EU Army

Having written previously on the formation of an EU Armed Forces, with recent changes gathering apace I am compelled to write further on the topic of the EU army, its position with NATO and the future potential consequences.

Since the conception of the current European Union there have always been plans for what people are referring to as an EU army. As early as the 1992 Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on European Union) under Article J.4, plans were made for the EU to form a common defence policy, with the aim to go on and form a common defence, i.e. the basis on which to form the inception for an EU Army.

By 2003, at a meeting in Brussels it was agreed between France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to form a “European Defence Initiative”, whereby the armed forces of each nation would in future work closer together in cooperation.

This meant reinforcing the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) which lead to the formation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Though both policies serve the same purpose, there are major and important differences in how they each go about achieving that goal.

At the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon (TEU) it was agreed to expand upon Article J.4 so, under Article 42 it was agreed for the upcoming CSDP to pool the resources available to the European Defence Agency (EDA) and form a “Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence” within the EU. In effect this was the license granting the EU to form a combined EU Armed Forces enshrined as a directive in EU legislation.

For an EU Army to come to fruition the Common Security and Defence Policy was required to supersede the European Security and Defence Policy. It is vital to understand the differences between the two. The main points of the ESDP are:

  • The ESDP though being of Europe was not operating under direct legislation from the EU.
  • The ESDP was enacted under the organisation of the Western European Union (WEU). Though the WEU’s Council and Assembly operated from a headquarters in Brussels, the organisation was in fact a part of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), the Allied Command Operations headquarters for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
  • The remit of the ESDP was enacted under NATO protocols.
  • In 1995 a European multinational rapid reaction force, the European Rapid Operational Force (Eurofor) was set up by the WEU. The deployment of Eurofor was a joint NATO and EU action.

By comparison the nature of the Common Security and Defence Policy brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon differs greatly to the previous European Security and Defence Policy. Those differences are:

  • The CSDP falls entirely under the jurisdiction of the European Union. NATO has no say and plays no part in the policy.
  • The WEU embedded in NATO was abolished to be replaced by the European Defence Agency (EDA) as early as 2004. The EDA is answerable solely to the EU Council and has no links with NATO. The EDA is responsible for a remit that covers everything from defence think-tanks to research and development, from operational planning to tactical deployment.
  • Eurofor the joint NATO and EU European multinational rapid reaction force was replaced by the EU Battlegroup (EU BG). Again, this EU Battlegroup is solely answerable to the Council of the European Union and therefore the unelected European Commission.

The EU Battlegroup is also complemented with the European Corps (Eurocorps), the European Gendarmerie Force (EUROGENDFOR or EGF), the European Maritime Force (Euromarfor or EMF) and the European Union Force (EUFOR). All are joint EU operations.

It is the EU Battlegroup which has formed the nucleus of this EU army. Already in May, British troops of the 2nd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment and the 4th Infantry Brigade were deployed on exercise on Salisbury Plain as part of an EU Battlegroup joint operation. Further more, as explained by others including Colonel Richard Kemp CBE, from July these troops shall form part of the EU High Readiness Battlegroup and shall be commanded by the EU Council.

The European Defence Agency and therefore the EU Battlegroup is presided over by the “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”. The High Representative works in conjunction with the President of the European Council. Both unelected in the positions they hold. It is they who shall hold sway over the deployment of the 2nd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment and the 4th Infantry Brigade from July. The post of High Representative is currently held by Italian politician Federica Mogherini. A member of the Italian Communist Youth Federation, after the dissolution of the Italian Communist Party, Mogherini became a member of the post-Communist `Democratic Party of the Left’. So at this very moment a representative of the Communist/Socialist left now holds the power to preside over the deployment of members of HM Armed Forces.

Whether members of HM Armed Forces on exercise bore the insignia of the Union flag or the EU flag is a moot point. The most pressing issue is who held control and overall power to deploy British troops on exercise. The answer to this is the High Representative, a `foreign’ politician and a `non-British’ body hold the powers to control a supposedly sovereign nation and the movements of its troops. This is not a fantasy, nor a dream but an event that has already taken place in actuality and has already occurred.

In my previous article The Armed Forces of the EU, I concentrated upon the eventual and complete loss of sovereign control of HM Armed Forces by the UK. I also focused upon future dangers placed upon citizens of the EU when, not if an EU Armed Forces came to fruition.

Since there are many in the StrongerIn and Remain camp who display a total sense of naivety where it concerns political and defence policy matters, and who are in complete and utter denial about the formation of an EU army, I would care to impart to them a prescient concern which is far greater than the UK leaving the EU.

Don’t just take my word for it, for what I am about to write. Listen to the professionals. Listen to Veterans for Britain, heed the words of Rear Admiral Roger Lane-Nott CB, Major-General Julian Thompson CB, OBE, General Sir Michael Rose KCB CBE DSO, QGM, Lt-Gen Jonathon Riley, Major-General Tim Cross CBE, Major-General Nick Vaux CB, DSO, Major-General Malcolm Hunt OBE, Rear Admiral Richard Heaslip CB, Rear Admiral Conrad Jenkin, Commodore Mike Clapp CB, Colonel Richard Kemp CBE and now included in that number Field Marshal Lord Charles Guthrie GCB, LVO, OBE, DL. Research these men and what they now say of the EU. You shall not only discover much bravery on their part but you shall also discover much reasoning and truth in the words they say.

To place the current dangers of the European Defence Agency and Article 42 in to context we must look to the past and the Cold War. Many of us are children of the atomic age. Born after the Second World War we grew up in a world that lived under a silent but constant threat of total annihilation during the Cold War with the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics opposing the West which included the USA and NATO members.

During this Cold War period, especially for many of us who grew up in the vicinity of, or indeed on military barracks, we were fully aware that we were all protected by the concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction” (MAD). A form of global peace was maintained, with both sides fully aware that in the event of a pre-emptive nuclear strike the other side would retaliate without fail with equal or greater force including the use of second-strike capability. The absolute guarantee that either side would retaliate with equal force brought parity to the Cold War and ensured an acceptable stalemate. It was only in Korea and Southeast Asia that the Cold War was able to turn “Hot” in any way, allowing opposing forces to `safely’ judge their foes combat abilities.

In the mean time, we were well versed in “Protect and Survive” public information films. But we never panicked. Living near military installations we were all aware that somewhere in Soviet Russia our areas would be targeted by ballistic missiles. But we also were aware that we were all under the protective envelope of professional NATO forces. Under the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) we were protected by the intercontinental bombers from the United States’ `Strategic Air Command’, we were protected by our own Royal Air Force and among others the Avro Vulcan bombers. By sea our Royal Navy deployed the Polaris programme, ensuring that four nuclear powered Resolution class ballistic missile submarines patrolled the seas. By counter-measure for anti-submarine warfare, the Royal Navy deployed long-range hunter-killer submarines to search for Soviet ballistic missile submarines. Ensuring our security, did not alone fall to the USA and the UK. That task was ensured by all NATO members, most notably Canada. We were eternally grateful to all the NATO personnel for their dedicated service and constant vigilance as they showed courageous acts of bravery and sacrifice.

During all that time of the Cold War NATO forces kept us safe. They ensured parity. The Soviet Union were aware if they had carried out a pre-emptive strike, those in command at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), the Allied Command Operations headquarters for NATO in Brussels under the Western European Union (WEU) would have been authorized in those circumstances to retaliate with immediate effect alongside the USA. Thus the stalemate of guaranteed “Mutual Assured Destruction” ensured peace.

Now all of those safeguards against any combative strike shall be gone. Thanks to the EU Army, or at the very least which even the Remainers can admit to, the joint EU defence policy of the European Defence Agency. Along with the EU Battlegroup this has guaranteed the marginalization of NATO within the EU.

These are precarious times. The administration of Barack Obama is currently more concerned with pressing matters in the Pacific Ocean, looking to the China Seas, China, North Korea and Southeast Asia rather than concentrating efforts towards Europe and NATO. Whoever the next Commander-in-Chief shall be, I doubt this outlook will alter very soon. At the same moment that President Obama berates NATO members from the EU for not achieving high enough levels of expenditure in their defence budgets towards NATO, these same EU states have directed this funding towards the European Defence Agency. While the power of NATO weakens and is siphoned off, so does the power of the EU’s own defences weaken. The EU army may already exist in the form of the EU Battlegroup but as each nation amalgamates its own forces in to the EU army the dilution is becoming so great to be considered a threat to our defence strategy.

As previously mentioned in my other articles, since 2013 Germany has begun the integration and amalgamation of its Deutsche Marine with the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Koninklijke Marine, including their respective Marine forces, the German Seebataillon and the Dutch Korps Mariniers, along with all submarine operations. Further to this, an 800 strong German army battalion will be integrated into the Dutch Navy. The collaboration between Germany and the Netherlands has seen over 2,000 Dutch soldiers from the 11th Airmobile Brigade (11 Luchtmobiele Brigade) integrated into the Rapid Forces Division (Division Schnelle Kräfte) of the German Bundeswehr. In future the 43rd Mechanized Brigade (Gemechaniseerde Brigade) of the Royal Netherlands Army will be integrated into the 1st Panzer Division (Bundeswehr Panzerdivision), but the Bundeswehr 414 Panzerbattalion has at this time already been merged with the Gemechaniseerde Brigade. Due to amalgamation all of these forces are therefore reduced in size and weakened due to less personnel and material. Nevertheless, all have been assigned to the EU Battlegroup and are conversely not a part of NATO forces.

Now we come to the most problematic and dangerous issues of the European Defence Agency. Under Article 42.2 of the Treaty of Lisbon:

“The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.”

 In the past where those in command of NATO at SHAPE could order an effective and immediate retaliation, is the European Defence Agency now in the position where all 28 members and 2 Presidents of the European Council need to be in unanimous agreement before a retaliatory strike can be made? This seems like a virtual impossibility. It is little wonder that in the six Yugoslav Wars fought from 1991 to 2001, conflicts fought on European soil; there was no presence from the EU in the Balkans. Not once. All intervening forces came from NATO and UN Peacekeeping Operations. Not a single presence from the EU due to a lack of unanimous agreement. This is just one example in a litany of many.

This is a grave concern and a very serious threat to our immediate safety. If European Defence Agency forces are not deployed by unanimous agreement then what may be the other options? It may be possible in future we shall witness the High Representative and the President of the European Council (both unelected in the positions they hold) take the executive decision to order a retaliate strike. To consider the possibility that either would hold sway over the Royal Navy’s Trident nuclear programme and their four nuclear powered Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines does not bear thinking about. By recent attitudes exhibited by the EU it would seem unlikely that their services would ever be deployed, no matter the circumstance. Worse still, all potential future threats to the EU will be aware of the impotence of the European Defence Agency and will perceive any EU concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction” (MAD) as moribund.

This weakness is a grave threat to global peace. To vote Brexit is the only way to ensure the long term survival of a strong NATO presence within Europe and maintain global peace. If the people of the UK vote to remain in the EU, HM Armed Forces shall ultimately be confined by the rules of Article 42. Operating within the EU Battlegroup, call it an EU army, call it a joint-operation, call it what you will; what it means is that our professional armed forces shall be bound up in the EU’s vanity project as they form their own army, therefore neutralizing the combat effectiveness of HM Armed Forces. In future we shall witness an EU army which focuses almost solely on internal crises, while simultaneously flag waving and marching on parade grounds to persuade the citizens of Europe that this army has any gravitas; at the same time they shall turn a blind eye to all external threats from outside of the EU.

While remaining within the EU, the UK shall be unable to influence future defence policies of the Common Security and Defence Policy or the European Defence Agency. It is only by leaving the EU, would the UK be able to influence the disastrous situation Europe now finds itself in. After Brexit the UK would at last regain a powerful voice within Europe to speak on behalf of NATO. Only after Brexit could the UK have enough power to influence the United States of America to once again look towards Europe and NATO. For NATO forces would be unable to operate effectively without the great input from the forces of the USA.

If you wish to preserve NATO to ensure the safety of ours and future generations the only solution for this is to choose Brexit and to vote leave on the 23rd June.

The End of the Status Quo

If you were to believe the mainstream media you would be under the apprehension that on Thursday 23rd June 2016 when you go to vote on the EU referendum, you either make the choice of voting to leave the EU and stepping in to the great unknown, or you choose the soft easy option by voting to remain within the EU, in effect choosing the status quo. This is a misapprehension, a complete fallacy.

Whatever the outcome is on the 23rd of June, come the 24th the economic, political and social landscape of the UK shall be irrevocably changed forever more. The EU referendum is that vitally significant. Whichever campaign wins the referendum, there will be change. The remain campaign promises a continuation of the status quo but they are impotent and will be unable to fulfil those promises. In reality those promises will be broken within weeks of the outcome of the referendum.

Come the 24th of June there will be no more status quo. All there shall be is the status quo ante, or the status quo antes even; either result shall draw a line in the sand to mark life in the UK before the 23rd and life in the UK afterwards. If the UK electorate vote to leave the EU the immediate future may indeed be less certain, an unknown quantity but at least the UK shall be in control of its own destiny. A future outside of the EU may be uncertain but the possibilities are endless; the aftermath from the status quo ante brings hope and a brighter future for the UK.

