If it means it will be harder for us to go to war it could be a good thing - let other countries do their share of putting the world to rights. Having said that, I do feel for the troops who have risked their lives for their country and have to face uncertainty.
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
Didn't we get rid of our aircraft carriers because we are currently constructing two of the most advanced carriers the world has ever seen, which will provide a leap forward in our global abilities ?
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
Who are ''they''?
This has to rank as one of the most extraordinary opinions since the Varney thread!
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of a single EU Army this century. None. We have NATO and there is not one single utterance from any member state or the head of any armed force in Europe that a single European Army is even being considered.
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
Who are ''they''?
This has to rank as one of the most extraordinary opinions since the Varney thread!
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of a single EU Army this century. None. We have NATO and there is not one single utterance from any member state or the head of any armed force in Europe that a single European Army is even being considered.
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
Who are ''they''?
This has to rank as one of the most extraordinary opinions since the Varney thread!
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of a single EU Army this century. None. We have NATO and there is not one single utterance from any member state or the head of any armed force in Europe that a single European Army is even being considered.
Recruitment of suitable English candidates is a problem. The Gurkhas constitute one of the finest fighting forces on the planet. The Scots have a great tradition of providing 'fighting men' .. some even join the army lol. There are many Fijians, West Indians, Australians and Nigerians in the British Army, a fact which seems to belie the claim that 'the English are getting a raw deal'. Many young Englishmen are keen to enlist, far too many unfortunately fail the necessary fitness and/or education requirements.
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
Who are ''they''?
This has to rank as one of the most extraordinary opinions since the Varney thread!
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of a single EU Army this century. None. We have NATO and there is not one single utterance from any member state or the head of any armed force in Europe that a single European Army is even being considered.
Ah, that's where you're going wrong then. You shouldn't base your opinions on made up news sources.
Is that all you can say?
Your organ of choice, The Guardian, wouldn't even report it!
And therein lies the problem. Bing Addick and i hold diametrically opposed views re the EU in that he is by his own admission on here a federallist and I am just a tinsy winsy bit eurosceptic.
We are both in total agreement though that an HONEST debate is needed because mainstream media does not tell the full story or anything like it.
I would imagine the ghurkas remaining keeps a little bit of our global influence plus aren't they cheaper? and can you imagine the Union with an English only army and no Scots.
we are in the process of building more aircraft carriers
I would imagine the ghurkas remaining keeps a little bit of our global influence plus aren't they cheaper? and can you imagine the Union with an English only army and no Scots.
we are in the process of building more aircraft carriers
But they are not British. They are British and French (EU by stealth).
the carriers are not British and French, they were going to be capable of accepting French aircraft when the current government decided they wanted the F35C and cats and traps. Since they flip flopped on that decision early may, we are back to the F35B and the carriers are not compatable with French aircraft. Since the only forces operating F35B are likely to be us, the US and perhaps the Italians, i don't see how they are british/french. They are being built by BAE and VT, so if anything are Anglo/American, but since BVT is incorporated here, we'll just settle for British.
The British army is being stuffed, not just the English!
There is never going to be a federalised EU army, it couldn't work, and the current government would never allow it.
And therein lies the problem. Bing Addick and i hold diametrically opposed views re the EU in that he is by his own admission on here a federallist and I am just a tinsy winsy bit eurosceptic.
We are both in total agreement though that an HONEST debate is needed because mainstream media does not tell the full story or anything like it.
I'm pretty much anti-EU (because of its chronic democratic deficit) but my impression is that the press is extremely anti-EU.
It really does worry me that phrases like "mainstream media" are being used here. It's very much a Tea Party construct symptomatic of the polarisation of American politics to the point where they list only to people with the same views as them and see conspiracy theories all over the place to prevent the people getting the "real story".
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
Actually the French are mightily pissed off with us at the momet. Part of the massive cuts that have taken place all over have seriously impacted on the French and we have gone back on many agreements with them about joint working (specifically in the English channel) so I can't image they are anxious to join in more agreements with us.
Recruitment of suitable English candidates is a problem. The Gurkhas constitute one of the finest fighting forces on the planet. The Scots have a great tradition of providing 'fighting men' .. some even join the army lol. There are many Fijians, West Indians, Australians and Nigerians in the British Army, a fact which seems to belie the claim that 'the English are getting a raw deal'. Many young Englishmen are keen to enlist, far too many unfortunately fail the necessary fitness and/or education requirements.
