Nigel Farage Rages At Juncker's "European Army" Proposal

Tyler Durden's picture

Earlier today, the leader of Britain’s UKIP, eloquent wordsmith and member of the EU Parliament, Nigel Farage, unleashed one of his most memorable and finest diatribes in recent years.

"We ourselves in the European Union provoked the conflict through our territorial expansionism in the Ukraine. We poked the Russian bear with a stick, and unsurprisingly, Putin reacted. But this now is to be used as an opportunity to build a European army... And Mr. Juncker said, we must convey to Russia that we are serious. Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Juncker?"

Farage at his best...

* * *

As Liberty Blitzkrieg's Mike Krieger notes, while the topic of conversation was the recent push for an "EU Army," at its core the conversation was really about the dangerous and simmering catalyst for World War III, which continues to provoked in Ukraine.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
malek's picture

cue in 3,2,1 for Ghordius telling us how everything is great in the EU and Juncker was simply misunderstood!

Tao 4 the Show's picture

Tell me about it.That guy is a ball of cliches and contradictions. I can tell you things are a mess in the EU, even in Germany. Now troops on the streets in France and one wonders how it will go in Switzerland, where there are 20% immigrants and 5% muslims.

Haus-Targaryen's picture

I've been going toe to toe with Ghordo for years now.  I am fairly confident he a member of the EU Parliment.  An academic & intellectual.  Given his English fails (of which there are very few now) he is definitely a native German -- perhaps Dutch speaker.  He could also be Danish or Swedish, but that is stretching it.  He also can read Italian.   He says he could be "considered" Austrian.  He knows, according to him, quite a few Italian political figures personally without much comment on Austrian & German politicians outside of the EU Parliment.  Methinks he is from SüdTirol and this gentlemen right here:

http://www.herbert-dorfmann.eu/en/press/news.html 

I can also tell you two things about arguing with Ghordo -- 

1) When he has you by the balls in an argument, he won't hesitate from crucifying you upside down.  He goes for the throat and you  and he both realise he beat you.  My normal course of action when this happens is wait for the thread to disappear into the bowels of Page 4 or 5 before reading and commenting further.  

2) When you have Ghordo by the balls in an argument, he will dodge questions, discuss the political philosophy of the EU, bang on about how we Anglo's don't appreciate "Continential European Culture" (this distinguishing between the Anglo cultures and "everone else" while wallpapering over the cultural differences in Europe), try desperatly to change the subject, and after a response or two, you've forgotten you had him by the balls in the first place as he writes a Doctoral Abstract on how "All Europeans are one people."  

That being said -- when he has you by the balls you and he both know it.  When you have him by the balls, he knows it but is able to craft the conversation in a way that makes you want to go "No --- but" about something completely unrelated.  

Needless to say, I like having him on here, if for no other reason than to trololol his sense of "European Solidarity" or whatever he wants to call the EU ethos he adheres to.   

Parrotile's picture

Interesting observation and in retrospect pretty accurate.

Also a "textbook" description of the standard EU / UK ("Mainstream") politician - "diversion" when things are not going "according to plan", single-minded imposition when they "are" going to plan . . . .

And let us not forget just how many Eurocrats re NON-elected personnel . . . . . .

Bay of Pigs's picture

They should hang most of those worthless cocksuckers from the lamp posts and bridges in Brussels. They will be directly responsible for millions of dead and wounded Europeans if they get their way antagonizing and provoking Putin and Russia into full scale war.

 

acetinker's picture

Egg-zactly, BoP!  I love a wo/man who can weed out bullshit and cut straight to the chase.

I think I know how you feel about Putin, but is Glaziev the smartest and most honest man on the planet just now, or what?

I really wanna know what you think.

Ghordius's picture

"They will be directly responsible for millions of dead and wounded Europeans if they get their way antagonizing and provoking Putin and Russia into full scale war."

interesting point of view. so if the european countries keep their defense spending at the same level and keep their military manpower at the same level...

... which, according to the US NeoCons is too little

... and which, btw, is three times more then Russia and makes up a total of 1.5 million active duty soldiers...

but instead of having national battlegroups they set up EU battlegroups...

