Its a possibility, the highest of amount an option is the option put forward against remain, how would you do the vote though?
Nope, the lowest supported option, even if it is Remain, would be dropped on each round.
That’s how run offs work.
My point was how long do you think that would take?
France do their Presidential elections the same way. Couple of weeks.
If it was that time frame I’d have that.
There are many obstacles to the creation of a single EU Army. All member states need to agree to its formation. This is a difficult obstacle to overcome as there will be states who will not agree to this as already evidenced by the Irish. Ireland is very keen to retain its neutrality and even secured a protocol to the Lisbon Treaty that it was not to be used as a proxy to form an EU Army. Now i’m not naive enough to think that if there was a serious will to form one, then external pressures would not be put upon states who wouldn’t sign up, but this needs to be weighed up against the pressure back into the EU as a union.
There are also other practical reason which would inhibit its creation. Different forces work in different ways. Military co-operation between EU member states has been scant and generally not welcomed by independent states. There are many obstacles to overcome here for the hugely disparate forces to combine into one seamless force. Take the Franco German joint brigade which has only been deployed once, briefly, in Mali for a training mission. They were unable to agree on the acceptable level of risk to enter into Afghanistan and this from the supposed two major advocates of an EU Army.
Domestic politics plays a big part also. How likely is it that all member states will allow their national parliaments to be over-ruled by the creation of an integrated defence authority? Hardly likely at all.
Obviously it is not beyond possibility that it may be created at some very distant point in the future, but the future for everything is unknown. I might even succeed in a lifetime ambition of having a two’s up with Kylie and Dannii Minogue. Fucking unlikely, but i might. However, some of the posts on here and other threads are simply emotive nonsense. Arguments that state poor little British kids will be forced into conscription for a big nasty defence machine is emotive bollocks and serves no purpose to add to any current debate about Brexit. As far as I can see, its about as likely as my threesome.
And yet, many. myself included, were ridiculed for suggesting that one would ever exist.
We’ve had Merkel and Macron both speak out in favour of one recently.
How does the water in the saucepan feel to you? 
It is a reality to say that the long term ambition is full tax harmonisation and an fully operational land army, the tax bit makes me chuckle as Ireland won’t ever give up their status regardless of what the EU says as a big corp tax haven.
The EU is a joke in this regard.
It doesn’t exist. FFS.
Neither did the Euro.
Which we, along with 9 other member states are not a part of.
The point is, there were those in the 1970s that predicted the Euro and the complete political integration of the European Union. They were called kooks and laughed at for even considering the possibility.
The EU Army is no different. It’ll happen, then all the stuff that you’re presently terming alarmist is just a step away.
Can you do my lottery numbers on the weekend? 
1 Like
Can’t see what would be the difference with an EU army, both Labour and the Tories have taken us into poorly thought through morally repugnant conflicts over the last 70 or so years. The last “just” war Britain fought was WW2, and some of our tactics then were pretty despicable too.
I take it you’ve never served. I haven’t either, but I am close to a lot of people that have. Forces types famously say that they take the Queen’s Shilling, a short-hand way of saying that they have to do things that they might not agree with, but comes from an authority that they hold fealty to.
That gets very murky with an EU Army. Who would those soldiers be fighting for? Who would they be fighting? If we look at the last time that the EU tried to meddle in affairs outside its borders, its Ukraine, and things did not end well there.
I completely acknowledge that there has been far too much “attack” and not enough defence in our Defence Policy. It’s not really an exaggeration to say that after Vietnam, the UK has essentially been a military vassal of the US. Things are far from perfect.
The lesson should be that we need an independent defence policy, free from direct American or EU influence. Bundling up an EU Army, which lets remember, will hold fealty to no-one that is democratically accountable, is only likely to take us further away from learning that lesson.
1 Like
Irrespective the power of a nation is determined by a sovereign independent military, can you imagine if say a force invaded Gibraltar, would Spain intervene?
If we were a member of the EU then yes they would, as the EU has a solidarity clause (article 42 of the Treaty of Lisbon) which obligies member states to come to the aid of any other member state attacked by an external force. Hence why Ireland, Sweden, Austria, etc can fel safe in their neutrality.
I think my position still stands though. Who were our soldiers fighting for in Iraq? Halliburton? Sure as hell wasn’t you or me.
In that case, I’d certainly agree that the public had little effect on whether the war began, and how long it went on for. It’s something of a democratic travesty that until Corbyn came along, the British people had to choose between pro-war Prime Minister or pro-war Prime Minister.
In other cases, people power has made the difference. Nixon was shit scared of the American people during his time in office, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam.
True, and from what little I know about the subject, public opinion is what kept Harold Wilson from dragging us into Vietnam. But overall not a great story to tell from either our side or the EU’s.