Neutrality

Danllan said:

We have heard from various high-fliers within the EU and its member states that there will be an EU Army / 'Defence' Force. Whether or not this will, genuinely, be for defence or for proactive use remains to be seen; although history only has one example of a major military power remaining entirely defensive, that being Japan - until now. Since this was first mooted I have been wondering how will nominally 'neutral' EU states deal with an EU-wide force?

There could be opt-outs, as the UK and Poland etc. have had on other matters; but that would seem an increasingly unlikely option if the EU continues with its 'ever closer union' plan. There would also be the difficulty of, in the event of conflict, one member state seeing its 'boys' fighting and dying for the good cause, while a fellow member merely looks on - a very hard thing for the first state's people to reconcile themselves too; friction would seem inevitable.

It would be ridiculous for the UK to be at war, defensive or otherwise, and yet have nobody from e.g. Norfolk joining in, the same for the ROI but excluding Donegal. So, just what will happen, and how attached are the people of neutral states to their neutrality?

Click to expand...

A totally integrated federal European state is the only aim and all national sovereignty will be removed. Remainers seem to think that we will be able to pick and choose as we have in the past to a small degree but they are sadly deluded. This is a serious intention and a creeping paralysis. The runaway train syndrome.
I have every confidence in our long term economic future as an independent state but we have no future inside the EU economically or from a security standpoint.

Danllan said:

I won't disagree, but neither do I want this thread to be yet another tit-for-tat argument, so I make no further comment in that regard.

I am genuinely interested in the matter and for those of us glad to leave the EU, for those who are remaining in the EU and those who would like the UK to do so, it is a very serious and important issue. A corollary to the 'problem' of neutrality is what a state - meaning a member state - would or could do if the EU were to begin a conflict against its, meaning the member state's, wishes or national interests.

It is both irrational and unworkable to have an army of which individual parts can have a veto on their own deployment, so the only solution for an EU Army would be for the forces committed to it to renounce their own hitherto 'national' allegiance, to be replaced by one purely for the EU. Difficult. And the problem can only be compounded by the fact that, for at least the foreseeable future, there will be no democratic accountability for those sending the army to kill, or die.

It would seem that the only logical conclusion is that, with unaccountability being ultimately unacceptable to the people(s) of Europe, for there to be a single European Army there will have to be an accountable single European Government, the one seemingly being impossible without the other - and, perhaps, vice versa.

Click to expand...

Precisely

Would it not be difficult for an EU army to 'go to war' as each each member has a veto and could say no?

I don't have time at the moment. But if you research into the statements Baroness Catherine Ashton has made at the EU you will begin to see what the EU wants. You also need to see how active the EU is on the ground already.

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en

It's also worth tracking from the Wiki page of Catheine Ashton to the various sources of the departments within the EU.

Here is her speech on 11th May 2011 (it's the first one that came up). Gadaffi was killed on 20th October 2011.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-326_en.htm

"Or take Libya. There are members of this house who wish that the EU had a stronger defence and security policy. I say to them this - in the last weeks and months we've seen how far we have come in some ways, but in this, how far we have to go. But we did engage together to plan the military support for humanitarian needs: ready, at the request of the UN, to support the people with resources from across Europe. Just as we did when the terrible earthquake in Haiti struck, and we provided the military hospital ships, the heavy lifting equipment, and the civilian and military support staff working side by side."

"And the two missions I sent to Libya, working with young people and with women. As the leader of my team said to me: This is the first time that they have discussed a constitution, using words and arguments they never knew before. They told us how they longed for the end of the regime. Let us be clear, Gaddafi must go from power – he must end his regime. I intend to open an EU office in Benghazi, so we can move forward on the support we have discussed to the people, to support civil society, to support the interim transitional national council and Mr Jibril, to support security sector reform, to build on what the people asked us for – they want help in education, health care, security on the borders. That’s the kind of support that we are able and want to give them."

"Mobility: These are societies with many young people that long for greater opportunities. The European Parliament has a big role to play in supporting those opportunities for young people to gain the benefits from Europe's knowledge. And so too with member states – the opportunities for young people to travel and study. We do the same for business too – supporting the chance to travel, to explore new markets, to sell goods and services. These are important - and they are in the gift of member states, some of whom have long relationships with countries in our neighbourhood. They need to step up and provide these opportunities."

Is the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU not gradually overriding the traditional neutrality of Austria, Finland, Malta, the Republic of Ireland and Sweden?

The ultimate goal is a unified government but do you envisage that the present set up will be modified to give more power to the parliament or will the council of ministers still hold sway over elected members ?

If I were an Alaskan I am sure I would be happy to be under the Washington umbrella

Yanks would protect Alaska on economic grounds. Not too sure where this would hold good throughout Europe.

Ten years or so ago a British political commentator living in the US wrote a "Letter from America" which was published, I think, in the Sunday Times. He said then that individual states enjoyed more autonomy than the UK did in the EU

arcobob said:

Ten years or so ago a British political commentator living in the US wrote a "Letter from America" which was published, I think, in the Sunday Times. He said then that individual states enjoyed more autonomy than the UK did in the EU

Click to expand...

Used to love listening to Alister Cooke's "letter from America" with my dad moored on Blakney quey. I well recall him talking about the campaign of "jimmy who". Seems like yesterday

czechmate said:

Used to love listening to Alister Cooke's "letter from America" with my dad moored on Blakney quey. I well recall him talking about the campaign of "jimmy who". Seems like yesterday

Click to expand...

I think that must be the one but I did not hear this on the radio. My grandchildren go crabbing on Blakeney quay and adore the place. It is truly one of the most idyllic spots in the UK. I must discover more as I am getting tired of airlines and their antics.

Danllan said:

It would be ridiculous for the UK to be at war, defensive or otherwise, and yet have nobody from e.g. Norfolk joining in, the same for the ROI but excluding Donegal.

Click to expand...

I think it has happened before. The conscription crises of WWI (1917 Canada/Quebec, 1918 UK/Ireland) immediately spring to mind, but I am sure there were more.

Enclaves of neutrality inevitably create security risks and will always do so.

The idea of an EU army is a joke.

1. You won't get even 10 members to agree on anything. It is precisely the same with the UN. The French just don't do anything unless it immediately affects their interests.

2. Without the UK involved, any force would be half toothless- very few countries even meet their defence spending targets under NATO, why would the EU be any different, not only that, but the UK has the experience of both asymmetric and large scale conflicts and has done for a long time. Few other EU states have attended so much as a regional scale office fire.

Danllan said:

We have heard from various high-fliers within the EU and its member states that there will be an EU Army / 'Defence' Force. Whether or not this will, genuinely, be for defence or for proactive use remains to be seen; although history only has one example of a major military power remaining entirely defensive, that being Japan - until now. Since this was first mooted I have been wondering how will nominally 'neutral' EU states deal with an EU-wide force?

There could be opt-outs, as the UK and Poland etc. have had on other matters; but that would seem an increasingly unlikely option if the EU continues with its 'ever closer union' plan. There would also be the difficulty of, in the event of conflict, one member state seeing its 'boys' fighting and dying for the good cause, while a fellow member merely looks on - a very hard thing for the first state's people to reconcile themselves too; friction would seem inevitable.

It would be ridiculous for the UK to be at war, defensive or otherwise, and yet have nobody from e.g. Norfolk joining in, the same for the ROI but excluding Donegal. So, just what will happen, and how attached are the people of neutral states to their neutrality?

Click to expand...

If as I suspect are you asking is this EU policy the fulcrum on which the EU may split I believe not. They will do enough fudging to make it seem workable. It is when the EU army has to do something the trouble will start.