... i.e. the same "stuff" but packaged differently...

then this will provoke Putin to attack us, causing millions of dead and wounded, and all our fault, of course

because it's EU "weenies" and "Conchita Wursts" that antagonize Russia, in particular Germany and France, eh?

because it's the US and the UK that are trying to talk to Russia, eh?

because it's Ms Nuland and Mr. Hunter Biden that are spreading peace and understanding, eh?

because it's the UK and the US that were engaged in peaceful trade with Russia, and now suffer from the sanctions, eh?

because Ukraine is full of unmarked soldiers speaking French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. etc., eh?

right. now excuse me, I have to board my €-tank, it takes a while to drive it to Moscow /S

Ghordius's picture

"Interesting observation and in retrospect pretty accurate"

strictly speaking, completely OT. The article is about Mr. Farage's diatribe against what Juncker said, not me

further, isn't it anyway a classic ad-hom? shooting at the messenger instead of at the message? and how do you categorize this identity trial in an anonymous blog? note, in all this, my avatar: whatever I write here, has always a small warning that you might not like what I write

ask yourself if you prefer a ZH were comments are judged on their content or if you prefer a completely closed echo chamber engaged in in-group thinking

Haus claims he has identified me. What's next? To try to identify other commenters? (btw, I'm too old to be that guy)

He claims he has identified me as a MEP. So? Isn't Nigel Farage a Member of the European Parliament? UKIP had, for a long time, only a role in British politics thanks to their EP presence

He further claims that I "go for the jugular". So? Isn't this... Fight Club?

Note one little thing: Haus has also this little problem with me that he transposes what he hears around him to things I never wrote. Look back, and you'll find many comments where I claim he is not reading attentively, or taking my comment out of context. I, for example, don't care for this "European Solidarity" thing that he often brandishes. I further would never write that "Europeans are One People". A Nation is One People. Europe, in my view, is about how to cope with many Peoples, plural

Anyway, back to Nigel Farage

Kudos to him that he claims that "we" poked the bear. This "we" is correct, we europeans should have done more. For example, we should have restrained the UK more from pushing, pushing and pushing again the borders of the NATO alliance up to the nose of the Cremlin. But wait... that's exactly the camp I was in, then. We lost, the Eastern europeans are now in both clubs... and I'll be damned if we are not going to treat them as our peers, now

So what do we have here? Nigel starts with moaning that the British Defense Budget is too small for the defense of The Isles. Defense from what, Nigel? Not-The-Bear?

Meanwhile, he takes the opportunity of junking Juncker's proposal for an EU Army, and goes on talking about existing "EU Battlegroups" already engaged in anti-piracy and other tasks. Nope, those aren't "EU battlegroups", then the participation in them is of some 9 members, not 28

His logic is compelling. If the UK would increase it's defense budget... then it's fine for him. If the EU would have an Army, then it's a provocation for Russia. Let me see...

the UK has invaded all countries of this world bar half a dozen. The EU has invaded... zero, yet

the UK is a nuclear power that just recently claimed "just war" on the "intelligence" that Iraq had WMDs. The EU... zero, yet, zero Army and zero "just wars", yet. Oh, and Brussels is being spied on by the UK and the US

the UK had two hundred years of imperial animosity versus Russia, including the Great Game and the Cold War. The EU... one unanimous trade restriction (includes the UK's vote)

you know what? I like Juncker's EU Army. Up to now, it's perfect. It has zero funding, zero treaties behind it, zero material and zero troops. And it can invade zero countries

Meanwhile, it's a wonderful way to tell both Russia and the US (and yes, the UK, too) that we europeans have options and that we are fed up, and it wonderfully flushes out hypocrites

Behold Juncker's Phantom Army. Never have so few words caused so much righteous anguish

zhandax's picture

"Behold Juncker's Phantom Army. Never have so few words caused so much righteous anguish"

The chief problem with an army across history is what to do with it if you don't happen to be at war.

Ghordius's picture

just a question: you do know that the EU Countries spend three times more for defense then Russia, and have something like frigging one point five million active troops? Don't you?

is anybody - including Juncker - talking about spending "moar" and having "moar" troops? no. even his proposal would mean a shift of funds and troops under a blue-and-gold flag instead of national flags

just saying, Juncker's proposal is a wonderful exercise in pointed diplomacy with the wonderful effect of flushing out hypocrites

Haus-Targaryen's picture

 

A famous Chinese proverb once said;

"A army full of sheep led by a lion would certainly overwhelm an army full of lions led by a sheep."  

I'll let you decide who is who in my cheeky little analogy.   

Ghordius's picture

I quote: "...try desperatly to change the subject..."

I wrote plenty, above, while your little analogy could be actually used by Juncker to highlight that Russia would be deterred better by one blue-and-gold army then 28 national ones

fact is that it's an army full of nothing, at the moment. fact is that Russia has an army full of arms, young men and national fervour. and one that feels that it is full of lions and led by lions, a feeling shared by the American Army

Russian propaganda makes a huge fuss out of Conchita Wurst. And many propagandists from several sides are often busy picturing Europeans as weak, effeminate and hedonistic. Enter the stage Juncker with a proposal of an EU Army... and Lo And Behold! Suddently it is as if he had kicked several wasp nests at once

Haus-Targaryen's picture

I think you hit the nail on the head -- 

" fact is that Russia has an army full of arms, young men and national fervour." With the bolded and italics for emphasis.  

Moreover, I am not changing the subject -- but illustrating not what propaganda may lead many to believe -- but the fact that the "strongest" military in Europe might just leave, and #2, aside from having an excellent track record of losing wars, starting wars then running off, freezing to death in the snow, or running to #1 and the Colonialists for help -- there isn't much of anything there.

The Italians are too busy using their Navy as a ferry service. The Spanish military has a legally required 2 hours Siesta every day, and the Portuguese have mothballed most of their aircraft as they cannot afford new ones nor can they afford parts to keep them modernized.   

The fact of the matter is you have Russia, which is lions run by lions, the US which is lions run by lions, and the various European militaries which are either lions leading sheep, sheep leading sheep or just people wanting to take Tapas break.  

The only military in Europe I can think of that could stand up to the Russians for more than a week or so, and has the will to do it is the Polish.  However, if this scary scenario ever happens, as soon as the Polish realises the Anglo-American empire has sold them down the river again they'll fall apart too.  I have no doubt the French would show up to the party -- but a look at their track record is suspect. Just 2 years ago -- they ran out of bombs in less than 48 hours, and before they could "borrow" some from the US -- they were dropping 600 kg dummy bombs on targets to immobilize them.  If you think they would perform better against the Russians than Ghadaffi -- I believe you are seriously mistaken. 

 


And before you step in with a "well in theory this is exactly why an EU army would be better for EU security than the status-quo" I would remind you to look at how well anything works out the EU touches.  

Lastly, no one is scared of a EU army if it were to ever exist for the reasons mentioned above.  No one is much too concerned except those who live in "Europe" and have a vested interest in preventing the further centralization of power in Brussels and Strausbourg. 

Ghordius's picture

"...no one is scared of a EU army if it were to ever exist..." Considering the reaction in ZH... or the reaction of Nigel Farage... I'd say Jucker touched a nerve

but it's funny to read a summary of all those propagandistic denigrations of the various non-US NATO armed forces. that's an interesting confluence of US Neo-Con propaganda and Kremlin propaganda

on what do Nuland and Putin agree? Freedom Fries and Conchita Wurst, lions on the edges and sheep in the middle

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Of course he touched a nerve.  

Nigel farage isn't scared of the big bad EU army, he is scared of more centralization of power.  Something I am scared of and something you should be scared of as well.  

Time will tell my friend.  Time will tell.  

Ghordius's picture

are you sure? as a reminder, he wants to take the UK out of the EU. and so whatever looks bad at home, he just shamelessly uses it, for pure propagandistic purposes

Juncker provided him with electoral candy. Already there are pro-UK-stay-in-the-EU partisans that accuse Juncker of having this in mind, foremost, with his Phantom Army

Which goes back to the rivalry between Luxembourg and London about financial services in the EU. Oh, and the way Cameron is handing all things starting with eu-

National Elections in the UK, soon. (UKIP vs Conservatives) vs (Lib-Dems vs Labour). First-Past-The-Post electoral system. And the EU is a big issue, in this election

Sirius Wonderblast's picture

And you do know that the Persians ranged vast armies against numerically far-inferior forces when fighting the Greeks, and got royally stuffed, right? The Greeks had their internal frictions, Lord knows, but the EU looks just like Persia to me.

Ghordius's picture

do I have to watch it all? yes, there is an EuroCorps. Yes, it has some 50'000 troops, from memory. Yes, Nigel Farage mentioned it. No, he made a distinction between it and the Juncker Proposal

further, the EuroCorps has, again from memory, 9 countries contributing to it, while Juncker envisions an Army of 28 members

so what is your point, exactly?

Haus-Targaryen's picture

I take it you didn't watch it to 1:32-1:40

Ghordius's picture

and? do I deny the existing proposers of EU Federalism? do I deny the existing proposers of a future EU Superstate? of a EU Constitution?

no, I am busy countering them, among many others, with a vision of a confederation of sovereign nations, which, btw, is exactly what the EU Treaties are

the current status quo of the EU is exactly this: sovereigns engaged in treaties for common purposes, with a treaty-org tasked to it

what I fear, my dear Haus, is that those are words you don't understand. I fear you don't understand the difference between federated and confederated

I fear you don't understand the very word sovereign. I fear you don't understand the difference between acts and words, at times

Nuland... acted. Putin... acted. Juncker... talked

The US Army is real. The Russian Army is real. The British, French, German etc. Armies are real. The EU Army of 28 is... words

and isn't that a wonderful sign of the times that people seem to care more for words then for reality? For intentions more then actions?

Haus-Targaryen's picture

I would appreciate it in the future then -- jumping down the throats of those who propose EU Federalism and a EU Superstate as opposed to telling us how our understanding of similar concepts is not the same as yours.  

While we are talking about words and actions my friend, your words are "EU Federalism is bad, and EU Superstate is bad" (I agree btw) but your action (at least on here) is activly defending those whom you say are bad.  See, your words are one thing, your actions are another.  

Lastly, words eventually become actions.  No army can stop an idea whos time has come.  Where we find ourselves now is two mutually exclusive ideas (EU Federation and EU Confederation) sharing the same space.  Which side wins and how is the story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZi0vLAhzgQ   

Ghordius's picture

amazing. did I write that EU Federalism and a EU Superstate are... bad? I just wrote that I oppose them

the boundaries between federation or confederation are often shifty. the US, for example, started as a de-facto confederation while calling itself a "union", and "progressed" to something that can't be called anything else then a unitary state. The UK calls itself a Union, and is now becoming more federal then before

the ideas are not mutually exclusive, it's just that if one side wins unilaterally, then the other side loses unilaterally. it's like the Chinese concept of two extreme points, i.e. vices, joined by a continuum of moderate positions in between, i.e. virtues

to make a point that is actually a bit more near to our times, giving in to Nuland, completely, is a "bad". giving in to Putin, completely, is a "bad", too. from our perspective, of course

note that both Nuland's bunch and Putin's bunch give a fig about sovereignty, or treaties, or many related things

we had a lot of discussions because you often take the federalist propaganda as fact. Where then I point out that it's not true, and point to the treaty-based confederational reality

I'm not in the business of indentifying the "black hats". Russia pushes. That's a fact. The US pushes. That's a fact, too. The UK spies and plays many roles at the same time. And that's a fact, too.

Meanwhile, Juncker... talked. And proposed something that is not welcome neither in Moscow nor in Washington nor in London. Think about that

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Ghordo -- 

Said Federalist propaganda is the tone taken with most media -- at least here in Germany, it is the goal set and the barometer for being a "good European" and its detractors either remain silent or are marginalized.  

I am confident there are really 3 sides to the EU discussion.  

In one camp you have the EU Federalists. A group of ideologically bankrupt individuals who want to create essentially a "United States of Europe." These people are trying to back-door their way into a federation ignoring the democratic will of the people, cutoms, languages, cultures and even the most basic of common sense. The plot thus far has closely followed Star Wars Episode 1 and if the EU elites keep doing what they want to keep their USE dream alive -- they'll end up with Episode 2. 

