John Hutton backs European army

#1
NuLab's final sell-out?

John Hutton has become the first defence secretary to back a French plan for a European army, branding those who dismiss it as “pathetic”.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Sunday Times, he said: “I think we’ve got to be pragmatic about those things. Where it can help, we should be part of it.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5014832.ece

msr
 
#3
CQMS said:
In 18 months he'll be unemployed, this couldn't be implemented in that timescale.
Thank god - No doubt they'll try and make/spend millions getting the ball rolling though.

The Tories need to directly counter this, quickly and publicly.
 
#4
Not as pathetic as the latest ZaNuLabour temporary here toay gone tomorrow defence secretary. Is this guy full time or is another part-timer like the last idiot.

However, I have long believed that ZaNuLabour have been deliberately running the forces down in order to justify the handing over of Uk forces to their masters in Brussels.

Remember there is no depth of deceit too deep for any member of ZaNuLabour to go in their treason.

The sooner the people wake up and hang the lot of them from lamposts the better.

Oh and just to be on the safe side scum like Peirs Morgan and Sven should be strung up too
 
#5
Inf/MP said:
Not as pathetic as the latest ZaNuLabour temporary here toay gone tomorrow defence secretary. Is this guy full time or is another part-timer like the last idiot.

However, I have long believed that ZaNuLabour have been deliberately running the forces down in order to justify the handing over of Uk forces to their masters in Brussels.

Remember there is no depth of deceit too deep for any member of ZaNuLabour to go in their treason.

The sooner the people wake up and hang the lot of them from lamposts the better.

Oh and just to be on the safe side scum like Peirs Morgan and Sven should be strung up too
Not just the Forces - The Entire Country.

I stand by my honest held belief that Gordon Browns take over of Swiss Tony's Communist Regime was all part of a Labour Scorched Earth policy once they realised that the country really could stomach their sh1te no longer.

If the country is fcuked it'll look bad for the Tories when they have to take over a year after a severe financial crisis and our only hope will be leaning on our EU brothers some more.

So where is Swiss Tony working these days.

Takes Tin Foil Hat off.
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Not wishing to deflate the tyres on the Outrage Express, but reading through what he said, to wit:
He added that working with EU allies on military missions was “perfectly sensible.” He emphasised that Britain should not contribute troops to joint EU operations if it risked compromising other missions, and cited plans for a European Union-led mission to tackle piracy off Somalia as a “good example” of how such forces could be used.

“I’m not one of those EU haters [who think] anything to do with the EU must by definition be terrible. There’s plenty of them around. I think frankly those kind of views are pathetic,” he said.

“Britain’s role in the world is to be part of those alliances – that’s the best way to project power, strength and conviction around the world. People who don’t understand that don’t understand the nature of the modern world.”
Is this anything new? After all we have had (and still have) soldiers working under the EU umbrella as part of the EUFOR deployment in the Balkans and the Dem. Rep. of Congo.
 
#7
Gordon Brown was always going to be Tony Blairs patsy, Tony knew exactly what the result of his policies was going to be.

This one man hijacked a party and nation to further his personal vanity and enhance his wealth, he could read the signs better than most and jacked it in at the most opportune moment for him knowing he had a fall guy.
 
#8
CQMS said:
Gordon Brown was always going to be Tony Blairs patsy, Tony knew exactly what the result of his policies was going to be.

This one man hijacked a party and nation to further his personal vanity and enhance his wealth, he could read the signs better than most and jacked it in at the most opportune moment for him knowing he had a fall guy.
He was a Cnut - But a clever Cnut.

He won't be the last.
 
#9
True, Jibber, Very true.

I have for some time been of the opinion that Labour has done some sort of Deal on a Euro Army.
Not legal agreement but an informal understanding with the nameless faces who run Europe.
There's an Italian, 'Scout' car coming for the Army and the new Carriers already seem to be committed to sum Euro Fleet.
The Old Brit Army set up after Cromwell cut off the last Charlie Boys head, had transferred its loyalty to HM and Good Old Gorden is quite happy to let it Bleed to death fighting Tonye's Wars.
Reliable men will then be recruited to form the New Well Equipped Euro Force.
john
 
#10
Not to rain on everyone's parade, but it sounds like a retirement home in here. Grumpy old men and all...

It's a little odd to laugh at 9/11 conspirators - which I presume everyone here does - and then claim Labour is conspiring to destroy the UK. Quite fascinating how far people are willing to go to explain away incompetence. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!

The EU will never work unless we try. Otherwise, we get a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as we keep our options open, why not engagee in an EU army experiment and see where it leads?

EU army aside, what Hutton said seemed pretty straightforward and sound. Whether he's competent enough to improve things is another question. He didn't, for example, link optempo, "compromising other missions" and lack of troops to where the hell we'd get 1,500 soldiers for an EU army contingent.
It's possible to be part of both NATO and an EU army. All it takes is politicians who have the brains to find the right diplomatic balance and choose if necessary. Just because we don't currently have that calibre of leaders doesn't mean that we should never contemplate an EU army. In the end, a UK that is close to both the EU and the US has much more to gain, particularly economically, than one that gets itself into a mindset of either/or. The UK isn't America. We're a moderate people. We shouldn't think black & white like they do.