While I agree with the Ghurkas and Scots historical point, to a point Lincs... recruitment wise you are wrong. Ghurkas apart and recruitment in the English regiments is no problem, it is the Scots regiments that currently are below strength and have to recruit from the Commonwealth and others. This means that Historic English regiments have been dealt a heavier blow, just because Westminster is pandering to the Jocks once more. That's how I understand it.
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
Who are ''they''?
This has to rank as one of the most extraordinary opinions since the Varney thread!
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of a single EU Army this century. None. We have NATO and there is not one single utterance from any member state or the head of any armed force in Europe that a single European Army is even being considered.
Ha ha ha - yes very good nutty blog with a new entry every few years. I enjoyed reading it, but you can seriously put it down as a justification for your random claim
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
Who are ''they''?
This has to rank as one of the most extraordinary opinions since the Varney thread!
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of a single EU Army this century. None. We have NATO and there is not one single utterance from any member state or the head of any armed force in Europe that a single European Army is even being considered.
Ha ha ha - yes very good nutty blog with a new entry every few years. I enjoyed reading it, but you can seriously put it down as a justification for your random claim
I'll ask again, who are ''they''
The illumanti LDO. Why do think they have that pyramid with an eye in it on the one Euro note?
Of course you won't hear a word about this in the Telegraph, the Sun, the Mail, the Anglers' Times or the rest of the mainstram media. But the truth is out there, if you care to look.
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
Who are ''they''?
This has to rank as one of the most extraordinary opinions since the Varney thread!
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of a single EU Army this century. None. We have NATO and there is not one single utterance from any member state or the head of any armed force in Europe that a single European Army is even being considered.
Ha ha ha - yes very good nutty blog with a new entry every few years. I enjoyed reading it, but you can seriously put it down as a justification for your random claim
I'll ask again, who are ''they''
Have you read what's there Floyd?
Or are you just taking the p*** because it's not a link from The Guardian?
Incidentally there is far more on the blog, I've just searched out the topic we are discussing but you probably knew that.
I'd always regarded you as intelligent, misguided at times maybe with your irrational love of all things Cameron for instance, but intelligent.
However as you either have not read, read or not understood or wilfully chosen to misrepresent, like so many of your ilk, "they" are the policymakers of the EU.
Difficult to be more definitive than that I'm afraid, in large part because of the democratic deficit referred to by Jints above, but I'll hazard a guess at faceless bureaucrats within the European Commission.
Oh yeah, since we mention the European Commission, why is this unelected body acceptable to you Lib Dem types when the House of Lords is not?
Recruitment of suitable English candidates is a problem. The Gurkhas constitute one of the finest fighting forces on the planet. The Scots have a great tradition of providing 'fighting men' .. some even join the army lol. There are many Fijians, West Indians, Australians and Nigerians in the British Army, a fact which seems to belie the claim that 'the English are getting a raw deal'. Many young Englishmen are keen to enlist, far too many unfortunately fail the necessary fitness and/or education requirements.
While I agree with the Ghurkas and Scots historical point, to a point Lincs... recruitment wise you are wrong. Ghurkas apart and recruitment in the English regiments is no problem, it is the Scots regiments that currently are below strength and have to recruit from the Commonwealth and others. This means that Historic English regiments have been dealt a heavier blow, just because Westminster is pandering to the Jocks once more. That's how I understand it.
The cuts were inevitable its what happens, as we come out of a period of high tempo ops the powers that be reduce the numbers, whats important is that there remains a flexible platform to expand the army if required within its current structure.
We are the same size now as we were post Waterloo and pre Crimea I think and a slightly smaller than the BEF that went to France in 1914 with less global territory to police.
Whats reassuring is how quickly we adjust, there was hell to pay when the Worcestors amalgamated with the Sherwood Forresters a few years back, then again when the Cheshires joined them to create the Mercian Regiment, they are one of the most respected in the Army these days. It would be lovely to think small army less wars, not a reality sadly, wasnt it 1968 the last year that we didnt loose one of our armed forces in conflict?
I would love to carry on a discussion but sadly I can see from your name calling that you are already entrenched, meaning dialogue would be pointless.
FWIW What on earth does the Grauniad (a paper I have never EVER bought) have to do with my opinion of your single reference? Wierd
Floyd,
You started the personal stuff by denigrating my source. I just gave you a bit back.