The next group is a group that is largely silent. I call it the silent majority. They want a European confederation -- not a federation. These people like the idea of the EU and Europeans talking about their problems with one another instead of shooting at one another. This group of people aren't comfortable with a "USE" and they aren't comfortable with breaking the whole thing up either. These are a pretty politically responsible group of individuals -- save for their habitual inability to tell the federalists "no stop. I am French/German/Italian etc etc not "European". Their inability to tell the federalists stop is what has led to the creation of the third group. My experience here is that it is political correctness that keeps this middle group quiet. 

The last group is a reaction to group 1's ideas and policies and group 2's silence. They a believe the EU is too far down the path to federalization at this point and the only way to stop it is to break it up and start over. Most of these people(of which I am one) focus more on the negatives than the positives, but are fairly pragmatic about money problems. 
 

Ghordius's picture

your three groups are a simplification. but ok, let's put 100+ national political party positions - which in the very EU Parliament are grouped in 7 "families" - into those 3 groups, for this discussion's sake

EU Federalist groupings, EU Confederationalist groupings and Anti-EU groupings

the first group wants us to progress to USE. And it uses endless propaganda, as you have noted yourself

the second group... is the Status Quo. My group, btw. The one behind the Treaties, the way they were agreed upon

the third group... uses endless propaganda, too

in short, for simplicity's sake, the first and third group tell a bloody lot of lies and are constantly engaged in simplifications and voter catching, preferably the discontent and the ignorant

so all in all... I take it as a compliment for our group. Again, it's a bit more complex then a group, because it's more of a political moderate/centrist consensus

what do you propose? that we engage in a counter-federalist propaganda in Germany? Germans love federalism. The German Federal Republic is a jewel of applied federalism

asking Germans not to be pro-federalism is... utterly useless. Germans become confederalists where it counts: when they engage with non-Germans

you can't even seriously think to change the character of a whole tight cultural/linguistic/political bunch of Peoples like the German ones. one third of them is hopelessly socialist anyway, and will chatter about all those words that go on your nerves for ever

so my advice to you is still the same: spend more time to understand how they tick instead of thinking of pushing them somewhere

-----

speaking of the third group: well, they do have the right of making counterproposals. AfD as much as Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage

in fact, I will enjoy the sight of a Nigel or a Marine at the realities of power when elected as much as I am enjoying Syriza at the Greek Helm of State

after all, they might be right. one very important part of our consensus is that we try to keep it undogmatic and pragmatic:

"does it work? show us", and "you first, lead by example". particularly on the field of applied governance, which is what the EU is all about (currently, not in the future)

malek's picture

You're switching the time scale as it fits your needs, but never compare apples with apples.

Most interesting is what you're carefully avoiding to talk about:

european countries defense spending is three times more then Russia and makes up a total of 1.5 million active duty soldiers

So in money you compare (without ever touching on effectiveness of that spent money well ok), but on soldiers you only mention one side.
And the most glaring omission is you don't even mention that an EU Army would mean one command, and suddenly the single EU country has little to nothing to say in its eventual deployment. Do you love your centralized serfdom that much?

For example, we should have restrained the UK more from pushing, pushing and pushing again the borders of the NATO alliance up to the nose of the Cremlin. But wait... that's exactly the camp I was in, then. We lost, the Eastern europeans are now in both clubs... and I'll be damned if we are not going to treat them as our peers, now

Side-stepping the main point once again: Do you think Ukraine should become a NATO member too?

The EU has invaded... zero [countries], yet

Please give us another example of your stretching and redefining the facts, and tell us how the EU didn't factually invade the Kosovo.

The EU... zero, yet, zero Army and zero "just wars", yet.

Oh, how was that with "Die Freiheit Deutschlands muss am Hindukush verteidigt werden" again?

Meanwhile, it's a wonderful way to tell both Russia and the US (and yes, the UK, too) that we europeans have options and that we are fed up, and it wonderfully flushes out hypocrites

Rrright, because the European army is not and will never be under the control of the US.

