Milliband backs EU military capability


Britain should support the development of European military capabilities along the lines put forward by the French presidency, Foreign Secretary David Miliband will say.

Mr Miliband will reject claims that greater EU defence co-operation would undermine Nato, and strongly welcome President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to bring France back into the trans-Atlantic alliance's integrated military structure.

The EU should be able to deploy soldiers from national armies where Nato is not engaged, as well as providing civilian experts to play a role in conflict prevention and crisis management alongside the military, he is expected to say.

In a speech in Westminster addressing Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Miliband will name security as one of three key areas - along with economic insecurity and the environment and energy - where the EU can deliver solutions to the problems faced by its citizens.

Here we go...
Milliband is a little boy. Little boys lie. Ergo I will not agree with this insignificunt little jumped up tw@t whatever he says.
Minor rant over, now going back to selecting a bottle of wine to complement dinner.
hardly a surprise. Time to rename our ships EUS Rather than HMS.

Its what labour has planned all along. a united states of europe. without a mandate from the electorate.
I honestly can't see this happening in the real world, yes there will be planning, yes there will be a HQ and yes there will be the trappings of a deployable force but the key element, soldiers and equipment will be mired in politicking and delays due to national decision making

Read up on the EUFOR deployment to Darfur, what a joke. It tooks months to decide on a suitable name, then was delayed because a few rebels on camels were actually firing their weapons and finally it has been dashed on the rocks of the very real practical issue of who is actually going. The EU could not find any helicopters, medics, engineers etc that we either ready to deploy within the very expansive timeframe or were allowed to go by their national government

Its all fur coat and no knickers
meridian said:
I honestly can't see this happening in the real world, yes there will be planning, yes there will be a HQ and yes there will be the trappings of a deployable force but the key element, soldiers and equipment will be mired in politicking and delays due to national decision making
You say this like it is a bad thing. What better than an 'army' which cannot deploy? Very cheap to run and now that the British Army has been run into the ground, what better way to 'salvage' the situation?



Sod that I'm not volunteering for ex enemy with the french!
'Milliband backs EU * military capability' - oh! that's ok then! Phew!

* = European Soviet Union.

PS. How long can a nation continue to exist with a gang of 'no-nothing' non-entities in charge?
It seems to me that I know where it goes from. Mr.Milliband's Father was a well-known Marxist and his Grand-Father Samuel was a fighter in the Red army (during civil war in Russia).

Don't listen to words sounded by politicians. Of course, EU forces would undermine NATO as institution. Maybe it is no so bad? Who knows?
Hey Mr Milligan or whatever your name is.
Crack on!
We ain't going to be there.
See ya
(Actually his dad Spike had more in common with us peeps than another public school twit like him)
On that note I am off to the first refuge of the working class male...............................................................

I doubt that the EU could organize a strong military force, considering most EU states high spending on social policies despite there high taxation rates, in stark contrast to the USA, with much lower taxes, and much higher spending on defence. The EU would never match the USA in military power, at current fiscal arrangements.
This has almost nothing to do with boosting the effectiveness of the Armed Forces of EU member states, and everyting to do with boosting the perception that the EU is a sovereign state with the right and the ability to deploy lethal armed force - which is one of the key indicators as to whether an entity is, or is not, sovereign.

Anyone who has worked in a major peacetime HQ knows that, however effective they are, they suffer from "organisational creep". They acquire excessive manning, clubs, staff car pools, additional recreational facilities, unnecessary brnaches - and so on. There is nothing to suggest that an "EUHQ" will be any different - and other EU instituions suffer from organisational creep in the extreme.

There is a very effective planning structure already existing which is essentially led and staffed by European NATO members - ARRC. The neutrals - Ireland and Austria - which are, apparently, desperate to supply military resources to multinational operations, could easily be slotted into the ARRC structure and still insulated from the vile and corrupting touch of US / Canadian command (if that's what worries them). As I recall from the odd spell there, it has a coherent and efficient structure for CIMIC and liaison with NGOs.

But of course that's not what it's about. The aim is to have a body of service people parading under the blue flag with gold stars, presenting arms when the "Ode to Joy" is played, and muddying the water over who has, constitutionally, the right to deploy them.

HMG is on dangerous ground. It's worrying also to hear the rumours that the two new aircraft carriers will be in practice EU assets - to be shared between the UK and France - that no thought is being given to their need for an effective escort capability because other EU navies will always provide it, and that enlistment to HM forces is to be opened up to all EU nationals, removing the link between the Armed Forces and allegiance to the Sovereign / Crown in Parliament / elected government of the UK (choose whichever least offends your sensibilities).

We've always been rather good at alliances. Mergers don't work so well. What's proposed is a merger.

Similar threads

Latest Threads