If the UK electorate vote to remain within the EU the future is certain but that future also brings change. Any voter who chooses to vote remain expecting the status quo will be in for a great shock. No matter how much they distance themselves from the leave voters the irrefutable truth is that they too are voting for an end to the status quo. Only this time the aftermath from the status quo ante, though a known quantity brings change over which the UK has no control whatsoever. By voting to remain YOU are giving consent to the EU, voting to accept the mandate of the EU and consenting to all of the EU edicts imposed upon the UK. Afterwards, the EU will see a remain victory in the referendum as an admission of complete acceptance of the EU from the British public. This consent will only further embolden the EU to accelerate and extend their mandate upon the UK.

As a member of the electorate if YOU vote for the UK to remain within the EU, you are misinformed if you believe you are voting for the status quo. YOU are voting for change whether you like it or not. If YOU vote to remain this is what you are voting for and giving your full consent to:

  1. YOU are giving your consent to the UK one day becoming a member of the United States of Europe.
  2. YOU are therefore giving your consent to the UK losing its sovereignty and nation status.
  3. YOU are giving your consent to members of the UK in future to refer to themselves as European as they will no longer be classed as British.
  4. YOU are giving your consent to the UK in future signing up to the Schengen Agreement.
  5. YOU are giving your consent to the UK in future sacrificing pounds sterling and adopting the Euro as its form of currency.
  6. YOU are giving your consent to the demise of the Commonwealth of Nations, British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies.
  7. YOU are giving your consent to the UK losing HM Armed Forces and agreeing to British subjects being enlisted in an EU Armed Forces under Article 42 of the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon (TEU).
  8. YOU are giving your consent to the UK allowing the EU to impose EU legislation upon the UK and for EU law courts to sit and convene on UK soil while holding precedence over UK courts, thus replacing the British rule of law with continental EU law.
  9. YOU are giving your consent to the UK adopting the US-EU trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
  10. YOU are therefore giving your consent to the UK in future privatising the NHS by adopting TTIP.

By voting to remain in the EU these are only the most vital areas of which YOU are complicit in giving your consent to. Whatever the mainstream media may tell you, YOU are voting for change.

There are of course those who claim they are voting to remain within the EU so as to retain the status quo for the immediate future in the hope that the federal dream of a United States of Europe will disintegrate, and after the fallout they hope the EU single market will be retained in its current state.

If the EU’s goal of a United States of Europe fails to come to fruition, then it shall only be due to a complete economic or social meltdown. Why would anyone place the UK in a scenario where this nation would be embroiled and enmeshed in such disruptive chaos? It would be far better for the UK to be outside of the EU if such a meltdown were ever to occur.

Either way, the aftermath from the status quo ante, be it remaining in the EU and becoming a member of the United States of Europe or being embroiled in an EU meltdown, neither of these are in any way favourable or welcome when compared to the aftermath of June 23rd and the UK regaining its sovereign independence from Brussels.

If YOU are contemplating or intending to vote to remain within the EU, I urge and implore you to utterly ignore all biased mainstream media. Instead carry out your own research and investigation on the EU referendum with an open mind. If you still decide to vote remain, then so be it but you may just change your opinion along the way. Just let that decision at the ballot box be YOUR choice.

The Armed Forces of the EU

In the run up to the EU referendum on the 23rd June there has been much talk in the media of the formation of an EU Armed Forces; if it will be formed, when shall the inception take place and has this process already begun?

Many of these answers can be found in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on European Union) and the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon (TEU) but the seeds for an EU Armed Forces were sown decades earlier. This vision could even be said to go as far back as Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet the fathers of the modern EU who laid down their vision in the Schuman Declaration in 1950.

In the modern EU, one of the most important moments was the meeting in Brussels in 2003 where France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg met and agreed on the formation of the “European Defence Initiative”, whereby the armed forces of each nation would in future work closer together in cooperation.

This meant reinforcing the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) which lead to the formation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Though both policies serve the same purpose, there are major and important differences in how they each go about achieving that goal.

Primarily it is the Treaty of Lisbon which has accelerated the immediate likelihood of seeing an EU Armed Forces come to fruition. The reasoning for this is at the Treaty of Lisbon under Article 42 it was agreed for the upcoming CSDP to pool the resources available to the European Defence Agency (EDA) and form a “Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence” within the EU. In effect this was the license granting the EU to form a combined EU Armed Forces enshrined as a directive in EU legislation. However, this is only possible because at the EU’s inception at the 1992 Maastricht Treaty (TEU) under Article J.4 it was agreed for the EU to form a common defence policy, with the aim to go on and form a common defence, i.e. the basis on which to form the inception for an EU Armed Forces. This proves unequivocally, since the very birth of the European Union in its current form in 1992, the desired goal has always been to see an EU Armed Forces and therefore their desired goal is also to see the EU transformed in to a single federal nation.

For this to come to fruition the Common Security and Defence Policy was required to supersede the European Security and Defence Policy. It is vital to understand the differences between the two. The main points of the ESDP are:

  • The ESDP though being of Europe was not operating under direct legislation from the EU.
  • The ESDP was enacted under the organisation of the Western European Union (WEU). Though the WEU’s Council and Assembly operated from a headquarters in Brussels, the organisation was in fact a part of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), the Allied Command Operations headquarters for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
  • The remit of the ESDP was enacted under NATO protocols.
  • In 1995 a European multinational rapid reaction force, the European Rapid Operational Force (Eurofor) was set up by the WEU. The deployment of Eurofor was a joint NATO and EU action.

By comparison the nature of the Common Security and Defence Policy brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon differs greatly to the previous European Security and Defence Policy. Those differences are:

  • The CSDP falls entirely under the jurisdiction of the European Union. NATO has no say and plays no part in the policy.
  • The WEU embedded in NATO was abolished to be replaced by the European Defence Agency (EDA) as early as 2004. The EDA is answerable solely to the EU Council and has no links with NATO. The EDA is responsible for a remit that covers everything from defence think-tanks to research and development, from operational planning to tactical deployment.
  • Eurofor the joint NATO and EU European multinational rapid reaction force was replaced by the EU Battlegroup (EU BG). Again, this EU Battlegroup is solely answerable to the Council of the European Union.

The EU Battlegroup is also complemented with the European Corps (Eurocorps), the European Gendarmerie Force (EUROGENDFOR or EGF), the European Maritime Force (Euromarfor or EMF) and the European Union Force (EUFOR). All are joint EU operations.

The process of implementing an EU Armed Forces has steadily increased apace twofold. Firstly, the EU member nations have the perfectly feasible excuse of citing joint collaboration being due to EU wide cuts in the defence budget. Therefore, they claim the only way these countries can maintain the same levels of defence is to work in partnership with other nations, each bringing together their own specialities, thus ensuring there is no wastage of funds due to duplication. At face value this seems perfectly feasible and sensible.

However, the EDA has completely removed all EU military operations from NATO. This was carried out under the pretext that the EU wished to ease the cost of the defence burdens placed upon the USA and Canada. Yet there is a hollow ring to this statement. The USA is constantly taking the European members of NATO to task for not spending enough on the NATO defence budget, indeed they are consistently berated for not achieving the correct levels of expenditure.

This tears apart the reasoning for joint collaboration being due to defence budget cuts, as now thanks to the EDA, many EU nations are now doubling up and deploying two armed forces, one to meet the needs of the Council of the European Union and one to fulfil the duties required by NATO, more so now with less joint deployments from the USA and Canada. It may even be possible to claim that the actions of the EDA are in fact weakening NATO Forces and placing NATO members in increased and unnecessary danger. This does not even take into account the extra duties required to be undertaken when carrying out UN Peacekeeping Operations.

Secondly, the implementation of an EU Armed Forces has steadily increased apace due to the recent migrant crisis within Europe. At present, the European Council and the European Commissioner have agreed to accelerate plans for an EU combined Coastguard and SAR service. The EU is citing the migrant crisis as another valid reason to speed up the formation of joint European Armed Forces.

Whatever pretexts the EU wishes to choose, the inescapable fact is that EU nations are experiencing an acceleration in the policy of amalgamating and merging military forces. As touched upon in an earlier article Britannia and Her Hearts of Oak, where I wrote:

“Since 2013 Germany has begun the integration and amalgamation of its Deutsche Marine with the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Koninklijke Marine, including their respective Marine forces, the German Seebataillon and the Dutch Korps Mariniers, along with all submarine operations…..”

Further to add to this, an 800 strong German army battalion will be integrated into the Dutch Navy. This battalion will be subordinate to the Dutch Navy until 2018. This is very interesting. One can only assume that the circumstances shall have changed after 2018. Will that battalion be reassigned elsewhere, or will they take precedence over the Dutch Navy afterwards? Or by 2018 will the presence of this Bundeswehr battalion in the Dutch Navy be a moot point due to the fact that an EU Armed Forces will already be in the processes of being formed?

For now this collaboration between Germany and the Netherlands has seen over 2,000 Dutch soldiers from the 11th Airmobile Brigade (11 Luchtmobiele Brigade) integrated into the Rapid Forces Division (Division Schnelle Kräfte) of the German Bundeswehr. In future the 43rd Mechanized Brigade (Gemechaniseerde Brigade) of the Royal Netherlands Army will be integrated into the 1st Panzer Division (Bundeswehr Panzerdivision), but the Bundeswehr 414 Panzerbattalion has at this time already been merged with the Gemechaniseerde Brigade. These troops are assigned to the EU Battlegroup.

Add to this the desire from the Deutsche Marine to create and take command of an EU combined Auxiliary Naval Fleet which would include the British Royal Navy. Also, the German Air Force, the Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr showing a keen interest in merging with the French Air Force, the Armée de l’air.

Where does this leave the British Armed Forces? It could be claimed that the British Armed Forces have been overstretched to beyond their full capacity. Currently, the British Armed Forces are deployed in order to defend the UK, the Commonwealth of Nations, the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies which have been discussed at length in my article Great Britain, the Commonwealth of Nations and the European Union. The British Armed Forces are also deployed in service as members of NATO, are a part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) along with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, also the UK Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) along with Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Norway, and also with France a member of the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF). Not forgetting of course the British Armed Forces commitments to UN Peacekeeping Operations.

While the forces of other nations within the EU may be in the process of becoming more specialised so that duplication can be avoided when merging forces, the British Armed Forces occupy a very different position. Once the Royal Naval is in possession of the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier and she is deployed with fixed-wing Joint Strike Fighter Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II aircraft, which is expected to be by 2020, the British Armed Forces will be in the position of being able to deploy every conceivable specialisation for any and all contingencies that may arise. The British Armed Forces, no matter how overstretched will be in that enviable position of being able to deploy a complete sovereign combat force at will. Very few armed forces in the world, never mind the EU can claim such a feat. The size and range of the British Armed Forces even in this reduced state must be a troublesome concern for those in the EU who wish to speed up the process of forming an EU Armed Forces.

So what future awaits the British Armed Forces? This rests entirely on whether the UK votes to remain or leave the EU. If the UK chooses to remain in the EU it is difficult to see beyond Article 42 and the “Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence”. No matter the protestations or denials from concerned parties, this can only mean unequivocally one day in the future the British Armed Forces will form a part of the EU Armed Forces. Like a society member invited to the ball, if you spend the entire evening at the ball, no matter how many times you refuse an excuse-me, eventually you’ll end up on the ballroom floor irrespective of your protestations. The same goes for the EU. So long as the UK remains a member of the EU, no matter how many times the British Armed Forces protest and refuse the offer to amalgamate and merge with foreign forces, one day in the future that opportunity to decline will be refused and by then it will be too late. The British Armed Forces will be on that path to becoming a part of an EU Armed Forces.

The problem today is that far too many people focus on the “here and now”, and so long as there are no immediate issues they are able to ignore any matters of concern. What must be remembered is that the “here and now” is completely and utterly irrelevant as far as the EU and defensive strategic planning are concerned. The founders of the EU had the foresight to see 50 to 60 years in to the future, to the present day of “now”. For those concerned with the EU, they must do so likewise and predict all of the eventual outcomes 60 years hence. How will the future EU Armed Forces look? What shall be the objectives of this EU Armed Forces? These are the questions that need to be asked.

There are many differing permutations to predict but it is difficult to envisage anything other than a dystopian future. It may be a case of fearing something that may never come to pass. It is quite possible in the future the German economy may overheat and the Eurozone collapses, leading to the end of the EU dream. But it is equally plausible that given time the EU or, certain nations of the EU will eventually go on to form a single federal nation.

Back to the present and near future. What are the possibilities of an EU Armed Forces being realised long before a single federal nation becomes an actuality? As German and Dutch Armed Forces are already merging, the chances of witnessing an EU Armed Forces sooner rather than later is all the more likely and inevitable.

Returning to the future possibilities of an EU Armed Forces, how will this affect the British Armed Forces?

