Saturday, 26 November 2011

Anglo-French military alliance: back door to EU army?

Gone are the days when France was a proud, independent nation. It was indeed symbolic when the poisonous Sarko took France into Nato. He may as well go piss on De Gaulle's grave while he's at it.

But what are we to make of the cosy new relationship between the British and French governments with regard to making war? Is this the way they choose to smokescreen the military clauses in the EU empire? Far better to sell the public that this is a continuation of the old 'entente cordiale' than reveal that it is one of the last remaining sovereign rights that must be gathered into the collectivist hive.

Having said that, I should point out I'm no more a fan of our membership of Nato than I am of the EU, now that it has transformed itself from a defensive alliance to an activist world policeman.

Elsewhere in the Graun piece, I read:

The summit will be held the week before the European Council heads of government meet formally to discuss plans for EU treaty change from Sarkozy and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, designed to strengthen central surveillance of countries' fiscal positions. These include European court of justice-enforced penalties for countries carrying excessive deficits.

The French have been trying to delay treaty talks, but may have to succumb to German demands in return for Berlin's co-operation on the development of eurobonds. A meeting this week between Sarkozy and Merkel appeared to agree on some form of treaty change.

Sarkozy is anxious to understand the British bottom line on what powers it would seek to renegotiate if limited treaty change within the euro-zone were sought. There have been hints that Britain would limit its demands to changes to the working time directive.

I think I can help Sarko out here. Britain doesn't have a bottom line. The Tory half of the current government may require something to wave to their deluded sheep-like, Stockholm-syndromed followers, but the British government will not require any substantial bribe, because they are true-believers in the EU project, and any significant change would force them into revealing their 'referendum lock' was made out of the same metal as Cameron's 'cast-iron guarantee' - i.e. tin foil.

2 comments:

Angry Exile said...

NATO should have been dissolved or at least reduced once the USSR broke up. It had a job for decades and when that job suddenly didn't need to be done anymore it started casting around for something else to do.

Single acts of tyranny said...

I agree entirely, when the Warsaw pact ended, and with it, any credible military threat to the UK, we should have said, thanks for the memories boys, by the way, you no longer have a raison d'etre, do the maths.