It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In order to ''prevent one single member state from being able to obstruct initiatives'', a reference to British opposition to a European army, the German-led group demanded an end to existing national vetoes over foreign and defence policy.
This would give the EU the power to impose a decision on Britain if it was supported by a majority of other countries.
Sydney Morning Herald.
Originally posted by glen200376
Had to laugh at the quote about stopping one member blocking things,does this include wars for the nice new army?Hopefully the u.k. has nothing to do with it,we want out of the bloody e.u. not to be enslaved by an army who answer to people who want to force us to accept new 'initiaves'.
prevent one single member state from being able to obstruct initiatives
The US made a sham in Kosovo
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ollncasino
Didn't Germany try this in the 1930's and 40's?
Instead of bullets and bombs now they use spreadsheets and budgets.
The survey predicts that Britain's population by 2060 will increase by 25% from the current figure of just over 61 million to almost 77 million.
Germany is the biggest country in the EU, with more than 82 million people, but it is likely to shed almost 12 million by 2060, says the report. The widely praised family policies and support of working women in France means that the French population will rise to almost 72 million by 2060.
By 2060, the population of major European countries will be:
UK 77 million
France 72
Germany 71
Italy 59
Spain 52
The Gaurdian
Originally posted by ollncasino
GERMANY, France and nine of Europe's most powerful countries have called for European army, an elected European Union president and an end to Britain's veto over defence policy, in radical vision for the ''future of Europe''.
The plan was backed by Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Holland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal
The proposals also demand an end to countries being able to veto initiatives, aimed at preventing the UK which opposes a European army being able to block its creation.
In order to ''prevent one single member state from being able to obstruct initiatives'', a reference to British opposition to a European army, the German-led group demanded an end to existing national vetoes over foreign and defence policy.
This would give the EU the power to impose a decision on Britain if it was supported by a majority of other countries.
Sydney Morning Herald.
The EU has the largest economy in the world, has a population of 500 million people and is the largest trading block in the world.
A European army would allow it to protect its interests globally and translate its economic power into real geo-political leverage. I'm British but with the waning global clout of individual European nations, I feel such a move is long over-due.
A new superpower on the block however may tread on the toes of both China and the USA.
edit on 22-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by glen200376
we can hardly pay for the soldiers we have and have been getting rid of them .no doubt this will mean lots more pounds to the e.u. and paying for foreign soldiers.
Originally posted by glen200376
I don't want foreign soldiers here which they would most likely do.
Originally posted by ollncasino
The future of the EU isn't German.edit on 22-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by glen200376
reply to post by ollncasino
we can hardly pay for the soldiers we have and have been getting rid of them .no doubt this will mean lots more pounds to the e.u. and paying for foreign soldiers.
I don't want foreign soldiers here which they would most likely do.Funny how this happens when their has been more talk of a in out referendum on Europe.
No wonder the UK opposes such a force, we had to save Europe from one, twice in the last hundred years.
Originally posted by Kandinsky
My first thoughts see a lot of difficulties in the idea. For example, the infrastructure would need a monstrous level of bureaucracy to get over the regional, political and language differences. An army run by committee sounds doomed to fail! Also there are 'armies' and there are armies. Some nations have far better forces than others and wouldn't enjoy being in theatre with those who have a bad reputation, bad training and crap equipment.
Originally posted by Kandinsky
I'm not keen on having a missile ring pointing at Russia and the ME either and perhaps an EU Army would remove the need for that system?
The way to ease tensions between the US, China, Russia and the ME isn't by ramping up defences and using proxy hostilities; it's going to be by negotiation and balances of power. Maybe having this type of army would help that process?
Originally posted by glen200376
Do you seriously believe it would save money? If it would Cameron and Co would love it.The e.u has proved over and over it can't be trusted with money.
In fact it can't be trusted full stop.Just think of the nice e.e.c. in the 70s,nothing like what we have forced on us now,why would this be different?