"You can call it Margaret, you can call it Mary Anne, it is still a European Army".So it is odd to hear that in the House of Lords yesterday this exchange
"Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the idea of a European army is most strongly floated in two sectors of opinion: first, the Europhobe lobby in Britain and Ireland; and, secondly, the soft Left in Germany and Belgium, who want to have a European army but do not want it to have to do anything? Does she further agree that co-operation among armed forces in Europe is very different from the concept of a European army, very much in Britain’s interest, and, indeed, a necessary part of the further development of an effective defence policy for the United Kingdom?Even odder was the appearence of the Commons Defence Minister John Hutton saying exactly the opposite in the Sunday Times. Is he saying that his ciollegue in the Ministry is "pathetic"?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I do not always agree with the noble Lord on some of these issues but I agree with him today. Very few people are actively promoting the concept of an active European army, and perhaps that is not surprising because we do not have a NATO army or a United Nations army. All the actions that we enter into are the result of voluntary decisions. We are not obligated to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, we are doing it because we think that it is right. I think that that is how the situation will remain. Not many people other those who are very frightened of the concept of a European army are talking about it at all.
So what is the UK position over the European army? And what is the officuial opposition doing about it.
And if Richard North is right, is it worth being concerned?
Update
It appears that Hutton has had his hand slapped.
John Hutton does not support an EU Army. There will be no European Army and NATO remains the cornerstone of European defence and the UK's defence arrangements. The UK's policy remains that there will be no standing European army, navy or air force. This is France's position too and President Sarkozy stated on 17 June 2008 that [French] "armed forces are and will remain national. They will not be integrated into any supranational force".
5 comments:
So we will take that last statement as a yes then,there will be a european army,as to the question of it having nothing to do,this is not true,when all the european peoples finnaly wake up and resist this tyranny that calls itself the eussr by revolt,then sarco's army will come and kill us,so there will be plenty to do.
Get yourselves trained
And what is the armys position on protecting its own indigenous population from foreign troops and islam?who's side are they really on?
I've linked back to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/11/re-what-is-governments-position-viz.html
There is already a European Army. EUFOR has troops in 3 continents, largely in peacekeeping, post-war reconstruction and integrated police units. They may be few but they are well equipped, trained and armed.
All defence arrangements are inherently anachronistic, designed to fight the last battle more effectively rather than the next. If Europe is to have a distinct foreign policy it must also have a distinct defence capability.
That capability must be the product of closer co-operation between EU national military authorities on a whole host of issues, including NATO and UN obligations. This is natural common sense behaviour between allies and that is nothing new.
And Englishman should know better than to ask whose side the British Army are on or what their position is. Queen and Country that's whose side they are on. As for position, the British Army doesn't have 'positions' - it is a professional fighting force acting on the orders of the sovereign. It certainly would not distinguish between an 'indigenous population' and that of a friendly foreign ally.
Post a Comment