The biggest righteous hypocrite I can see is you.

fact is that it's an army full of nothing, at the moment.

You are clearly a politician. Only those downplay the run-up that strong until the irreversible facts are created.
You failed to provide any statement if you would still like it if it one day becomes an army full of something, under control of a group to which your country has little to say.

you don't understand the difference between federated and confederated

Maybe you should talk to the southern US states over that, I'm sure they can give you some strong statements on that and the civil war outcome.

point to the treaty-based confederational reality

Once more:
The creation of an EU army has no effect on the implementation and enforcement of such treaties?
No backdoor or sedond-round effects at all?

You're a complete psychopath. (I really do hope you're not that herbert dorfmann guy Haus believes to have identified.)

 

Ghordius's picture

and you, my dear Malek, don't read. didn't I clearly state in my exchange with Haus that I oppose Juncker's proposal?

further, I opposed the entry of all Eastern European countries. but now that they are in, I am for treating them as peers

no, I don't think Ukraine should become a NATO member. who is pushing for that?

further, an EU army would be deployed for external EU interests. in the same way as the US army is deployed to protect external US interests. Yes, like in Kosovo, yes, like in the Hindokush

to recap:

US Neo-Cons are still pushing us europeans to spend moar for defense. hence my mention: moar money? sure? what for? and my argument that we spend way more then Russia

if you still don't realize that an EU Army is the very last thing US Neo-Cons AND the Cremlin hawks would like to see, I can't help you

as a reminder, US Neo-Cons are still smarting from the last time a european parliament - Westminster, of all unlikely candidates - said "NO" to them about a Syria intervention

as for now, NATO is based on the leadership of the one partner that is the most... centralized. and that is a fact. what happens if this changes? well, then which interests abroad should be "defended" gets a different handling. It would be a subtle shift of power from the US President to... an elected european parliament (the BAD, BAD, EVIL EU parliament /s). Only that this is not true, because it would still be a matter for the EU Council, and there it becomes again the question: do you really believe the EU Council is willing to centralize this kind of power? IF, then only partially

so in reality, we are talking here of the proposal for an "EU Expeditionary Corps". Yes, the same was the US Marines were born, a small specific army, roughly 200'000, customized for interventions of "World Police" kinds

now, do I ever read of average Americans questioning why the US needs the US Marines Corps (founded in 1834)? Isn't it hypocrisy that currently The West / NATO is led by Washington, but no, no, no, whatever happens important decisions can't be taken in Europe?

as a reminder, when Iraq was "full of WMDs", Paris (and Berlin) objected, strongly. If our EU Expeditionary Corps would have been the scheduled arm for intervention, and in an EU Council vote France would have put a veto... we would have possibly not be involved in Iraq, and perhaps even not in Afghanistan. Instead, we can read here dummies talking about "Fearful France", and "Cheese Surrendering Monkeys"

Would it be fearsome centralization if the "EU Marines Corps" would be deployed according to an unanimous vote in the EU Council?

so yes, I stand fast to my core message: Juncker's EU Phantom Army is flushing out the hypocrites

so while I oppose it... I'm laughing at the way it's making certain people squirm and twist their propaganda into bretzels. particularly a Nigel Farage that moans Britain is not spending enough for defence... while giggling about how much this Phantom Army of the bad, bad EU is going to help him in the coming British elections 

malek's picture

You remind me of Schröders "unbedingtes Wollen" style of politics. Which is a beautiful euphemism for "having no plan B" or in other words going with the flow and having no strict principles on anything.

You always stress that you oppose Juncker's proposal - but if it comes true will you then embrace it too? You know like your but now that they [Eastern European countries] are in [NATO], I am for treating them as peers?

US Neo-Cons are still smarting from the last time a european parliament - Westminster, of all unlikely candidates - said "NO" to them about a Syria intervention

How cute! So now it was UK parliament which stopped US invasion of Syria? Russia had nothing to do with it?
And how did it work out for Germany and France last time when they opposed US invasion of Iraq?

Apples to Oranges again:
So the Marines, which were founded by a single country, are comparable to a EU Expeditionary Corps? Seriously??
(And even without being asked, on the side you concede having a special army for interventions is a good thing?)

