Despite 'Brexit' Our Future National Security is Compromised.

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Despite 'Brexit' Our Future National Security is Compromised.
« on: February 23, 2019, 11:41:23 AM »
This is a worrying facet of what this treasonous woman /May and her Tawdry Party Remainers are up to!
From: Bill & Ann
Why is Britain secretly going to sign up to the EU taking control
of our Defence strategy and operation.This is a key attribute of
Nationhood - what is Government policy please ?

The Norway model in defence integrationNorway essentially has
sub-contracted its security to the European Union. As the
EU’s defence integration programme has developed over the
last two years, the rules for participation by non-member states
are quite clear. In a nutshell, the message is: “you are
welcome to join, but you will be excluded from all the serious
decision making.” In other words, any such nation will
find that its armed forces and security services will be run from
Brussels.Norway has been very aware of the need to form alliances
for defence purposes.  It suffered invasion by Germany in
1940 and has a land border with Russia. Unsurprisingly given its
history and geography, it was one of the founder members of NATO
in 1949. However, its involvement with the EU’s military
programme seems very odd as it is not an EU member state. After
all, even from within the EU, the UK was, at least until 2016, a
vehement opponent of the EU developing any independent military
capability, regarding it as an unnecessary duplication of
NATO.Yet for better or worse, Norway is on board as the
EU’s military ambitions develop. You will find it
mentioned on a number of EU military websites.
The UK’s backdoor involvement What is especially worrying
is that senior figures in Whitehall – apparently with the
support of senior figures in the government – are
proposing a similar relationship of subordination for the UK once
we leave the EU. Dr Bryan Wells, a civil servant who is Head of
International and Strategic Research at Defence Science and
Technology (an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence) was
asked at an MoD co-sponsored event for defence industries in 2017
if the EU funding which he was encouraging British defence
manufacturers to seek was contingent on agreements which the EU
had advised upon, and which would mean that Britain would be
‘like Norway in defence’. According to one source,
Dr Wells replied, ‘Yes, but that’s beyond my pay
grade.”What is more, there is strong evidence to suggest
that Parliament is to be bypassed in a new defence treaty to be
signed after Brexit.  A treaty concluded after the start of
the transition phase can bypass the normal democratic process of
parliamentary scrutiny. This is because once the UK has formally
left EU membership, any new agreement between the UK and EU would
be an international treaty which is concluded by ministers using
ministerial, or ‘prerogative’ powers delegated by
the Crown. This is the reason why defence is barely mentioned in
Mrs May’s proposed withdrawal agreement: because up to 29thMarch 2019, any such agreement would be a supranational
agreement where UK ratification could be scrutinised and rejected
by MPs. This proposed treaty is separate from the withdrawal
treaty. In spite of claims by the Government that military
arrangements with the EU are yet to be negotiated, there are
plenty of other hints regarding its nature besides Dr
Wells’ comments. The basics of UK participation were
spelled out in detail in the Political Declaration and the
Chequers Plan before that. The rest can easily be deduced simply
be reading the EU’s participation criteria for countries
seeking the kind of participation the May Government seems to be
seeking. There are also a few mentions of these participation
criteria in the withdrawal agreement, such as the UK’s
commitment to the EU Defence Procurement Directive, which harms
UK industry by preventing the government from keeping
strategically important defence contracts in the UK.
Escaping the EU’s tentacles Why are MPs not up in arms
about this betrayal? By and large, they are unaware of it. Civil
servants have pulled the wool over their eyes, aided and abetted
by the complexity of the sheer number of components which make up
the military EU. Thankfully, a few are now fully aware of what is
going on and there is time yet to bring their colleagues on
board. In a nutshell, MPs need to look beyond trying to work out
how the various arms of the EU’s defence plans relate to
one another (the Co-ordinated Annual Review on Defence, the
Common Security & Defence Policy, the European Defence Agency,
the European Defence Fund, the European Defence Industrial
Development Programme, the Permanent Structured Cooperation,
etc.), and to grasp the simple message: participation in any one
of these cannot be undertaken in isolation. Like the tentacles of
a gigantic octopus, they all emanate from the same source. If we
attach ourselves to any one of these arms of military EU, the
octopus will entangle us, denying us control of our own defence
and security. It is really hard to get into the mindset of anyone
wishing to entangle the UK in this, especially given our
country’s historic opposition to the EU developing a
military capability independent of NATO. Such people cannot be
doing this through sheer ignorance, which suggests something more
malicious – a desire to keep us aligned militarily to the
EU in order to prepare for our re-entry at a future date. There
are no insufficient words to describe such people –
traitorous, evil and contemptuous of democracy are among the
milder descriptions one could use.
The need for a legal challenge, One possible route for preventing
this betrayal could be a legal challenge on the basis of the
little-known  House of Commons Scrutiny Reserve Resolution of
17th November 1998
/465/46507.htm> , which is clearly being bypassed by ministers.
This Resolution refers to Title V of the Treaty on European
Union, which is the section dealing with Common Foreign and
Security Policy, including Common Defence Policy. (It also states
that included in the scrutiny reserve is Title VI, which deals
with changes to treaties and the relationship between EU and
member states and their Parliaments, among other things). The
Resolution includes the provision that ministers are prohibited
from signing the UK up to any EU initiative that falls under
Title V until scrutiny by the House of Commons’ European
Scrutiny Committee has been completed, something that has not
happened to date. Let us be clear. Ministers have acted
unlawfully. They have entered into agreements under Title V
without the consent of Parliament and this simply
shouldn’t have happened. The more MPs are made aware of
this, the more the pressure will grow on the Government. Indeed,
with the backbenchers now unable for the best part of 2019 to
challenge Mrs May through a vote of no confidence, exposure of
these misdemeanours in the area of defence may be the best way of
getting rid of her sooner rather than later as they provide the
strongest evidence – at least, in the public domain
– of her insincerity. With less than two months until
Brexit day, confusion still reigns about the shape of our final
exit. But one thing is clear: even if we do achieve a clean break
from the EU on 29th March, the sorry history of our entanglement
with the European project cannot be finally brought to an end
unless we are severed totally from its plans for military
unification. By all means let’s celebrate Brexit day, but
we will need to remain vigilant for some time to come. Our job
will not be over until this threat is finally seen off.

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk