E.U. Military Union Is Budgetary Union*
By David Ellis
The issue of the European Union desperately requiring control of the military and budgets of E.U. member states is moving very fast now. UK Column News and Strategic Defence Initiatives U.K. have covered this issue repeatedly and in depth in recent months and weeks. We feel strongly that it is not being voiced with the correct level of importance as the U.K. (apparently) prepares for Brexit.
There will be no Brexit unless Britain extricates itself as a matter of urgency from the amalgamation of E.U. militaries, which will inevitably prompt an E.U. Treasury taking over from the member states’ budgets.
In Parliament, no party is even mentioning E.U. military union, popularly but inaccurately referred to as “an E.U. Army”. (The inaccuracy is that the military union now rapidly being rolled out involves all the armed forces of the member states, not just the armies, and that it does not replace but rather subsumes the nation states’ militaries and military budgets. In other words, the nominal armies, navies and air forces of the EU member states — including post-Brexit Britain — will remain in place, but sapped of their ability to operate or purchase independently of E.U. command.)
It now appears likely that the situation in Syria will precipitate some sort of catalytic events to bring about E.U. military union in concert with Washington. Strategic Defence Initiatives U.K.’s opinion is that a continuation or escalation of disruption in Syria will result in a E.U. military union being formed, using “the need to stand up to Russian actions” as the propaganda leverage.
The EU is blasting ahead in its efforts to achieve military union. Its position gains in strength as we in Britain delay addressing the fundamentals and hesitate to restate our own cardinal values for our own defence. As senior officers have admitted and recent press articles have correctly observed, we are now too weak to defend the Channel!
Yet the key point about E.U.military union can easily be missed. It is more than merely an end in itself. It is a means for the E.U. to add to its acquis communautaire (the once-achieved, never-given-up powers acquired by Brussels from the member states) the crucial state-building element of an E.U. Treasury: something which member states’ national governments have baulked at for decades, understanding as they do that if the E.U. gains control of the money flows to the defence industry, national sovereignty, national self-determination and the power of self-defence will be history.
It was in fact the British government itself which is substantially responsible for the position of military union which the E.U. is now rapidly approaching. 59 years ago, a newly-appointed Minister of Defence, Duncan Sandys, made clear in a White Paper that Her Majesty’s Government, as the paying customer for defence equipment, expected and demanded integration of British and ultimately of European defence manufacturers into a monopolistic market of major (international) players. And 35 years ago, a more recent Secretary of State for Defence, John Nott, disastrously scaled down defence policy in another White Paper (the ‘Nott review’), which arguably triggered the Argentine launch of the Falklands invasion.
The British government’s Strategic Defence Reviews and Strategic Defence and Security Reviews (SDSRs) of recent years have in fact been EU strategic defence reviews serving E.U. , not British, aims. This shows no signs of abating with the supposed path towards Brexit now. Many senior military officers have said over the years that these cuts were a mistake and that the notion of Britain still retaining a high “buy-in rate” through its nuclear capacity was wrong-headed, but to no avail, because the prime perspective of HM Treasury, in turn serving the world’s master banks, always trumps all policy considerations.
Nor is this all. Ultimately, the point of military union through federalised defence spending is the goal of single-point budget control. Without that centralised office apportioning E.U. taxes to defence contractors, bypassing the national governments, the euro currency cannot continue to be propped up.
There is currently already a high level of intertwining, input and planning between the EU and Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. It should be much more widely known than it currently is that the EU already has four command-and-control (C3) structures in place, one of which is actually in North London at Northwood, in a suite of rooms directly opposite the Royal Navy’s Commander Operations (COMOPS) across the corridor. Also in the same building complex is Her Majesty’s Armed Forces’ Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ).
As recently mentioned on UK Column News, these E.U. C3 centres could now be up and running within a matter of hours of an order from Brussels to fire up the computers and bring in the staff. It is fantasy to imagine that the presence of these aggressively readied structures is not affecting the operational status, capability, morale and mission of the British military command structures.
What potential changes will the E.U. s rash creation of military command centres cause for NATO and Her Majesty’s Armed Forces? In order to think through these implications, it is crucial to realise that military union has its origin in central banking policy, governed from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland; the “central bankers’ central bank”.
Central banking policymakers well know that it is as financial policy points that drafts originate which become military policy, which leads to industrial union, federalised EU procurement procedures, consolidated money flows across Europe, and inevitable risks impacting on the member states’ own capital budgets and operating budgets. Inevitably, the money direction and inner workings of defence spending are now being pointed from HM Government to the E.U. .
The fate of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces as an independent national defence is inextricably bound up with the fate of prime U.K. defence industry: BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Babcock International, et al. If independent British defence spending is made an irrelevance by encroaching EU military union and its federalised spending, the remaining British defence contractors will fold or be subject to an asset-stripping hostile takeover by foreign defence firms.
Military union is the E.U. ‘s ultimate objective and this relates to military union being the second key component requisite to making the E.U. a state. An Action This Day mentality is now required to unravel the U.K.’s military and defence industry from the E.U. If Brexit is to be a reality, then what must happen — and happen fast — is reactivation of direct money flows to U.K. defence and defence industry, in conjunction with a conscious policy of extricating the British military from E.U. structures.
This brings us to the question of how things have reached such a pitch. The main reason why mainstream parties will not talk about any of the above is due to their complicity, and their awareness that any revelations would result in a severe political backlash from the British public as they realised that their own MPs had already sold us out by their deeds and inactions. The silence on this matter is also an effect of general and military ineptitude on the part of our MPs.
Another, even more sinister, turn must also be mentioned in conclusion. UK Column has reported (41:23), as have others, on how a questionable outfit named Red Snapper has been paid handsomely to pursue ex-servicemen for having done their job in the Iraq war. The rationale behind this “Historic Allegations” persecution, which even Tony Blair has now claimed to detest as a “witch hunt“, has little to do with “human rights” dogma; it is simply the cold and calculating rationale of brand destruction of the British military.
Red Snapper, which has been funded by the Ministry of Defence to pursue these Iraq cases, is the same husband-and-wife company that came out of nowhere which also has a privatised probation services arm that works for councils (25:43). Once one realises that the purpose of Red Snapper’s probation arm has been to act as the bad-faith agency to get child abuse whistleblowers such as Melanie Shaw locked up indefinitely, it is quite obvious what Red Snapper is doing to the military: the same reputation assassination for the same paymasters.
We are witnessing, and our MPs are being silent about, a destruction of the British military by pincer movement. Our independent defence is caught between the moral impact upon the best of our blood on the one hand (as exemplified by Red Snapper’s MoD-licenced retrospective investigations to intimidate and dissuade current and future recruits) and, on the other hand, the selling short — way short — of major military assets such as the Harrier, HMS Illustrious and the Nimrod. We are scrapping our own guns at one end and locking up our own men at the other. What is the purpose of this brand destruction? To make way for the new brand: the EU military.
What a far cry from the formula of the 1889 Naval Defence Act, the “two-power standard” according to which Britain knew that she did not need the biggest armed forces in the world, but she did know that she needed enough defence power that no-one, including an alliance of major powers, would dare attack her.