But the best is still your dancing around the elephant of centralization pretending it's not there:
You don't believe it would be easier to coax a single EU Council into a questionable EU Army deployment than all the parliaments of the EU countries?

Ghordius's picture

I think the core of our contention here is this: "You don't believe it would be easier to coax a single EU Council into a questionable EU Army deployment than all the parliaments of the EU countries? "

Yes. I believe it would be more difficult. As an example, the current unanimous sanctions against Russia are going to fail the next EU Council vote

as a reminder, members of the EU Council have to answer their own parliaments, and those can kick them out and replace them, and then vote again

so yes, something so important as the deployment of a EU Expeditionary Corps would get at least a binding provisio of needing an unanimous vote, like sanctions. and then a vote in the EU Parliament, and then inquiries in the national parliaments, and then perhaps even governments falling and being replaced by those parliaments, and then a new vote

for the last Iraq war, Paris and Berlin were against, Italy, Poland, the UK, etc. went to war

malek's picture

I am baffled by your naivety, or shall I say stupidity. If you really are of older age as you stated somewhere else, old age wisdom must have eluded you.

History has proven time and again that powerful central committees are simply more easier subverted than distributed powers.
To the facts:

As an example, the current unanimous sanctions against Russia are going to fail the next EU Council vote

If that really happens, I'd still consider it at best a "glass half full" example, so you prove nothing by that one.

members of the EU Council have to answer their own parliaments, and those can kick them out and replace them, and then vote again

Please point us to written law or similar on which those statements are based (instead of he-said-she-said articles.)
Especially the point and then vote again needs serious clarification: how often can the same thing be voted on? Who has the right to initiate re-voting? Has nobody the right to non-unanimous block such a re-vote?

a binding provisio of needing an unanimous vote

Elaborate: How difficult would it be to change the provisio?
Even if it stands, what do you do if the council unanimously votes for a deliberately vague resolution, which is later reinterpreted to cover much larger scale actions?

From a higher level view your whole safety concept is basically based on blocking features, such as need for unanimous votes.
As anyone with deeper insight has learned over the years, such systems always fail quickly because they can be subverted by identifying and attacking then breaking the single weakest link in the chain-link fence.

If you really believe such centralization of powers is the best (or only) way to counteract US overreach, you are a dangerous fool.
As I have difficulty believing someone here on this forum is so foolish, it seems more likely you are a disinformation agent (as you are more persistent than trolls.)

Ghordius's picture

malek, how can I point you to anything written when the whole thing is just a figment of the imagination of Juncker, pure words and nothing else?

If I understand your point, centralization is bad, period. ergo whoever even stops fighting centralization is a kind of traitor to humanity or something

fine. tell that to America, tell that to Russia, tell that to China

meanwhile, saying european sovereigns should not, ever, do what others do... is hypocritical

"History has proven time and again that powerful central committees are simply more easier subverted than distributed powers"

also fine for me. and about which powerful central committees are we talking about? an EU Council filled with national ministers that answer to national parliaments and have to make unanimous decisions in things like the current soon withdrawn sanctions on Russia or something imaginary in the future?

what I find amazing at your point of view is that you argue as if British planes would not bomb, Italian and Polish troops would not have fought in Iraq, French troops would not have been nearly sent to Syria and German troops would not have been sent to Afghanistan

this is reality. european troops are being deployed in interventions worldwide. but no, you moan that they should not have something like an EU norm slapped on them, that there should not be any additional veto power over them? because it smacks of dreaded "centralization", without looking into the details?

malek's picture

And you accuse others here that they're not reading and understanding your statements thoroughly??

Please point us to written law or similar for:
members of the EU Council have to answer their own parliaments, and those can kick them out and replace them, and then vote again

 

So once again you swallow wholesale the "normative Kraft des Faktischen" without taking into any kind of consideration if you find that fact should be pursued by everyone, or better not:

what I find amazing at your point of view is that you argue as if British planes would not bomb, Italian and Polish troops would not have fought in Iraq, French troops would not have been nearly sent to Syria and German troops would not have been sent to Afghanistan

So in which way does this justify an EU Army being created and sooner or later doing the same?
Except in the poorest of all excuses: "But the others [bad guys] were doing it as well!"