Finally, I once again suggest that we distinguish between intent and outcome. Just because Labour keeps frakking up doesn't mean they didn't have honest intentions. And just because they have honest intentions doesn't excuse them from being incompetent.
 
#11
cheesypoptart said:
The EU will never work unless we try. Otherwise, we get a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as we keep our options open, why not engagee in an EU army experiment and see where it leads?
.
Because A: I joined the British army not the european army and B: I have no wish to serve along side a politically motivated army who mainland european members have not been in conflict since WW2.
 
#12
stacker1 said:
Because A: I joined the British army not the european army and B: I have no wish to serve along side a politically motivated army who mainland european members have not been in conflict since WW2.
So, you don't want something to occur because you don't want to be involved in it yourself? Bit of an odd logic, isn't it? Imagine an MP voting against a bill on the NHS because he doesn't want to use the NHS himself. Or another voting against a bill on marital rights because he doesn't want to get married. Or another voting against fox hunting because she doesn't want to go fox hunting (which is separate from being against fox hunting).

Even if this EU army were to occur, there would surely be ways to avoid it (transfers, etc.).

And I'm afraid our army is beholden to politics whether we join an EU army or not. I doubt it'll be staffed by politicians, so it will never be politically motivated beyond, say, individual soldiers having a particular political preference (which we clearly already have). If we're using the since WW2 argument, I wouldn't want to side with the Yanks either, since they may have fought a lot of wars since 1945, but they haven't exactly won many :)
 
#13
cheesypoptart said:
stacker1 said:
Because A: I joined the British army not the european army and B: I have no wish to serve along side a politically motivated army who mainland european members have not been in conflict since WW2.
So, you don't want something to occur because you don't want to be involved in it yourself? Bit of an odd logic, isn't it? Imagine an MP voting against a bill on the NHS because he doesn't want to use the NHS himself. Or another voting against a bill on marital rights because he doesn't want to get married. Or another voting against fox hunting because she doesn't want to go fox hunting (which is separate from being against fox hunting).
Er no nothing like poxy MPs I swore allegience to her majesty Queen Elizabeth II not some unelected tosspots in brussels, Think I want to spend my life bimbling around warzones because the the frogs and boxheads think its a good idea. Do you think I want to be under the command of country who have no experiance in combat whatsoever?
cheesypoptart said:
Even if this EU army were to occur, there would surely be ways to avoid it (transfers, etc.).
I don't know if you have noticed but generally in the British army when you are told you are going somewhere, you go.
cheesypoptart said:
And I'm afraid our army is beholden to politics whether we join an EU army or not. I doubt it'll be staffed by politicians, so it will never be politically motivated beyond, say, individual soldiers having a particular political preference (which we clearly already have). If we're using the since WW2 argument, I wouldn't want to side with the Yanks either, since they may have fought a lot of wars since 1945, but they haven't exactly won many :)
Are you have laugh? I can't quite remember the grade A twat who sent us into Iraq looking for those WMDs but I'm pretty sure he's was politician. If the EU had an army who do you think would be in charge of it?
As to the yanks I'd rather them then someone who's army has sat within its own borders for the last 60 years.
 
#14
So, basically we're frakked either way because politicians will always be in charge - at least until we undergo some sort of Spartan revolution, at which point the more political among the new warrior elite will gradually rise to the top and we're stuck with politicians again.

You know, I think I really learned something about the world today.

Thank you, Sir, for the debate. Well, I was debating, you were venting, but we all feel better nevertheless.
 
#15
John Hutton has become the first defence secretary to back a French plan for a European army, branding those who dismiss it as “pathetic”.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Sunday Times, he said: “I think we’ve got to be pragmatic about those things. Where it can help, we should be part of it.”
Going to join up, is he?
 
#16
RP578 said:
Not wishing to deflate the tyres on the Outrage Express, but reading through what he said, to wit:
He added that working with EU allies on military missions was “perfectly sensible.” He emphasised that Britain should not contribute troops to joint EU operations if it risked compromising other missions, and cited plans for a European Union-led mission to tackle piracy off Somalia as a “good example” of how such forces could be used.

“I’m not one of those EU haters [who think] anything to do with the EU must by definition be terrible. There’s plenty of them around. I think frankly those kind of views are pathetic,” he said.

“Britain’s role in the world is to be part of those alliances – that’s the best way to project power, strength and conviction around the world. People who don’t understand that don’t understand the nature of the modern world.”
Is this anything new? After all we have had (and still have) soldiers working under the EU umbrella as part of the EUFOR deployment in the Balkans and the Dem. Rep. of Congo.
Not in EUFOR any more.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
cheesypoptart said:
So, basically we're frakked either way because politicians will always be in charge - at least until we undergo some sort of Spartan revolution, at which point the more political among the new warrior elite will gradually rise to the top and we're stuck with politicians again.

