The EU Diplomatic Corps

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by blonde_guy, Mar 10, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Another act of treason by a labour lackey is what I make of it.

    Illegally annexing Kosovo and handing it to islamist terrorists isn't exactly something to crow about either.

    And don't give me any bull about "Humanitarian" reasons for breaking international law. NATO ethnically cleansed the Serbs from their homeland and committed another act of state terror by bombing the Serb TV station.

    The shape of things to come as far as the EU is concerned...stealing the land and rights of people in their own countries.
  2. My response is pretty much: whatever.

    I did laugh at the concept that the EU brokered peace between Russia and Georgia. Was this before or after Russia had achieved her objectives?

    I like the idea of a civil protection force for natural disasters. The bit that strikes me about NGOs is that they're full of do-gooders with (what appears to be) limited concepts of reality. Plus, they always seem to end up arguing over who does what, and get snippy when the military turn up and make stuff work. A properly conceived, organised and supported reaction group can only be a good thing.
  3. Tell us what you think and we might reply :)
  4. My thinking is it is a tad pointless!

    As it's our "man in Brussels" as it were pushing it, I fear Gordo will feel the need we should take the lead and be seen to be doing it, losing what little diplomatic clout we have left in the process.

    How can we have one diplomatic voice in the world when so many different views etc. are in the EU? When have we, the French, Germans & Spanish ever agreed?
  5. What did happen to the TRADING ORGANISATION that we were promised by the cottaging traitor Heath?

    I truly believe that if Cameron promised an 'In or Out' Referendum on the European Soviet Union, he would win the Election by a landslide.

    If we have to have (which we do NOT) an EU Foreign thingummy, why have we appointed a wholly unsuitable unknown with a Stalinist past? Maybe it is ensure that she does not overshadow the awful non-entity that is von Rumpels the so-called President.

    Why do we put up with and pay for this shambolic, undemocratic, chaotic, corrupt European Soviet Union? Why?
  6. Grownup_Rafbrat

    Grownup_Rafbrat LE Book Reviewer Good Egg (charities)

    It was identified in the Treaty of Rome as a United States of Europe. All those old enough to vote in the Referendum didn't do their research and believed politicians and newspapers who said it was 'just a common market'.

    We're reaping what they sowed.
  7. Thanks 'Grownup', I did vote - I voted NO. Even so I believed it was simply a 'common, no barriers, market'.

    I voted 'no' because it was clearly going to disadvantage our Commonwealth allies. These 'allies', so quick to spring to our defence when we were threatened by EUROPE, were as a result 'stabbed in the back' by the blinkered idealists hell bent on establishing a super-state. Shame - shame - shame.
  8. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    The FCO have been VERY keen on this for a good while - they like the idea of our 'punching above our weight' in this manner, and see their future, and that of the UK, very firmly within the EU. That's been the case for decades - and love or loath the EU/EEC/whatever, you have to admire the ability of diplomats to take such an 'internationalist' and consistent approach :)

    Interesting bit from the article, referring to the EEAS (European External Action Service):
    "Lady Ashton said key priorities for the EEAS would be: the ability to plan and conduct military operations; the ability to develop civilian co-ordination in a more structured way; and the ability to establish links with other key organisations, such as Nato and the UN."

    I love the idea of a Euro "External Action" force - or Armed Forces, as we would call it normally. Who would they be beholden to, whose Orders would they obey, who could order them to operate within, say a European Member State that got fed up with it all, in order to, err, restore order?
    And before anyone calls me paranoid (which may well be the case) I'd like to know any one single example of the EU not making every effort, public and otherwise, towards expanding and expanding, and pushing ever further along its road to full Union.

    Slightly off track, whilst talking to a lot of RN Officers a couple of months ago, someone raised the point that "well, we don't need XXXXX - we always work through the DA wherever we go". Not for much longer you won't! (Not that there are many DAs left, but that's another story).
  9. Indeed, a very interesting point.

    Quite how we've gone from a economic partnership (not a bad idea really!) into a federalist quasi super state with no public input I'm not sure. Various aspects of our own governance have been delegated to Brussels over the years.

    It would be nice to see some strong black & white Tory policies on this. I'm not holding my breath though.
  10. The EU in charge of UK diplomacy?......Right im off to the colonies.
  11. It was implicit in the very early thinking on the EU project, in the 1930's. The leadership was generally anti-Fascist, and Roman Catholic.

    "The strongest impetus toward European integration in western Europe came from political parties organized or reorganized under the banner of Christian Democracy. Liberal parties such as the Italian Lgnazio Silone and socialist parties such as the British Labour Party also rallied behind the idea of Europe. Leading anti-Nazi resisters from occupied countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, along with jailed politicians such as Altiero Spinelli and governments in exile, committed themselves to building a peaceful future. Leaders who grew up in border areas, especially Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, and Alcide de Gasperi, not only knew firsthand the hardships of a divided Europe, but were devout Catholics who shared in the vision of a spiritually and culturally united Europe. In the United States, Coudenhove-Kalergi lobbied the media and U.S. senators, organized seminars, and wrote prolifically in support of a federal Europe."

    I don't think 'Socialism', 'Communism' or 'Fascism' was lurking at the back of their minds. Instead, I think the real project was 'Christendom', an attempt to undo the legacy of the Reformation and reunite Europe under the benevolent leadership of the Catholic church. (OR the Masons, the Illuminati, or whatever Dan Brown has thought up this week.)

    What they would have thought of the Turks joining is another matter...
  12. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

  13. Same here. Perhaps if more people took that attitude we'd be getting Governments that benefit ourselves, rather than themselves.

    Besides, hasn't this idea been touted for a while? I seem to recall that it would only be used when there is consensus within the EU, and would be to save money and increase efficiency - one delegation trots around the globe, rather than 27.