And then even topping that with "every moral person is a hypocrite as they have certain things they would never do even if others do them."
I consider your argumentation completely bankrupt -and you realize that too-, if you end up with such reasoning.

 

Oh, and I will hold you to your words forecasting  the current soon withdrawn [by EU Council] sanctions on Russia.

Ghordius's picture

malek, here the definition of hypocrisy

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs orprinciples, etc., that one does not really possess.

2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

-----

so read again. yes, we have european armed forces. yes, we use them. what do you think I am pretending, exactly, when I say that there IS no moral high ground anymore? where do you see me taking a desirable or publicly approved attitude, here?

so, if we have an EU Army and it needs 28 Yes to even deploy, is it better or worse?

(yes, I do expect that the unanimity there will fail, soon. I'm not the only one, even the EU foreign ministers are saying that. we'll see)

Ghordius's picture

Parrotile: "And let us not forget just how many Eurocrats re NON-elected personnel"

this is a very important meme in the UK, that "non-elected". The EU has two legislative bodies that steer it. The EU Council and the EU Parliament

the second is clearly elected. the first... is the appointed ministers of the EU. National prime ministers like PM Cameron (UK), PM Tsipras (GR) and PM Merkel (GFR), and national ministers like FM Varoufakis (GR), FM Schäuble (GFR) and FM Osborne (UK), just to pick six out that might be recognized

none of those EuroCrats is directly elected to be in the Council. in fact, none of them is directly elected to be a national minister, they are all appointed to those ministerial tasks by their elected National Parliaments. The same parliaments that can throw them out of those appointed tasks, any time

the commissioners? well, don't they have to be appointed by the Council and confirmed or rejected by the EU Parliament? it's just the same parliamentary procedure... again. with the same parliamentary provision that they are on sufferance of those two bodies, that can throw them out, if they want so

too complicated? well, then go on and vote directly for one man to hold immense power without recall, if you prefer it... simple

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) Haus-Targaryen Mar 11, 2015 6:58 PM

Sounds like you've cut that particular knot.

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) malek Mar 11, 2015 7:01 PM

Didn't John Titor say that World War III started in part as a response to a combined European army marching against Russia? =)

maskone909's picture

those with common sense and decency have to business in politics.  now if he were to worship satan and diddle little kids, he has a bright future.

Bananamerican's picture

most of my UK F'book "friends" think Farage/UKIP ARE the racist spawn of satan...The man gets worse press over there than Ron Paul does here...

Bananamerican's picture

who's the jackass that redded that?

HenryHall's picture

I don't like Farage's politics one little bit.

And this tactic of his, openly speaking the unvarnished truth, is distinctly dirty pool when everyone else is covering up and lying through their teeth.

The nerve of him, to do that without shame.

123dobryden's picture

no, dirty pool is covering up

MillionDollarBogus_'s picture

Fargage also raged that artic ice is not shrinking...

Nigel, sit down before you fall down...

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) MillionDollarBogus_ Mar 11, 2015 6:59 PM

Doesn't the artic ice melt away completely on a fairly regular basis?

Rakshas's picture

...... so yeah,  I don't see the problem with the European Army thingy and applying a little non-linear thinking - it could actually help resolve the shrinking ice issue and for that matter the argument on whether global warming is man made...... Ok so Junkfuker gets his army, the Nulandcons send thier hapless contingent they all get stupid march eastward get obliterated then whats left of the useless fuks fire off a couple of tactical nukes that dominoes into a full on strategic launch and the cockroaches - actual cockroaches not the political types - will scurry around under the skies of a nuclear winter feasting on our irradiated corpses  and discussing  who was right about the whole global warming thing....... did I miss anything??

FIAT CON's picture

It is going to be interesting in the next UK election, to see how far the UKIP party climbs in ranks!

 

Parrotile's picture

If Ms Nuland (and her supporters) get their way, elections might be delayed "owing to unforeseen circumstances" (namely the European entree to WW3)

stant's picture

Vlad got the white stripes cranked up at the kremlin" seven nation army couldn't hold me back"