the enemy of America that it really is even if American leaders don't recognize this, I'd tell the Brits "thanks for sharing" on the veto threat, ignore their veto, and move ahead with whatever I was going to do anyway.

B.Poster said...

If this is a negotiating tactic and Britain is seeking some kind of leverage, opposition to an EU army would seem to make no sense. First of all I'm assuming the EU leaders want this army. Secondly, while I was puzzled when I read after Britain voted to leave the EU I read something about British and EU officials meeting to "negotiate" Britain's exit from the EU, I'm assuming there is actually something to negotiate.

Since the amount of time that the UK is going to spend in the EU is limited, all the EU would have to do is wait until Britain leaves to start work on their army and since Britain is on the way out anyway, there's little influence the UK would have anyway even if they started right now. Furthermore, opposing the creation of this army would only serve to raise the ire of top EU officials.

As such, a more sensible negotiating tactic would be to support the EU's position of creating an EU army in exchange for favorable terms upon the final exit from the EU. If America doesn't want an EU army and Britain supports it this is an added bonus for the UK as a negotiating tactic for favorable exit terms as EU leadership is not going to pass up an opportunity to stick it to the Americans. Therefor supporting an EU army carries with it no downside risks for the UK along with huge upside potential. Very respectfully as a negotiating tactic opposing an EU army would seem a bad one.

An EU army cannot happen for two reasons. 1.)The various cultural differences of the nations involved make this level of integration impossible in say the next 50 years or more. 2.)The various "exit" movements are like a raging forest fire. To try and implement something like this right now would be like dumping gallons of fuel on the raging fire. In other words, trying this would only accelerate the breakup of the EU. EU leaders may well be ideologically blind enough to try this anyway. Another possibility is that certain "exit" forces are feeding this line to the media understanding full well that such talk helps their cause.

The various security arrangements involving America such as NATO are ending. The only question is will this be an orderly change or a disorderly one. IF an EU Army WERE possible which it is NOT, there might well be pragmatic reasons even for leadership who despises the EU to support this as such an army allows the US an orderly redeployment away from Western Europe.

aaa said...


"I do agree that an EU army is a non_starter. I don't foresee the Germans wanting to switch out with the Americans and carry the others around."

From the article, the Germans along with the French initiated this proposal for an EU military force:

"France and Germany are understood to be behind the proposals."

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the UK’s input on the issue would be sought via talks between Theresa May and European Council President Donald Tusk. "We need more co-operation, particularly in the area of defence, and a lot more needs to be done on the Franco-German plan," she said. "The UK remains a member of the EU and all of these issues have to be discussed.""

RRH said...

Apologies aaa,

I should have been more clear.

"the Germans" I referred to are the growing number of German people who are very tired of carrying the burden of the rest of the EU and who will soon say auf wiedersehen to Frau Merkel.

There are also more than a few Americans who are tired of playing Big Daddy too.

RRH said...


I don't see how the EU, as a whole is an enemy of the U.S. Especially given the fact that for decades they have allowed their militaries to operate under the command of Washington. Furthermore, "the Poodles" have, barring a couple of exceptions, by and large supported U.S. policy toward Russia over thw Ukraine fiasco- to their own detriment. So, I just don't see it.

The UK, Canada and the U.S. are not equal sovereign states in the fashion you describe. Canadian "interests" are by and large informed by the interests of Canada's elite. These folks follow U.S. dictated policy (especially foreign policy) because it is in their interests to do so. They are also well aware that the consequenves for Canada will be dire if she steps out of line. While many Americans and Canadians hold each other in the highest regard, the costs for Canada stepping out of line compared to the U.S. stepping out of line are not even comparable.

As an example, I am sure you recall the Chretien Government's refusal to go to Iraq in '03. Canada faced immediate reprisals in terms of trade traffic hold ups the border, and a stricter regime for visiting the U.S. in general. It was a shot across our bow and the continrntalists howled bloody murder the whole time through their media monopoly. We've been a compliant poodle ever since.

You may say this was a disagreement between "equal sovereign" nations. In fact it was the correction of the behaviour of a protectorate.