  • Firstly, if the British Armed Forces are merged in to an EU Armed Forces this shall mean a loss of sovereignty of the British Armed Forces, which shall mean a loss of sole control of the UK’s defences and military deployment.
  • With the British Armed Forces merged in to a European-centric EU Armed Forces and with the loss of sovereign control over the British Armed Forces, the UK government shall be incapable of deploying a military force at will. This will inevitably leave the Commonwealth of Nations and British Overseas Territories exposed and in several cases undefended. To many this inability to continue the protection of those peoples shall be an unforgivable act of betrayal.
  • To save on defence expenditure the armed forces of member nations within the EU are specialising so, when these nations’ forces merge, duplicate resources are surplus to requirement. With that being the case, as the British Armed Forces are capable of deploying every kind of combat force whether by air, land or sea, it would seem inevitable when the British Armed Forces were merged in to an EU Armed Forces, so as to cut out duplication many of the British Armed Forces units and therefore their personnel would no longer be required.
  • Once the EU Armed Forces become a reality what shall become of what remains of the member nations own armed forces? It is difficult to envisage anything other than the EU viewing them as a perceived threat and rival to their own EU Armed Forces. If tolerated at all, at best these armed forces will be reduced in size and stature to little more than bit part players, akin to the USA’s National Guard at best.
  • Taking the last two points into account, with sections of the British Armed Forces merged in the new EU Armed Forces and any remaining residue either heavily constrained or stood down, there is the very real threat in future of massive job losses. The British Army was initially shaken to the core in the mid 2000’s when venerable regiments were reduced in size and amalgamated in to new smaller regiments. This will seem like window dressing compared to the potential future cuts. Right across the board covering the British Army, the RAF and Royal Navy, in future years the cuts to their budget may seem utterly incomprehensible when viewed in today’s world.

The future social integration and organisational structure of an EU Armed Forces must also be considered when in comparison to the British Armed Forces. For the majority of the population in Britain Her Majesty’s Armed Forces are beloved, respected and trusted; knowing that their service personnel bear allegiance to the Crown and have sworn an oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and by doing so are ensuring the protection of the people of Britain. For the main, British people feel safer when in the company or vicinity of members of HM Armed Forces. It is an inherent trait bred in to the psyche of the British population. As long as there is continuity with loyalty to the Crown, even non British forces earn the loyalty and trust of the British public, be they Australian, Canadian or New Zealand or based in the UK, the Brigade of Gurkhas. All are cherished and revered because they come with history and their track record of bravery and loyalty is legend.

For the British people we also know that by acting on behalf of the Crown, HM Armed Forces are representing a known quantity. Incumbent governments, their Prime Ministers and the sitting Cabinets along with Parliament as a whole may order deployments of the British Armed Forces in to combat, but these are all Ministers who have been directly elected by the British public. If mistakes are made they can become public knowledge and the British electorate hold the power to vote that incumbent government out of office. By comparison, the EU Armed Forces shall be deployed by the European Defence Agency (EDA) which is answerable to the European Council and therefore the unelected European Commission. This is all well and good for so long as the European Union remains in its current form. However, with dynamic entities such as the EU their processes are not set in stone, they are fluidic, always vulnerable to change and once a single federal nation comes to pass they may be subject to pressures from political forces who wish to exploit these weaknesses.

In the far and distant future who knows how much power shall be gained or rescinded by the European Council, Parliament or Commission? In a European single federal nation how much sovereign power will be yielded by its incumbent President? In the future, no matter how small, is there a plausible possibility in this European single federal nation of a tyrannical despot being swept to power as the President of a continent sized nation? If so, and they are able to deploy the armed forces of the federal nation at the will of their whims then British personnel serving in those armed forces shall be held prisoner to give sway to those whims and allow themselves to be deployed in to combat wherever their President deems necessary. Granted this is a vision of a dystopian future at the extreme end of the scale but there is no reason to dismiss this outcome out of hand, as one day in the distant future it may potentially become an actuality.

Lastly, what of the dynamics of the structure of an EU Armed Forces? Which nation or nations shall take precedence over the other nations, if any? Will the merging of forces be biased towards enabling a structural system to be built around a single federal nation? If this is the case, in future how shall battalions be deployed and how shall their ranks be filled? Will there come a day when Dutch-German battalions are based on British soil in the same manner as British and US military bases operating from West Germany? If in this future there is mass civil unrest could we potentially witness non British personnel being deployed on to British streets in British cities to quell the people?

Or rather, if the EU Armed Forces are to be biased towards enabling a structural system to be built around a federal nation, does this mean in future so as to dilute the ideals of national identity at a state level will the EU Armed Forces operate on a level akin to the French Foreign Legion? In future when young hopefuls present themselves to their local army recruitment officer, will there be every possibility that new recruits shall be expected to complete their basic training in another member state to make them feel more European?

If in future personnel of the British Armed Forces are required to pledge an oath of allegiance to the President of a federal nation rather than to the Crown would this guarantee a drop in new recruits? If so and if this were to be mirrored by other nations would a federal Europe out of necessity be forced to bring about federal wide conscription? Of course there are far more questions to be asked than there are answers on the formation of an EU Armed Forces.

If the electorate of Great Britain decide to vote to remain in the EU on the 23rd June, there is every chance in the coming years thanks to Article 42 of the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon (TEU) and the “Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence”, that HM Armed Forces shall be merged and lost to the EU Armed Forces.

However, as one EU Article seeks to remove the sovereignty of the British Armed Forces and the sovereignty of Great Britain, there is another EU Article which can restore that lost sovereignty. Under Article 50 of the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon (TEU): “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”

It is as if Brussels and the other members of the EU have always realised that Article 42 would be far too bitter a pill for the British Armed Forces and her nation to swallow. Being amalgamated and merged in to an EU Armed Forces or a European single federal nation would prove to be more than a step too far. For this very scenario, solely for the British, the EU appears to have created Article 50 so that Great Britain can escape the clutches of Article 42. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth; embrace this offer from the EU graciously and on the 23rd June vote to leave the EU and vote for Brexit!

 

Britannia and Her Hearts of Oak

Si vis pacem, para bellum – “If you want peace, prepare for war”

Every nation has the sovereign right to self-determination. In order for this to be so, there are times when force is required to protect and maintain the sovereignty and self interests of that nation. For this to be achieved that sovereign nation has a need for their own armed forces, kept independent from exterior influence from other nations.

Britain an island nation has always relied heavily upon her navies. The Royal Navy, unbowed, unbeaten, her Jolly Tars with hearts of oak forever keeping Britons safe from peril. The Royal Navy has done so, giving over 350 years of service.

In spite of the best efforts and intentions from the Royal Navy, how long this continues to be so remains to be seen. The fact must be accepted that recent policies of the British government have been equally if not more harmful to our armed forces than any edict from the EU. In the past 10 years there has been some very short-sighted and ill-conceived policies for our armed forces, most notable the Royal Navy.

