September 22, 2016

Fallon’s too late to veto Junker’s EU army

Fallon’s too late to veto Junker’s EU army

The UK should stop meddling in EU matters that are no business of ours, argues John Redwood MP.

I found Sir Michael’s statement that he will continue to veto a European army all the time the UK remains in the EU perplexing. Now we are leaving I do not see it is any business of ours to veto what they are going to do when we leave. It just annoys the very countries we wish to be friends with as we depart.
I do wish we would just get on and leave and stop paying our contributions. If we rightly do not go to conferences like Bratislava why do we help pay the bills?

Nor do I understand how Sir Michael can veto something that already exists and the UK has accepted. The EU has established eighteen battle groups, each at battalion strength, with a rota so that any two of them can be deployed at any time by the European Council. As the EU’s own website sets out “The battlegroup concept provides the EU with a specific tool in the range of rapid response capabilities.”
The UK has played its part on the multinational rota to provide forces. None are currently deployed but they could be.

There is also already a Eurocorps, mainly French and German, stationed in Strasbourg with 1000 soldiers.
In parallel the EU does have naval forces in theatre today. Again the UK is signed up to this. Two of the 7 ships on Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean are UK vessels according to the EU website. There is a also a 4-6 vessel force off Somalia in Operation Atalanta which receives UK assistance.
Just as many of us pointed out in the referendum campaign, there is a European military capability and they do wish to grow a bigger and more active army. Some Remain spokesmen told us this was all nonsense. The conversation at Bratislava reminds us that there are already EU forces and they do wish to strengthen them and make them more active.

The UK should leave well alone and ask itself whether it wishes to carry on contributing after it has left. 4 non EU countries are involved in these forces at the moment. Perhaps our defence Secretary could give us some guidance on this more interesting issue, which will be his call along with the PM.


4.95 avg. rating (98% score) - 19 votes
John Redwood MP
John Redwood MP
John Redwood is the Member of Parliament for Wokingham in Berkshire. He was formerly Secretary of State for Wales in Prime Minister John Major's Cabinet. He is currently Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party's Policy Review Group on Economic Competitiveness.
  • aintnolibtard

    But honest Nick Clegg told us this was a ‘dangerous fantasy’?

  • ratcatcher11

    By 2020 the EU share of world trade will have fallen by 30% since 1975. When Britain leaves, the EU share of world trade will fall by another 10% so its share will almost have halved. That is a one way trip to poverty for the EU and the fascist Brussels elite.

  • ratcatcher11

    If the EU wish to set up their own army then that is entirely up to them but I think, knowing their history, we should set about renewing and re-equipping our own forces especially our air defences, because we cannot rely on the Europeans to conduct any kind of successful warfare should they be called upon to do so. The RAF needs to be upgraded and naval forces strengthened especially coastal defence to protect out soon to be reconstituted fishing fleet.

  • janetjH

    Putin isn’t the enemy.
    A dissenting populace is the enemy.

  • WuffoTheWonderDog

    I don’t think that Mr Redwood is suggesting anything except that we leave the EU to do what it wants without us.
    Are you suggesting that we instruct our reduced military to tell Russia what to do?

  • WuffoTheWonderDog

    Fallon is a Tory. The Tories are for remaining in the EU.
    When Willie Sutton, a 1930s American bank robber was thrown to the psychiatrists, they shone the lamp in his eyes and asked him the killer question
    “Why do you rob banks, Willie?”
    Willie replied “Because that’s where the money is.”
    Now do you understand why Mrs Maynot and her party will not get us out of the EU?

  • WuffoTheWonderDog

    As if he need to. What’s here for him?
    He has problems enough at home – a declining white Russian birth rate, Islamic problems in the Caucasus, a much reduced revenue stream from oil, gas and minerals, and Chinese immigration in the far east. He was content to leave his naval base in the Crimea undisturbed by the Ukraine, until Merkel engineered a coup to change the regime to a pro-EU one with an enticement to join the EU and NATO, knowing it would provoke Putin to act to secure his naval base.

    Merkel did this so that she could use the Russian response as an excuse to justify her own EU army. The woman is dangerous and is willing to risk a world war to get her way.

  • WuffoTheWonderDog

    Weak as the EU armed forces are, our military forces are now so depleted and run down that we would not be able to reclaim our fishing grounds if they opposed us.

  • WuffoTheWonderDog

    Because money going to the EU splashes on its way and there are many sticky fingers here as well as in Brussels.

  • Grammar Grub

    The only recruits to this so-called “army” will be the scum of the EU, putting down internal dissent – of which there will be lots. Gestapo Mark II.

  • ethanedwards2002

    This will be the EU army the remainaics said was a Brexiteer myth.
    Let’s get article 50 kicked off asap. Better out than in. Let them wallow in their own decline.

  • Leo Savantt

    The development of EU military capacity under first Common Foreign and Security Policy and later Common Foreign and Defense Policy has been going on for many years. In 1998 the policy was formulated, but the goal was described decades earlier. It cannot be vetoed as this area of policy is already a transferred competence. The EU has a military staff, EUMS and a policy goal of taking control of all member states military capacity under the CFDP. European Union missions, both civilian, paramilitary and military have been deployed worldwide, from Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and sub-Saharan Africa.

    The EU’s goal is to become the world’s pre-eminent military super-power. This is not denied in Brussels, only in the UK do the ill-informed pro-EU brigade misunderstand. Fallon’s approach is typical of the UK executive, ill-informed and ignorant as to the goal of the EU in many areas, including the security sector where the power to exercise military control will be wielded not by the Council of Ministers, but by DGE IV (the Commission).

    When the EU has powers it exercises them, the chances of the EU creating conflict are already high, however once it has a critical mass in terms of control of military capacity that chance will become a dead certainty. By 2018 the EU will be in a war waging position, by 2020 they will be be at war, most likley either in the Caucus or the Levant.

  • Allyup

    Shouldn’t we be looking to our future as we are leaving?

  • Ken

    If we are not invited to participate in the decision-making meetings, then why are we still paying for the EU?

  • Tom Collins

    Juncker’s Barmy Army will never be engaged in any real conflict. The army personnel owe no allegiance, national or otherwise, to the doomed EU. I, for one, begrudge spending a penny on this embryonic army. Let the Eurocrats sail off into their Dream Land Fantasy, until the whole shebang collapses like a pack of cards.

  • geordieboy

    Many of the major EU countries are in a financial cesspit , where is the money coming from. Besides, Putin would find an EU army a complete walkover.

  • SonofBoudica

    Expanding the EU military capability will be the death of NATO and allow Europe to be totally dominated militarily by Russia. Is this what Mr Redwood wants?

We’re committed to providing a free platform to host insightful commentary from across the political spectrum. To help us expand our readership, and to show your support, please like our Facebook page: