The EU continues with plans to form its own army

In 2012 I wrote an article for Disinfo warning of the inevitable rise of an EU army:
It’s worth remembering that less than 70 years ago millitary “collaboration” between the European powers had terrible consequences. The last time a command and control centre was established in Europe it took the combined might of the American and Soviet millitary to eventually thwart its aim of world domination.

The article details how moves towards an EU military machine were flatly denied by Jack Straw while he was The British Home Secretary, a denial curiously hard to trace.

REVEALED Brussels plan to control our Army - MEPs call for new EU military HQ

MOVES were made in Brussels today to form an EU-controlled military powerbase that would act as a rival to Nato on strategic defence issues

The European Parliament’s majority group of MEPs called for a new headquarters that would direct major civilian and military crisis operations.

The European People’s Party said governments “have to start building stand-by forces under Union command", a move branded as the latest drift to federalism by the UK Independence Party.

The proposal came in a new report from the EPP which wants Europe to redefine its security interests and to begin achieving these by actual operational deployments.

A new command centre would allow Europe to act more quickly in response to international crises such as in Syria or Libya.  
To think of the EU, without placing it into the context of history, is to misunderstand it entirely. Our nation's relationship with mainland Europe is a 'mixed bag' but it is largely characterised by war. Walk through the streets of Sheffield in the North of England and, if you know where to look, the scars of bombing are still visible.

Thus the European Union's formation is not a 'natural progression of the history of co-operation between nations', as some suggest. Nor is it a 'new leaf' in relations between those countries which it describes as "member states".

It is instead, more likely, the unfolding of a plan designed as a power grab by the power elites who run the most powerful nations inside area it describes.

To those who have not swallowed the myths needed to keep the EU project on course it is self evident that the United Kingdom has its own history and identity. The UK is in fact divided and distinct from Europe in terms of its boarders, language and culture. The only real area which leaves little distinction between us is the racial composition of the areas and this is the least important characteristic of nationhood in my mind.

It is both ironic and depressing that those who advocate the EU often do so from a smug cleverer-than-thou perspective where certain dogmas are repeated over and over without due consideration.

For example:
Off the top of my head I can list about five ideas you have to accept if you are to agree with the European Union. I invite you to add more into the comments section:
I think perhaps I do "get it".

I can't remember exactly where but last year I went to an exhibition of some sort which was part funded by the EU. It had a little potted history of the area in question and it struck me as convinient to their agenda that this history began with Rome's 'civilising' influence. According to this dogma without Europe the UK would be an awful barbaric wasteland but with it our divisions become almost imaginary, we're practically one nation already.
If you believe the ruling elites of the nations in question have connived together in an attempt to make themselves more powerful it is apt that their world wars are invoked as a sober reminder of what might happen if we refuse to belong to the super power they are trying to build. It's worth remembering that the European nations were led into these wars, which inflicted such suffering and murdered people on an industrial scale, by those very same blood-thirsty warmongering elites who now plan upon building up a powerful new army.
Criticism often tells us about the critic just as much as the criticised. I firmly believe the original proponents of the EU were influenced by racist ideology. Certainly the UK's establishment still proudly values hereditary genetic selection when choosing their monarch. This is a caste system in all but name.
Again this speaks to the perspective of the EU's advocates who are mainly politicians or aspiring politicians. Being Prime Minister of England is small beer compared to The President of The United States of Europe. In any profession career progression is important, the job of European politician is to expand the possibilities of a future promotion.

In other words, jealousy across the table of international diplomacy inspired this plan not you and I watching America and wishing we were as powerful as them.

Nick Margerrison

-- Written in a bit of a rush, comments encouraged and corrections likely.


Popular Posts