Since the 2008 global recession the government has sought to cut the budget deficit. Even though there were defence cuts at the time, it was after the 2010 general election the defence budget became “fair game” and the pips have been squeezed thereafter. The Royal Navy was the only division of the armed forces to have the foresight to commission their own full internal audit before the election. Better for skilled surgeons to act and cut away the excess rather than having a butcher hack at the marrow. The Royal Navy with their audit complete were able to show the MoD the minimum strengths needed in order to be an operational force. By some perversity, in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review it turned out that the largest defence cuts would be placed upon the Royal Navy. For all their efforts the butcher had arrived with his block and he was going to cut to the bone.

This is nothing new. It has been ever thus. As is often quoted, history does have a tendency to repeat itself. Wishing to cut budget deficits but unable to make the figures tally, the defence budget, never popular with large ranks of the general public is always the soft, easy, go to target. Be it the build up to World War II, countless actions thereafter up to the Falklands War and beyond. Many of these conflicts may have been avoided if a visible show of force had remained a constant presence. The short-sighted view, the easy option tends to always win the day so, incumbent governments by appeasing the masses take the cleaver to the defence budget. It is only ever in the long-term that these decisions prove to be erroneous. Only in the aftermath and with hindsight once the butcher’s bill of the dead and wounded has been paid, once the true cost of rushed logistics and materials has been tallied, only then is the true cost realised. The government cries out “Never again!” in the aftermath. But there always is and there always shall be.

When it comes to botched implementations while showing little foresight, one of the best examples of a bungled policy in post 2010 defence cuts was the rushed decommissioning of the Invincible class light aircraft carriers, chiefly HMS Ark Royal (R07) in 2011. The Invincible class have served the Royal Navy with distinction. HMS Invincible (R05), the namesake of her class, laid down in 1973 and launched in 1977 was one of the carriers present during the Falklands War. It should be noted at this time, before the Falklands War in 1982 the British government were planning to sell HMS Invincible to the Royal Australian Navy. This short-sightedness along with Defence Secretary John Nott’s flawed plan to withdraw the Royal Navy ice patrol vessel HMS Endurance from Antarctic patrol in the South Atlantic were contributing factors for the Argentinean invasion of South Georgia and the subsequent invasion of the Falkland Islands. Additional cuts to the Royal Navy in Nott’s 1981 Defence White Paper included the scrapping of HMS Hermes (R12), a Centaur class conventional aircraft carrier laid down in 1944 but still operational in 1981 she served as the British flagship during the Falklands War. Surviving the war she still survives to this day serving the Indian Navy. Yet again short-sighted defence cuts led to a cost that was eventually far greater than many could have realised at the time.

The other sister ship to HMS Invincible and HMS Ark Royal in the class was HMS Illustrious (R06), laid down in 1976 and launched in 1978. It was “Lusty” who relieved “Vince” in the Falklands after the war. “The Mighty Ark” was laid down in 1978, launched in 1981 but not commissioned until 1985. From 1986 onwards the Royal Navy had access to 3 Invincible class light aircraft carriers and at their time of decommission each was capable of carrying either 12 British Aerospace Harrier II GR.7/9 vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) jet aircraft along with 10 Westland Sea King helicopters and AgustaWestland Merlin helicopters or carrying a compliment of 18 Harriers and 4 Sea Kings and Merlins. Each carrier was capable of carrying approximately 22 aircraft. The class also had the capability of carrying a compliment of 500 Royal Marines.

HMS Invincible, the carrier which had seen distinguished action in the Falklands War was the first to see her demise. After a recent and extensive refit, HMS Invincible was decommissioned in 2005 and effectively mothballed. In 2011 she was sold to Turkey as scrap, an ignominious end and a tragedy for such a distinguished vessel. HMS Ark Royal was decommissioned in 2011 and in 2013 she suffered the same ignominious end as “Vince” being sold to Turkey as scrap. This left us with “Lusty”.

In 2010 HMS Illustrious was operational but without any fixed-wing aircraft capable of flying from her. In 2010 under the defence cuts all British Aerospace Harrier II GR.7/9 (V/STOL) jet aircraft were retired early from service. The Sea Harrier had already been retired early from service in 2006. Pleas to retire the RAF’s Panavia Tornado in place of the Harrier fell on deaf ears, in spite of the Royal Air Force operating the Eurofighter Typhoon. Since 2010 this has left the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Navy without any combat ready (V/STOL) fixed-wing aircraft capable of operating from an aircraft carrier.

All of these decommissions were unplanned and rushed. In place of the Invincible class carriers were to be 2 carriers of the new Queen Elizabeth class. It is to be assumed that the planned changeover from the Invincible to Queen Elizabeth class was expected to have been a synchronised overlap, ensuring that the UK had a seamless constant protection with deployed aircraft carriers and fixed-wing aircraft. Thanks to short-sighted and short-term thinking this has been far from the truth. Defence cuts have turned this whole affair into a fiasco and a potentially dangerous one at that.

Over the last 6 years the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Navy have lacked any combat ready fixed-wing aircraft, leaving them with only helicopter tactical support. This is where excessive and rushed defence cuts turned to fiasco and indecision. In 2009 aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) of the same class was laid down. Launched in 2014 the vessel is currently being fitted out and is expected to be commissioned in 2017 and to enter into service in 2020. The sister carrier HMS Prince of Wales (R09) was laid down in 2011 and is under construction, expected to be launched some time next year in 2017 to potentially be commissioned in 2020 and enter service in 2023.

These are the current plans, for now. With so much indecision due to the defence cuts it is difficult to predict what the final outcome will be. After the 2010 general election the situation was complicated by the decommissioning of Invisible class carriers and the retirement of all British Aerospace Harrier II GR.7/9 (V/STOL) jet aircraft. The Harrier was expected to be in service until at least 2018 and similar to the RAF’s Tornado was expected to be operational long past its intended date of retirement. A future decision that was not expected to be taken until 2020 was decided a decade earlier. So what aircraft was the MoD going to operate on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers? Were the aircraft carriers even going to be completed?

The MoD had a firm contract with BAE Systems Maritime to build 2 carriers. At a similar time the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod, a maritime patrol aircraft in service from 1969 was retired in 2011, while its successor the BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 after huge investment had already been cancelled in 2010. In 2011 it proved less expensive to break up the aircraft already manufactured. So the Nimrod could be added to the casualties along with the Harrier. With the same mindset of cutting the defence budget, plans for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers seemed to constantly change by the week. One option was to build both carriers then sell them to other nations, another option was to retain the Queen Elizabeth and cancel the laying down of the Prince of Wales, which due to costs changed to retain the Queen Elizabeth and build the Prince of Wales only to have it scrapped with immediate effect. Then it became retain the Queen Elizabeth, build the Prince of Wales and mothball the carrier before the fitting out, to now the possibility of seeing both carriers being commissioned.

