EU wants our overseas bases

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by wavijunk, Mar 31, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. "Member States need speed up their efforts to reform, amalgamate and put in place the necessary functional
    and geographic structures for the protection of European S.L.o.C.s. and to expand the E.U.’s geographical
    and geostrategic reach.
    Key to these structures are the overseas military installations of the E.U. Member States. These facilities,
    spread out across the world—and concentrated in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans—form part of a far broader
    set of geographic, political, economic and strategic dynamics, namely the delivery of a credible E.U. ‘forward
    presence’ (i.e. regional presence, overseas basing, expeditionary military capabilities, and logistical
    supply systems, etc.) in regions surrounding the E.U., or along critical S.L.o.C.s linking the E.U. homeland
    to the multiple different nodes and points of the global economy. In an increasingly multipolar world, placing
    a renewed focus on these military facilities is a pressing European priority, particularly in an age of increasing
    geopolitical competition along the coastal littoral of Eurasia."
    1

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/organes/sede/sede_20090330_1500.htm


    Read, digest and spew forth thy venom :)
     
  2. If they are willing to help fund these expensive global assets, then I can only see it as in Britain's interests to allow the EU to use them. In the current financial climate, it could end up the case that the UK cannot afford to maintain such an international presence alone.

    Still, it does pull at the heart strings a little.
     
  3. How about if they help out in Afghanistan first...
     
  4. "as the E.U. assumes a
    wider role in the security and defence of the entire bloc, institutional reforms will be required so that it
    can handle the new and demanding tasks. One of these may be for Britain and France to transfer the
    maintenance and upkeep of their military installations to a central institution, funded by all of the Member
    States."
    "Britain, in particular, has under
    construction two new 65,000 tonne ‘pocket supercarriers’. The sheer size and capability of these vessels
    will provide the Royal Navy—and potentially, the E.U.—with a greatly enhanced expeditionary and maritime power projection capability."

    So they want our new carriers aswell....bit cheeky seeing as they aren't even built yet :lol:
     
  5. My Bold.

    Well there we are then; it's official.

    Arguably, the French have the most to "share". Will they notice, though? having had their posessions under the control of others so frequently.
     
  6. After they start taking part and taking a fair share of the work in all active theatres of conflict.....and then only on probation.

    This is another thin edge of another wedge :idea:
     
  7. Where do we have all these overseas bases. Falklands, a bit left in Gib, Cyprus and ?????????????????????????????

    Diago Garcia Rent out to the Sceptics. All the rest shut down many years ago.

    Nutty
     
  8. Looks like Scotland will be taken over by the Sprouting Brussels then. ;)
     
  9. Ooooooooooooo. I forgot the EU will not recognise or have anything to do with Gib so as not to upset the Spanish. So thats another base they cannot use.

    Nutty
     
  10. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

  11. Edited for being a mong
     
  12. Uhmm!!!! :D I do believe the MoD has a sense of humour 8O April fools day and all :p
     
  13. Has it occurred to you that the political leaders of other countries may have more sense than our current incumbents?
    Afghanistan is a lost cause, look at history, we didn't achieve anything the last time we got into a conflict there and we will not achieve our aims this time.
    Pull our troops out. Secure our borders and the drug trafficking routes and we may get somewhere in stopping the drugs trade.
    We are loosing far too many young lives on an hopeless mission. How many polititions have family fighting in Afghanistan?
     
  14. Slimbo do you mean by 'our' borders the UK borders?
    The reason that the UK is not member of the Schengen agreement is that we are not capable or willing to do that. Indeed with such a large coastline it may not be possible.
    Here in Spain with a much smaller Med coastline and massive resources at its disposal the Guardia Civil cannot stop raft loads of poor buggers being washed up on the beaches. Let alone stop the drugs tooing and froing from the thousands of kilometres of river inlets in Galicia; the staging post for most of the drugs that enter the UK, a lot via Ireland.
    This force has more than 50 craft, and 60 aircraft at its' disposal on a around the clock basis, and more are on the way.
     
  15. Yes I do mean our borders.
    It would be a big job but shipping can be tracked, electronic equipment can be fitted at ports and airports to detect illicit cargo. What I do not want to see is any more bodies of brave men and women being returned to our shores.
     
  16. Agree totally with the last sentence....
     
  17. This is OK for large shipping, I think we would need a rather more sophisticated system to track small boats bringing drugs into the country though.
    I'm sure that with modern technology it is not impossible.
     
  18. Good luck trying, at least with your coastline South of Scotland, you may have a chance, anything North and forget it, there are far too many entry points to keep an active eye on, trust me, we (Canada) have the largest coastlines of any country and we can't keep them all out, the Eastern Seaboard is like a sieve, lots of little estuary's and coves to pull ashore from a mother ship waiting outside the limit...
     
  19. The source appears to be corrupted so I've not been able to read it in context. In practice the EU C2 structure, in the same way as NATO, is dependent on the provision of resources from the constituent countries. There is no standing EU force, and no formal aspiration to have one. Once you start unpicking the material there is a very clear assumption of ongoing donor reliance.

    I'd also say that this discussion paper appears to be more about potential beneficial use of any strategic facility, not specifically our overseas one. That said, the main threat is on the southern edge of Europe, from a maritime perspective that's where the majority of people trafficking, narcotics and arms smuggling is going on.

    I'd see this manifesting as an entitlement to draw on the existing logistic footprint, rather than taking over and rebadging. similar to what goes on now anyway.

    Just to get the usual suspects foaming at the mouth, Northwood is an EU HQ at the moment ;)
     

Share This Page