eurealist.co.uk

I supposes this will come under the heading of anti-European Press, or as I prefer to call it informing the public about what is happening, something that happens rarely in the British media. Is there not something treasonous in allowing our armed forces to come under the control of a foreign power? Oh but silly me but did not Tony Blair get rid of all the treason acts in 1998. (talk about protecting your own back)
The Telegraph
Save us from an EU army
(Filed: 22/11/2004)
What else has to happen to convince our politicians that an EU army is not a threat but a reality? It was five years ago that Romano Prodi told a newspaper: “If you don’t want to call it a European army, fine. You can call it Margaret, you can call it Mary-Ann.” Yet we are still in denial. The Tory defence spokesman, Nicholas Soames, speaks rather touchingly of the need for “any EU defence contribution” to be “under the Nato umbrella”.
Tony Blair, in the run-up to the signing of the EU constitution, declared that autonomy in the field of defence was one of Britain’s “red lines”. Already, though, forces with EU cap-badges are patrolling Macedonia and the Congo. In 10 days’ time, the EU will deploy 7,000 soldiers in Bosnia. These troops are answerable, not to Nato, nor to any national capital, but to the EU’s politico-military structures.
Lest any doubt remain, Article 15 of the proposed European Constitution reads, “The Common Foreign and Security Policy shall cover all aspects of foreign policy and all questions relating to Europe’s security” (our italics). As we report today, Britain will join a new 3,000-strong EU Elite Strike Force (each of these three words flirting with the Trades Descriptions Act).
Do not make the mistake of thinking that the CFSP affects only such troops as are explicitly seconded to EU command. On the contrary, European law dictates whom the MoD may hire: yesterday’s news dwelt on the ruling that 8,000 Commonwealth Servicemen would be obliged to take British nationality without mentioning the reason - that European law forbids us to discriminate in favour of “third country nationals”.
It lays down our disciplinary procedures, forcing us to use civil law rather than courts martial. It tells us whom we may fire: a judgment five years ago held that women who left the Services as a result of becoming pregnant must be compensated in defiance of the terms of their contracts. And, worst of all, it distorts our defence procurement, emphasising pan-European defence schemes, such as the ludicrous Eurofighter, over more cost-effective projects.
Snip

There are good reasons why we should co-operate with our European allies on defence matters. We are already doing so: British troops are currently active in, among other things, an Anglo-French air corps, an Anglo-Italian rapid reaction force and an Anglo-Dutch amphibious unit. None of these required EU intervention: all were agreed bilaterally. What is unfolding is qualitatively different from such collaboration.
We are in the process of creating an autonomous EU military capacity separate from Nato and above any single nation-state. For Tony Blair, it is a handy way to demonstrate his European credentials while remaining outside the single currency. But, for the rest of us, it means that our true strategic interests - and, in particular, our alliances with other free, English-speaking nations - are being tossed aside for the sake of Euro-dogma.