The fiasco doesn’t end there, with more decisions to make. What multirole fighter aircraft will operate from these carriers? With the Harriers retired from service it was decided they would be replaced by the Joint Strike Fighter Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Which variant model would be chosen? The United States Navy have and continue to operate different variants of the Harrier Jump Jet, mostly operated by the United States Marine Corps (USMC). Fixed-wing fighter aircraft operating off US Navy aircraft carriers use the conventional CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) launch system, where a steam catapult is used in launching the aircraft from the flight deck and upon landing the aircraft’s tailhook is used to catch steel cables stretched across the flight deck to decelerate the aircraft using this “Arresting Gear” mechanical system. If a CATOBAR system were used for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers this would place them on a more similar footing to the US Nimitz-class supercarriers, though certainly not in the same league. The initial purchase of the F-35C carrier-based fighter would be less expensive but it would mean operating the CATOBAR system and adapting the class to accommodate the steam catapult system.

The tried and tested method for the Royal Navy in recent decades has been that of the Harrier, a V/STOL (vertical and/or short take-off and landing) aircraft operating as a STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing) aircraft using vectored thrust. To retain this system would require the more expensive initial purchase of the F-35B STOVL aircraft. For technical and safety reasons the intended plan of the Royal Navy for the F-35B is to operate a SRVL (Shipborne rolling vertical landing) system, effectively turning a vertical landing into a CATOBAR landing minus the arresting gear.

Even past the final hour there was indecision. From the beginning both Queen Elizabeth class carriers were intended to operate a variant of the STOVL Harrier. This plan changed to HMS Queen Elizabeth operating STOVL aircraft but HMS Prince of Wales would be converted to operate the CATOBAR configuration. This would mean procuring both F-35C and F-35B variants. This option then proved to be too costly and the decision was reversed, cancelling all work on incorporating CATOBAR and requiring the need for a STOVL ski-jump ramp. The eventual outcome is the MoD will procure the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II variant. However, even this outcome is not final. The future has been left open where either or both carriers could one day be refitted for CATOBAR.

I am not going to discuss whether the MoD have made the correct decision or not in choosing the F-35, or if they have chosen the correct variant. What can be stated is that the F-35 is well behind schedule and is coming in well over budget. The F-35B is even farther behind schedule than the other variants. This could also be claimed for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. What this does mean, if all goes to schedule, is that the Royal Navy and Great Britain from 2010 to 2020 will have gone an entire decade without the capability of deploying into combat an aircraft carrier equipped with fixed-wing fighter jets. If by 2020 and HMS Queen Elizabeth is operational, able to deploy 24 F-35B’s into combat and in the remaining intervening years their use has not been required then we can by the Grace of God say that Great Britain and her armed forces were most fortunate.

How has the Royal Navy managed in these intervening years? HMS Invincible and HMS Ark Royal were both scrapped so, what of HMS Illustrious? In 2010 as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review it was decided to decommission either the light aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious or the amphibious assault ship HMS Ocean (L12), their survival dependent upon which vessel would make the most viable helicopter platform. That turned out to be HMS Ocean. Even after a multi-million pound refit, HMS Illustrious despite being deployed on duty as a helicopter carrier was withdrawn from service in 2014 and is laid up at this time. As the last of the Invincible-class light aircraft carriers in existence, “Lusty” will be preserved for the nation. At least, that is the current plan. There is every chance that “Lusty” will eventually face the same ignominious end as HMS Invincible and HMS Ark Royal, being sold to Turkey as scrap.

Having read this far, by now I am sure you are wondering, what has any of this to do with Europe, the European Union or the upcoming EU referendum? After all, the only organisations mentioned so far that are open to criticism are the British governments and the MoD. The answer to this comes in several parts.

I could have written about many of the other defence cuts made to the Royal Navy and the other armed forces but I wished to specifically write about aircraft carriers being able to deploy combat ready fixed-wing fighter jets, to show as an example. It is a commonly accepted opinion in modern naval warfare that the quality of aircraft carriers in a naval fleet is paramount to its superiority at sea. They are the flagships of the modern navy. Ever since the decisive Battle of Midway, in June 1942 when the United States Navy took on and beat the might of the Japanese Imperial Navy in the Pacific Theatre, during World War II it has proven the vital importance and necessity of being able to deploy carriers and their aircraft during naval engagements. This fact remained a constant right up to 1982, where HMS Hermes (16 British Aerospace Sea Harriers) and HMS Invincible (12 BAE Sea Harriers) proved to be utterly vital in the Falklands War. To the present day aircraft carriers have had a vital role to play in major navies.

The Falkland Islands and the ghosts of that war play a major role in this piece and to the history of the modern Royal Navy. Hermes and Invincible were not alone. Despatched to the Falklands Conflict as a Task Force, the fleet was comprised of 127 ships, which consisted of 43 Royal Navy vessels, 22 from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and 62 merchant ships, including the 2 aircraft carriers already mentioned. Even then, in 1982 a much reduced Royal Navy to what it once had been was required to requisition merchant shipping in order to complete the task. Now, nearly 35 years later, the Royal Navy is in a far sorrier state. The Royal Navy while awaiting the 2 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers has been reduced to 19 surface vessels; 6 destroyers and 13 frigates currently in service and even these are undermanned. It was a stretch for the Royal Navy to form a Task Force in 1982, today it would be nigh impossible to do so again at such speed.

Militarily, the first of many reasons for the UK leaving the EU is for the UK to bring an end to the exorbitant payments of hundreds of millions of pounds to the EU each and every week. With extra funds freed up from Brexit the MoD could consolidate the current position of the Royal Navy and armed forces before looking to expand the armed forces into an actual viable operating force.

