British and French military to work closer together

[Liffrea]

British and French troops could one day serve together under plans to be outlined by the Prime Minister.

David Cameron is due to meet with President Nicholas Sarkozy at an Anglo-French summit in London tomorrow.

The new chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards has said that closer co-operation is a practical step for Britain’s military.

However, in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, General Richards said that the idea that British and French troops would serve together in a single brigade was ‘one step’ beyond his views: "We are going to fight in something called an expeditionary joint force, which sees us possibly working alongside them at brigade level but not within the same brigade."

http://www.bfbs.com/news/england/bri...her-40699.html

Why can’t the politicians admit this is the prelude to a full blown EuroForce? Britain and France are the only two European states with any kind of “out-of-area” capability and with nuclear weapons.

[Sahson]

While it may be a prelude to EuroForce, I rather have UK & France working together more, make us both stronger nations. We have a lot of economic investment in each other, and more co-operation with France will benefit us.

Make Highspeed one/Eurostar a more prominent force in Britannia, get the new Alstrom Pendolino in the rolling stock of Britannia. But of course the people of Britain do not want this, because of our prejudices against the french populous...

So should we build another tunnel to Holland, and work with the dutchies more?

[Graham]

Good Idea, would rather we had an stronger alliance with France. We need to get a use out of those aircraft carriers.

[Saruman]

To survive Europe needs to get away from NATO and have it's own defensive capabilities.

[Liffrea]

The EU isn’t a pick n’ mix you’re either in it and accept the whole deal (which means the end of your independence) or you’re out of it. Only London likes to sell the BS that you can somehow hover at the edges and take the best bits.

I’m opposed to the EU, thus this badly disguised attempt to create the nucleus of a European military.

British troops should be under British commanders, not French nor any other foreign state. If Cameron is short of cash I suggest he considers ditching the EU, cutting welfare to the bone and stop propping up tin-pot dictators in Africa and bribing ministers in India to win contracts.

Then we could probably afford a military force for Britain’s needs because I can just see the French filled with enthusiasm to help us if Argentina invades the Falklands again (and, indeed, why should they?). Besides who has the dick in this relationship? “Co-operation” only works between Britain and America because our commanders bend over and thank the Americans for filling them in.

I believe the French have a word for this merde?

[Sahson]

Maybe you are not aware, but our President is not exactly typical French stock, his family is Hungarian!

Still my post doesn't defeat the purpose of what I said. there should be more plans between UK and France. Sarkozy is better then chirac!

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Daguerreo
Maybe you are not aware, but our President is not exactly typical French stock, his family is Hungarian!

I’m not sure what relevance that has…..

Still my post doesn't defeat the purpose of what I said.

As above I don’t see what relevance Sarkozy’s background has to the subject.

there should be more plans between UK and France.

Have no illusions about what this really is, a fifty year treaty.....how many years into that treaty do you think it will be before the UK patch is replaced with a blue one with yellow stars? Where do you think this is going? Why do you think Cameron felt the need to stress that the UK and France would not surrender their sovereignty?

Sarkozy is better then chirac!

Again a point I fail to see the relevance of, am I missing something?

[Joe McCarthy]

To survive Europe needs to get away from NATO and have it's own defensive capabilities.

Perhaps you'd care to expand on how a military alliance imperils the prospects of European survival?

[The Lawspeaker]

Because then we taken over one by one. It would definitely be in America's interest to keep us divided or tied to the U.S..

[Joe McCarthy]

Because then we taken over one by one. It would definitely be in America's interest to keep us divided or tied to the U.S..

If anything the anti-American posture of de Gaulle in pulling France from NATO contributed to a pro-Arab realignment that later helped facilitate mass immigration into France. I don't see military alliances as especially relevant to survival issues in this context, but the little data we do have shows that an anti-NATO posture has probably been detrimental to European survival.