If we are talking "entrenched" positions I remember a discussion a while back re whether or not global warming was man-made or not where your position was entrenched so people, stones, glasshouses.
My main point still stands, by your admission, that this was ignored by the mainstream media.
That said I take my hat off to The Guardian for reporting it. As a regular reader and contributor you will know, as Floyd demonstrated, that many on here will denigrate sources if they oppose their view rather than engage in debate.
The Guardian seems to be the one newspaper these people accept hence my selection of that paper,erroneously on this occasion, to make my point.
Comments
They can't come out and say that though because nobody wants it. That's why we decommissioned our aircraft carriers and are beholden to the french instead "in partnership." (Don't mention the EU!)
This is more of the same. A little sweetener to distract whilst our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation is stripped some more.
This has to rank as one of the most extraordinary opinions since the Varney thread!
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of a single EU Army this century. None.
We have NATO and there is not one single utterance from any member state or the head of any armed force in Europe that a single European Army is even being considered.
Your organ of choice, The Guardian, wouldn't even report it!
And therein lies the problem. Bing Addick and i hold diametrically opposed views re the EU in that he is by his own admission on here a federallist and I am just a tinsy winsy bit eurosceptic.
We are both in total agreement though that an HONEST debate is needed because mainstream media does not tell the full story or anything like it.
we are in the process of building more aircraft carriers
http://www.eureferendum.com/results.aspx?keyword=new aircraft carriers
I consider it important that my country has an independent defence capability and I do not regard my country as EU.
others of course will disagree or not be concerned.
The British army is being stuffed, not just the English!
There is never going to be a federalised EU army, it couldn't work, and the current government would never allow it.
It really does worry me that phrases like "mainstream media" are being used here. It's very much a Tea Party construct symptomatic of the polarisation of American politics to the point where they list only to people with the same views as them and see conspiracy theories all over the place to prevent the people getting the "real story".
I suppose we are following. How depressing.
Ghurkas apart and recruitment in the English regiments is no problem, it is the Scots regiments that currently are below strength and have to recruit from the Commonwealth and others. This means that Historic English regiments have been dealt a heavier blow, just because Westminster is pandering to the Jocks once more. That's how I understand it.
I'll ask again, who are ''they''
Of course you won't hear a word about this in the Telegraph, the Sun, the Mail, the Anglers' Times or the rest of the mainstram media. But the truth is out there, if you care to look.
Or are you just taking the p*** because it's not a link from The Guardian?
Incidentally there is far more on the blog, I've just searched out the topic we are discussing but you probably knew that.
I'd always regarded you as intelligent, misguided at times maybe with your irrational love of all things Cameron for instance, but intelligent.
However as you either have not read, read or not understood or wilfully chosen to misrepresent, like so many of your ilk, "they" are the policymakers of the EU.
Difficult to be more definitive than that I'm afraid, in large part because of the democratic deficit referred to by Jints above, but I'll hazard a guess at faceless bureaucrats within the European Commission.
Oh yeah, since we mention the European Commission, why is this unelected body acceptable to you Lib Dem types when the House of Lords is not?
Just asking like.
So I did a quick google search and funnily enough, the Guardian are the only print paper to run the story.
Europe 'a la carte' - Guardian
Oh dear.
FWIW What on earth does the Grauniad (a paper I have never EVER bought) have to do with my opinion of your single reference? Wierd
We are the same size now as we were post Waterloo and pre Crimea I think and a slightly smaller than the BEF that went to France in 1914 with less global territory to police.
Whats reassuring is how quickly we adjust, there was hell to pay when the Worcestors amalgamated with the Sherwood Forresters a few years back, then again when the Cheshires joined them to create the Mercian Regiment, they are one of the most respected in the Army these days. It would be lovely to think small army less wars, not a reality sadly, wasnt it 1968 the last year that we didnt loose one of our armed forces in conflict?
Floyd,
You started the personal stuff by denigrating my source. I just gave you a bit back.
If we are talking "entrenched" positions I remember a discussion a while back re whether or not global warming was man-made or not where your position was entrenched so people, stones, glasshouses.
My main point still stands, by your admission, that this was ignored by the mainstream media.
That said I take my hat off to The Guardian for reporting it. As a regular reader and contributor you will know, as Floyd demonstrated, that many on here will denigrate sources if they oppose their view rather than engage in debate.
The Guardian seems to be the one newspaper these people accept hence my selection of that paper,erroneously on this occasion, to make my point.