Returning to the aircraft carriers, while the Royal Navy carrier-less awaits the arrival of HMS Queen Elizabeth and the Royal Navy is without any combat ready fixed-wing fighter aircraft support, the French Navy are in a very different position. The Marine Nationale has the luxury of being able to deploy their aircraft carrier the Charles de Gaulle (R91), an equivalent Nimitz-class nuclear powered supercarrier operating a CATOBAR configuration. As mentioned earlier, the Royal Navy’s plans are for the F-35B’s on the Queen Elizabeth class to operate a SRVL (Shipborne rolling vertical landing) system. To test this method a development program using a QinetiQ VAAC (Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control) Harrier was carried out. Despite running tests on HMS Illustrious the Royal Navy was placed in the embarrassing position of having to approach the Marine Nationale for the QinetiQ Harrier to have access to run trials on the Charles de Gaulle. This is not so surprising to discover considering the amount of joint NATO exercises and deployments. The Royal Navy, since the retirement of all British Aerospace Harrier II GR.7/9 (V/STOL) jet aircraft from service in 2010 has been, and still is at the complete mercy and whim of the French Navy, the French government and the EU if the British government ever require the need of naval fixed-wing fighter aircraft support. If the British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands were to be tested now, it would be doubtful if either the EU or the French government would be compliant in agreeing to send a joint task force including the Charles de Gaulle to the Falkland Islands. With no naval air support such a venture by the Royal Navy would be untenable.

With so many EU members operating in joint military exercises it comes as little surprise that so many people hold the misapprehension that these are EU exercises and missions. In reality these are joint NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) operations; for now. Canada and the United States are NATO members and if the UK were to leave the EU it would still be a member of NATO so, there would be no increased threat to British defence if it were to leave the EU. In reality with released funds from leaving the EU, the UK could increase funds spent upon British defence.

Increasingly, it appears that NATO exercises and deployments within Europe are being reassigned (if only unofficially) as joint EU exercises. At the same time there is constant talk of an EU combined army, air force, navy, coastguard/SAR (search and rescue) and police force operating within a single nation federal Europe. There is even the possibility of this coming in to effect long before the EU witnesses a single nation federal Europe.

With recent events that have concerned the borders of the EU, the European Council and the European Commissioner have already agreed to accelerate plans for a EU combined coastguard and SAR service. This potentially means in future the UK’s MCA (Maritime & Coastguard Agency) will at first be answerable to, and then at the disposal of the EU, before a possible absorption in to an EU wide Coastguard Agency.

This is just the beginning. Plans are afoot, once the EU referendum has been held and the expected “remain” vote wins, the EU will set in motion the plans for a new EU combined Auxiliary Naval Fleet that involves the participation of vessels from the already depleted Royal Navy. It is expected for the German Navy, the Deutsche Marine to take command of this fleet. This may start off as a small flotilla but this is only the first phase. Since 2013 Germany has begun the integration and amalgamation of its Deutsche Marine with the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Koninklijke Marine, including their respective Marine forces, the German Seebataillon and the Dutch Korps Mariniers, along with all submarine operations, with the German contingent taking precedence. By this reasoning the eventual outcome shall be the complete absorption of the Koninklijke Marine in to the Deutsche Marine. Neither navy is what it once was in strength and there are many reasons for both nations finding this an attractive option by taking this route. With this in mind, the reasoning behind the new EU Auxiliary Naval Fleet becomes more apparent. It will begin with a small flotilla, a gesture at first, then it will expand in to a fleet, eventually comprising of an entire EU Naval Fleet. It would only be a matter of time before these navies were amalgamated and absorbed in to a single EU Naval Fleet commanded by some form of Deutsche Marine in another EU guise. The navies of France, Italy and the rest of Europe may find this to be a cost effective and prudent step to take but it would be catastrophic for the British Royal Navy to take this route.

I have also in previous pieces mentioned the EU’s desire to one day witness a single nation federal Europe bound together fiscally, legislatively, economically, politically and socially. I should of course also added bound together militarily as well. With plans already begun for an EU Coastguard and Naval Fleet, it seems we shall not be required to wait until we witness a single nation federal Europe in order for us to bear witness to an EU combined armed forces. The EU may be a two-tier behemoth split by the Eurozone, the UK may not be in the Euro, nor in the Schengen Agreement for that matter, but it seems increasingly likely that shall be of little consequence; whether desired or not within the next 2 to 4 decades the only armed forces that shall exist on UK and EU soil are those who march in step under the EU flag.

Other member nations of the EU may be comfortable with this absence of military sovereignty, willing participants who are content to see their air forces, armies and navies completely absorbed in to an EU combined force. If the UK were to comply with this in the future, losing sovereign control of the RAF, British Army and the Royal Navy would prove to be catastrophic for not only Great Britain and her armed forces but also potentially catastrophic for many other nations.

As I have written in earlier pieces on this blog, particularly “The EU, Commonwealth of Nations and Crown Dependencies” and “Sovereignty“, it has been shown that the UK has many great commitments and obligations to uphold outside of the EU and its remit. One of those obligations is to protect the Commonwealth and the 14 British Overseas Territories (BOT) once known as British Crown Colonies which include South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands along with the Falkland Islands. A duty of care is offered to these Overseas Territories to grant their sovereignty and protect their freedoms. If the Royal Navy were in future absorbed in to an EU Naval Fleet these duties of care would become an impossibility to uphold. The same could be said of the duties of the RAF and British Army. There would be no reason to believe that the other EU members would allow or permit their forces to become embroiled in the UK’s concerns of the Commonwealth or British Overseas Territories.

This shall be the great tragedy that will unfold. This is not so much a danger of the present but a very real and possible threat writ large in our future. It should be the moral duty of our politicians and high ranking military to forewarn fellow Britons and members of the Commonwealth and British Overseas Territories of the impending dangers that are looming ahead if the UK chooses to remain within the EU. Those territories that are the most vulnerable and placed in a position of the greatest danger must surely be those in the South Atlantic, namely the Falkland Islands. If in future the British armed forces are permitted to become ensnared and absorbed in to an EU combined armed forces, this shall be nothing but an open invitation to Argentina to use coercion, whether it be by armed force or diplomatic and political delegation to gain sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Naturally this would be a devastating and disturbing outcome for the Falkland Islanders themselves but it would also be a terrible blow to those brave servicemen who were present in 1982. Shall all those servicemen lost in the conflict have fought, bled and paid the ultimate sacrifice in vain? Shall all those who were severely injured, maimed and scarred both physically and mentally for life, be told that all their pain and suffering endured ever since was for nought?

The UK is on the verge of taking a path of no return; if the electorate of their own volition decide to vote to remain within the EU, they shall be complicit in not only betraying the service personnel of our current and future armed forces but also of betraying the memory of past combatants and the armed services themselves. Those who vote to remain within the EU, thus placing British Overseas Territories, the Commonwealth and in future, possibly Britain herself in perilous danger will leave a tainted stain upon this nation which may never be washed clean.

Those who vote for Brexit; who vote to leave the EU in future shall be remembered as having done a service to their nation, having carried out their duty and paid their respects to the Crown, the British armed forces and to Great Britain herself.

On Thursday 23rd June we can all become “Hearts of Oak” for Britannia, the Royal Navy and HM armed forces by voting to leave the EU.