On the Brexit side, we have not yet seen the UK Government invoke article 50. What we have seen is the UK Government threaten to use its veto as part of the EU to stop an initiative to create an armed force which, ostensibly, will not be under U.S. control. Now, if that initiative is succesaful, that may be enough to get the EU on the "enemies" list.

aaa said...


Thanks for clarifying. I would agree with you on least in the short term.

It may be a few decades, but EU will eventually get their military

RRH said...

No problem aaa.

I know we may have differing outlooks on this or that, but I'm open to constructive criticism.

B.Poster said...


The EU nations will allow to operate under the "command and control" of Washingto as long as they control Washington, at best for them, and at the very least for them Washington defers to them and at least treats theem as equals. As far as policy towards Ukraine and Russia, even if US policy changes western European policy will not necessarily change as they don't go to what the US does. The US is more likely to go with what EU nations want though.

It's not just "high regard" Americans have for Canadians. It borders on worship. This extends to American leadership. While not guaranteed, if Canada takes a policy position there's a good chance America will as well.

As for Iraq, Saddam's Iraq was an existential threat to America that was growing. Through programs like oil for food the former Iraq government had achieved a de facto end to sanctions and gained numerous allies. As such, support for America here carried with it extreme risks with little upside tangible benefit for supporting America. The only reason to do so, would have been based upon principle.

While Canadian support would have been appreciated, it is fully understandable why Canada chose not to. After all why place onself at risk of an Iraqi reprisal for a declining power like America. Had the roles been reversed, I probably would have made the same decision. Again, why take such a breathtaking risk in alienating the former Iraq government and risking their reprisal? With that said had the roles been reversed America likely would have come rushing to the aid of the Canadians at any cost and risk. Again, Americans on the whole including the leadership worship Canada and want to find favor with it. While I do not share the sentiment of most Americans or our leaders, I do have a healthy respect for Canadians. As such, I can understand their decision not to assist in Iraq. With that said given the general American sentinent toward Canada the decision not to help while understandable to me, was particularly stinging to many Americans.

As for trade hold ups on the border or stricter requirements for visiting the US, I mean you no disrespect but I'm pretty sure Canadians and their leaders aren't exactly quacking in their boots over such a thing. As a net importer, the US needs what Canada has to offer at least as much as Canada needs to supply it. While I can and do fully understand Canada's position on Iraq, likewise the US decision given the dire situation it faced at the time to take whatever meager reprisals it could take against Canada is also understandable.

I would tend to agree this is not disagreements between "equal sovereigns." It seems more like the EU nations and others generally pull America's strings treating it with the same contempt that police officers or slaves are often treated with and the US like used and abused people often do continues to come back for more use and abuse which only gets worse.

I will need to research "article 50." If the UK needs to "negotiate" it's exit from the EU which is certainly plausible, if we held a vote in all EU nations most, if not all, would probably vote to exit. With that said the EU nations are many. The UK is one and all of these nations generally despise the UK. As such, they can and would given the opportunity make life VERY difficult for the UK. It would seem "article 50" might make negotiations more difficult for the UK should they invoke it. Again, I will research this. Suffice it to say for negotiations to go well they'd want to not do anything to upset the EU or it's member nations.

Jay Farquharson said...

The EU has been "talking" about a joint EU Military for over 40 years,

It's never happened.

B.Poster said...


The EU will not exist in a few decades. Holding such diverse cultures together is going to be impossibl. Even if it were possible, it is currently hostile to Russia. As such, Russia would move to crush it very quickly.

Of course, the EU views America as it's primary enemy. I'm pretty sure such a military would move against America very quickly. The Russians will also know this is their enemy as well. This could draw America and Russia together to battle a common enemy.

Improving relations between America and Russia needs to be the top priorty of the next POTUS. Perhaps an EU military who is hostile to both of us could help here. Maybe we should be pulling for a EU military.

As stated, it cannot happen now or decades from now as the RU will not be in existence five years from now let alone decades from now. As such, supporting it is futile and a waste of time. Successful policies need to embrace reality as opposed to ideolgy.

B.Poster said...


I remember this talk in the early 1990s. That's over 20 years. I wouldn't be surprised that they've been talking about it for over 40 years. It'll NEVER happen. The trouble with ideologues is they never learn.

Jay Farquharson said...

The old joke was French leadership, British weapons and German logistics.