You know, I think I really learned something about the world today.

Thank you, Sir, for the debate. Well, I was debating, you were venting, but we all feel better nevertheless.
In powerful states throughout history the biggest single threat to the government- be they a Roman style republic, monarchy or Presedential republic- is the miliatry. They are usualy the only group that is trained, equipped and organised enough within any country. Therefore steps have usualy been taken to bind the fighting men (and women) to the government of the day.

I believe we in the UK have one of the best systems. Our system of government is a constitutional monarchy. And our soldiers swear to protect and serve the MONARCH not the elected government. Every serviceman and woman I have met (hardly a huge cross section I will admit) took that oath very seriously. And that forms the ultimate balance within our nation. Day to day HM Elizabeth has no real power. But she retains the power to disolve parliment. By force if necessary because soldiers are sworn to serve HER and not the PM.

As an aside, who thought up the idea of the EU army? By any chance was it an unelected beaurocrat? Or a politician who soon became a WELL PAID unelected beaurocrat- a la Mandy?

The fact is, soldiers are a very diffent breed to civvies. The ones that are worth having cannot have their loyalty bought. It has to be earned. And loyalty is the most valuable currency in existence becasue it is so easy to squander but so very difficult to earn. The EU has done nothing to earn the loyalty of the Brittish solider. And probably nothing to earn the trust of the Dutch, German or French either. At this point someone will probably take the piss that I have mentioned the French. But it is VERY rare that it has been the soldiers that have failed France- that has always been the task of the government and General Staff.
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
rickshaw-major said:
RP578 said:
Not wishing to deflate the tyres on the Outrage Express, but reading through what he said, to wit:
He added that working with EU allies on military missions was “perfectly sensible.” He emphasised that Britain should not contribute troops to joint EU operations if it risked compromising other missions, and cited plans for a European Union-led mission to tackle piracy off Somalia as a “good example” of how such forces could be used.

“I’m not one of those EU haters [who think] anything to do with the EU must by definition be terrible. There’s plenty of them around. I think frankly those kind of views are pathetic,” he said.

“Britain’s role in the world is to be part of those alliances – that’s the best way to project power, strength and conviction around the world. People who don’t understand that don’t understand the nature of the modern world.”
Is this anything new? After all we have had (and still have) soldiers working under the EU umbrella as part of the EUFOR deployment in the Balkans and the Dem. Rep. of Congo.
Not in EUFOR any more.
According to this we are.

stacker1 said:
Because A: I joined the British army not the european army and B: I have no wish to serve along side a politically motivated army who mainland european members have not been in conflict since WW2.
A. The British Army is not being disbanded it is merely contributing forces to EUFOR deployments as it has done already for some time. This is in the same manner that we deploy on UN or NATO operations.
B. See UN and NATO above. Both could be described as 'politically motivated' organisations. Would you feel the same way about serving on Op Tosca in Cyprus? After all you would be subsumed by their identity to the degree of even having to wear their head dress and insignia.

Cheesypoptart said:
It's a little odd to laugh at 9/11 conspirators - which I presume everyone here does - and then claim Labour is conspiring to destroy the UK. Quite fascinating how far people are willing to go to explain away incompetence. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!
But Sir it's true! New Labour ate my homework!
 
#19
Trans-sane said:
I believe we in the UK have one of the best systems. Our system of government is a constitutional monarchy. And our soldiers swear to protect and serve the MONARCH not the elected government. Every serviceman and woman I have met (hardly a huge cross section I will admit) took that oath very seriously. And that forms the ultimate balance within our nation. Day to day HM Elizabeth has no real power. But she retains the power to disolve parliment. By force if necessary because soldiers are sworn to serve HER and not the PM.
They may be sworn to serve her, but she effectively passes control of the Armed Forces to the Defence Council, headed by the Secretary of State (i.e. a politician), by means of Letters Patent. So I suppose that they do serve the politicians. In fact, a soldier who did not obey the politicians might be breaking their oath to the Queen. But I'm no lawyer, and certainly not an expert on constitutional matters.

LINKY shows what I'm talking about.

IS
 
#20
Just how many allegiances and alliances can our now overstretched armed forces support. We have troops in Iraq because of our allegiance with the US, Troops in Afghanistan because of our alliance to Nato, we support various UN missions around the world, and now our ZaNulab fascist government is indicating yet another one to support. We have cut the cake into many slices, none of them big enough to be able to support themselves properly.

We have troops being killed in Afghanistan because insufficient equipment has been provided by a Government that refuses to fund the forces properly, taking on the tasks of other EU political masters would be the end of the armed forces in this country. According to Cyclops we have opted out of EU foreign policy matters, and we should opt out of any idea of an EU defence force.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top