"So it seems to me there are two choices, take your chances as a poorly defended island or become the Welsh Archers or Scottish Infantry in a joint European Defense force. There's not really a middle way.
Nov 8, 2019 at 4:04 PM | Still In The Dark"

Switzerland "went Neutral" following the Napoleon. The Swiss had been supplying very effective mercenaries to all sides.

Sweden "facilitated" the Nazi invasion of Norway. Swedish "neutrality" remains an embarrassment for Swedes.

The Royal Navy has two new Aircraft Carriers, commissioned on the assumption that they would form a significant part of NATO and the European Defence Force, if required to play away from home. Without them, how many Aircraft Carriers can the EU muster?

The British Armed Services are highly respected and valued by NATO, the UN etc. The Balkans demonstrated that politicians are dreadful when they assume command of military operations. The British do not relish being under EU Command and Control.

tomo: sorry but I don't know anyhting about that issue of loot, etc..

SITD: <<So why is the proposal for a European Army so bad? Why is it better to have a uncoordinated divided defence which can be picked off one at a time.>>

Why do you think countries could be picked off one at a time if they are members of NATO? That is the whole raison d'etre of the organisation. It's why we, and other nations, have troops on continuous rotation in the Baltic nations and others as "tripwires" so that a Russian attack would not be just a local incursion.
Creating a European Army would do nothing to bolster that situation and, imo, is more likely to undermine it.

Still In The Dark:

On your recent comments:

Neutrality is a policy decided at a time of war. Switzerland can't very well be neutral if someone invades them. Perhaps you just meant a policy of being unallied (i.e. signing no treaties)?

That you take a healthy pinch of salt with prophecies of climate or economic doom is all very well, but you have to agree that some people *are* taken in, so such prophecies still distort the debate and need to be knocked on the head.

Lastly, you shouldn't blame the rest of Europe for the deliberate stalling by British elites. How long do you think Thatcher would have taken to have you out?

My answer to your question: the problem with a "unified" EU army is that it can't be unified and will be *less* of a deterrent than the traditional scheme of national armies with formal alliances between them. "No man can serve two masters" as the saying goes. Tell me, do you think a Polish-born serviceman, say, will feel a greater loyalty to the EU or to Poland? Would he not be a more formidable opponent as a Pole?

Mark H
One thought. It's taken 3 years to get anywhere near a solution to Brexit, any nation with serious aggressive intent against any part of Europe will take great comfort from that and realise that Europe is just as divided now as at any time in the past and shows no sign of being able to coordinate anything anytime soon.

Mark Hodgson
I don't take prophecies of doom on climate or economies without a large pinch of salt, one step back two forward seems to apply most of the time and both have a slow reaction time. Nigel Lawson's property boom had an instant effect buttook years to work through the system. But I wasn't really arguing with that. I was more interested in good arguments against a European Army for mutual defence against an aggressive and powerful neighbour whose leaders and population look back on their, in the case of Russia European, empire as a golden age.

The lessons of history are still in living memory for a large part of the European population. True we could give most European nations a decent fight but none individually could resist the Russian military for more than a few days, relying on American military support is a foolish. Russia knows that a divided Europe won't stand its way until its too late. Georgia, Crimea, East Ukraine Syria and earlier Afghanistan none of which were resisted. As a German dictator once said "Who remembers the Armenians now?".

So why is the proposal for a European Army so bad? Why is it better to have a uncoordinated divided defence which can be picked off one at a time.

tomo: completely agree wrt Ukraine. The EU machinations were reckless and irresponsible. Then, when Russia reacted in an entirely predictable fashion, the Eurocrats ran away to hide behind NATO's skirts.

On the issue of Brexit promises, it's no surprise that the BBC et al never tire of attacking the claims of the Leave campaign but never reflect on the proven falsehoods spun by Remain. One piece of very good news is the departure of Hammond given the way he worked to undermine Brexit.

SITD, you make some interesting and valid points. My point was rather to illustrate the fact that of the pre-referendum warnings that were made by both sides, the pro-Brexit ones tended to have more after-the-event validity, IMO, than the anti-Brexit ones.

Remember this?

"…a vote to Leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000”.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf