...is raised by Katabasis in this post.
According to the Lisbon treaty, which is now in force, if any one of the member states is attacked then every member state is obliged to come to their defence.
Argentina are threatening to attack the Falklands again. That's British territory. If they do, then every EU member state is obliged by Lisbon to send troops to the Falklands and defend it. I wonder if anyone has told Argentina this?
I suspect Argentina knows it and have already contacted other EU states concerning the matter. The answer they get will determine what they do next. They have not left themselves with an easy back-out route so to save face, if nothing else, they are very likely to try invading the Falklands again.
Labour have left the British military so underpowered that it would be impossible for us to defend the place ourselves. Barry O'Blimey has already declined to be bothered with us. All we have left is the EU and the Lisbon treaty.
So, if Argentina attack the Falklands, can we expect to see the Dutch, Irish, German, French, Belgian, Spanish and all the rest valiantly sending troops and equipment to defend this British territory? I wonder how their peoples would react to that.
Or can we expect 'Oh, we'd like to help but it's so far away it doesn't really count as EU, and besides, we're busy. Try next door.'
If Argentina attack the Falklands, it will be make or break time for the EU and my money is firmly on 'break'. Everyone who has wholeheartedly supported this ridiculous and expensive waste-generating enterprise is going to look very silly indeed. If the EU will not help defend British territory overseas, how can we believe they would help if we were attacked here?
Careful now, Dave. Think before you speak. You're already in the doghouse for that 'cast iron guarantee' and no, we haven't forgotten. You might like to pretend it didn't happen but look again at those polls. There are reasons for that.
If Argentina were to win the Falklands, well I wouldn't want to be part of the EU-supporting party of governance, that's for sure.
24 comments:
Bear in mind that in 1982 Britain was attacked: did NATO rush to her aid? Was an attack on one considered an attack on all?
Is the EU likely to be any more bellicose than NATO?
All the ongoing Falklands dispute proves is that British foreign policy is ridiculous: America is nothing more than a fair weather friend, and never has been, and Europe serves her own interests far better than the British goverment serves Britain's. The only reliable friends Britain has ever had have been those with whom she shares a head of state, and decades of neglect and even abuse from successive British administrations has probably worn even those tried and tested friendships thin.
The EU has survived far worse, not least repeated attempts by the populace of her member states to bring an end to the Union as we know it. Failing to give any meaningful aid to a friend in need will scarcely be more damaging than that.
- Duncan
P.S. First comment, and I enjoy your blog entries. Please keep them up!
Newsnight was funny tonight. Mark Thompson the £850K a year DG of the BBC got put through the ringer by Paxo ( Paxo must be getting ready to retire I think - before the BBC have him bumped off). Paxo just read out the listings for tv on BBC4 today. Repeats of Skippy and some news.
Kelvin McKenzie had the right idea. He said that if Cast Iron Dave made it a £50 licence fee and we just kept BBC 1 and 2 and Radio 4 and scrap the rest then he'd get a 20% majority..
While millions are waiting for their transmitter to be upgraded to digital the BBC are spending hundreds of millions on 'Dogs Borstal' and other rubbish.
I don't believe the EU cheese-bratwurst-salami-eating-surrender-monkeys would get involved. They'll be quick to claim that the Falklands aren't part of the EU (unlike Gibraltar) and so don't qualify for protection by the mighty and brave European Army - who are probably busy relaxing at a naturist camp on the shores of Lake Constance anyway.... ermmm, sorry, I mean on manoeuvres.
No. I'm afraid we're on our own again. Most likely we'll just send over a couple of subs (probably have already) and sink any surface vessels showing a yellow flag or whatever colour Argentina uses.
I'm sure the EU won't help.
People blame all those EU regulations on our government who, admittedly, take every EU regulation and make it worse. They don't really see the EU behind it.
Twice, though, we have been promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and people are annoyed that we didn't get one even though hardly anyone has any idea what's in it.
If the Falklands is lost because the EU refuse to honour the treaty that was forced upon us, then even the MSM will have to sit up and take notice.
Otherwise, we'll all need megaphones. We already have the means for a leafleting campaign, right there on the desks in front of us. Design a leaflet, distribute it as PDF, print and leave copies lying around everywhere.
In fact, I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before but blogs could actually have a much wider reach than any newspaper. A leaflet could be around the world, printed and handed out within a day.
Dammit, I have already printed some of those internet funnies on magnetic paper and given them to non-internet, non-political friends as funny fridge magnets. The two things never connected in my mind. Probably because it's pretty cluttered in here.
Time for some thinking.
"In fact, I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before but blogs could actually have a much wider reach than any newspaper."
They already do... but admittedly in a niche sense currenty. But for those that regularly frequent the blogs, they are probably more widely read than any newspapers. Something which can only grow.
Blogs (especially the political and current affairs focused ones) are the modern day equivalents of the Pamphleteer. And look how powerful they once were?
A simple idea or notion communicated and spread can change the world.
To obtain the assistance of the EU (in what should be automatic assistance), no doubt we will have to give them a stake in the oil revenues obtaining.
Britain has never taken kindly to sharing spoils, so might we expect a conflict of some kind? Perhaps starting with a diplomatic war, then threats, sanctions and, ultimately some staged terror attack to serve as a warning/
Hmmm.
look at it another way leg iron.
to make britain fit into the superstate, they do not want us to have far away overseas interests. the argentines have probably been put up to this by higher ups. that why america (with us or against us) will have no part in helping us. this has been coming a long time.
Duncan,
Article 5 of the NATO treaty explicitly states "Europe and North America". Regardless of anybody's opinions on the true sovereignty of the Falklands (and mine is that without any reference to the 17th or 18th centuries, Article 1 of the UN Charter pretty much trumps all), nobody has ever suggested that the islands are in Europe, North America or even the North Atlantic.
More generally, the Falklands are not part of the UK, hence not part of the EU. They are British Overseas Territories - the same as Gib and Bermuda, among others. Neither of those are part of the EU and, I suspect, would legally justify the inevitable EU inaction.
Nowt too much to worry about really. The mountains Down South could be defended by a well trained Section for 100 years.
Argentina will rue the day they have another crack at the Falklands.
Still, I'm sure NuLabour will bend over hand the Argies a pot of vaseline and scream out to be shafted.
It all comes down to the drilling. If the oil reserves are a financially viable project then Argentina will probably have a crack.
The EU will turn around and make the point that unlike places like Mayotte which is a part of France proper and therefore EU territory, the Falklands are not part of the EU even though they are part of the UK.
Given the envious glances from Brussels towards the Norwegian oil field, and Norway's continued refusal to play ball, the response from Brussels is likely to be along the lines of 'declare this an EU oil field, and we'll come and help.'
The question is do we want or need military help from the EU? I would submit not. We certainly don't want to be more beholden to them, and looking at the list drawn up by the Filthy Engineer, we won't need them, anyway. (http://niklowe.blogspot.com/2010/02/they-wouldn-dare-would-they.html)
O/T but re. the utterly repellent Lisbon Treaty.
Did you hear that Nigel Farage has been fined for insulting Reichskanzler, sorry, Emperor, sorry, EC President Van Rompuy?
(Even though I think his speech was a bit prattish at times)
Argentina will not go for the military option.
Invasion.
Impossible they would'nt get past the hunter killer subs.
Er UK have stationed a few there haven''t they ?
Air assault.
Maybe, two typhoons could make a mess out of an incoming attack comprising of obselete jets but it would get through albeit with fairly heavy losses.
However more Typhoons could be despatched within a day.
Risky.
The only plausible option would be a low level attack on the rig itself.
No they will try to stitch UK up in the UN they may get EU support as the EUites "lurve" the UN.
Italy and Spain not to mention our glorious allies France quietly sympaphise with Argentina's stance.
The UN stitch up with EU collaboration would be problematic for whichever bunch of cheap crooks happened to be in parliament at the time.
That's going to be the dilema I think.
Thats when we see the true colour of our parliament.
And I think it is a blue background with a ring of stars.
Most EU states armies would be a liability for us. British soldiers are trained to head towards enemy gunfire, not mill about discussing what to do about things.
Given NuLieBore's habit of publicising everything twice, thrice or more I doubt if Bully McNutter has beefed up the armed presence in the South Atlantic one little bit otherwise we'd have heard about it....endlessly. So prepare to wave goodbye to the islands, if he's not even prepared to send out the right signals, he sure as hell wont try to retake them when the Argies walk in there.
Dave H - Nigel Farage got fined £2700 because he refused to apologise!
And I notice that a pair of Muslim women have just become the first to refuse to pass through the scanners at Heathrow. They were denied boarding permission, and left with their luggage, £400 the poorer....
Can you see the EU giving up a chance for more power.
As Snowolf says the EU could well see this as a chance to gain access to overseas airfields.
Also gain prehaps some level of control over British Overseas Territories and bring the interoperability of the various national armies of the EU under a more centralised control.
If the Agentines do invade and the EU does agree to help it would probably be a lesser cost just to give up on the islands.
klu01dbt said...
"Also gain prehaps some level of control over British Overseas Territories and bring the interoperability of the various national armies of the EU under a more centralised control."
I wonder if Diego Garcia would be the jewel in that crown. A station in the Indian Ocean and kick the Americans off it.
If the EU comes to our 'aid', you can be sure that it will be at a price - like 'sharing' control of the Falklands.
Is this the best Libertarians have to offer? Another war? Well done.
Any takers for an idea that involves a joint Anglo-Argentine business venture drilling for the oil? The Argentinians are not natural enemies of the British and nothing has been gained by trying to make them so. All the Falklans do at present is cost us money, and I mean US not the politicians who keep telling you to give a shit about a place you will never visit and never think about till bullshit like this is put in your heads. If we just worked with the Argeninians, (who by the way are not run by Happy Shopper Hitlers any more for those of you still living in the 80s) not only would we make a profit but we wouldn't have to spend twice as much as we made protecting it. It might also free up some army to go fight in those other brilliant wars we can't afford to be stuck in.
Or you could truly sell your souls and prostrate yourself before the EU and loose all control of our army, oil and the islands themselves for ever and you will have to look into your children's eyes and tell them that, after all the Kim Philbies that you fought against had done the ground work it was actually YOU who finally brought to an end the sovereinty of Great Britain.
You are absolutely right regarding Dave's fall after reneging on the EU Referendum.
But I don't think they really want to hang on to the Falklands. Forget the oil that I hear is there. That's not the point. Evidence seems to indicate that the point of everything is the reduction of classical liberal norms in the West to those prevailing in the rest (most) of the world. And the semi slave status that goes with it.
Regarding your leaflets.
Absolutely YES! We need to get out there, on the streets with placards where possible, and many thousands of leaflets, and distribute clear common sense.
A thought on security measures: The current situation as regards terrorism and security is a classic hammer and anvil situation aimed at control.
The terror attacks and the ideology behind them are the hammer and the security responses, such as body scanners, are the anvil.
We are the metal to be forged in the heat of our confused indignation and fear into pathetic remnants of humanity
Balding Nobhead - I'm not calling for any kind of war. I'd much rather share the Falklands with Argentina than with Herbie Remploy-van's fourth Reich.
That's not what Argentina are proposing. They, so far, are the only ones threatening nastiness.
John B - leaflet production costs don't have to be huge. Lightweight photo paper, an inkjet printer (one which will accept cheapo Tesco cartridges because they eat the damn things) and a little time.
Nothing too flashy and nothing too complex. Not too much at once. Certainly nothing that will attract official scrutiny.
In fact, it could be possible to make a game of it. A sort of jigsaw of information that people can put together themselves. Something more interesting than the ones I'm getting now, of which a recent example -
"Hi, I'm Nick Clegg and I want you to vote for your Libby Dimmy candidate even though she looks like a badly moulded plastic hobbit and is likely to be as much use." (She does. I've seen her leaflet too).
Make it a sort of treasure hunt with education on the sly.
This is going to take some serious thinking about. I might even have to take my hat off for this one.
Thanks for the link up Leg-iron!
In response to some of the comments here - there is more to this issue than what I originally posted (I'll add more to the original blog after posting this, as it is a point I should have included):
Bear in mind the substantive point is that this is likely to become the make - or break - point for the Lisbon treaty and the EU for Britain.
A number of good points have been raised as to how the EU may wriggle out of its support (the most likely I think, the suggestion that they will simply point to the fact that the Falklands is a protectorate of the UK).
It does not need to come to a military confrontation for the point to be forced however.
Under Lisbon, the seats on the UN security council (UK and France) are now supposed to work in unison under one EU position (i.e. our very own one-and-only Cathy Ashton). Argentina are pushing for a UN resolution on the issue.
If the UK and France don't veto in Unison then this is almost as powerful a damning indictment as the EU failing to assist the UK in the event of an attack. There's also the minor matter that Austria also currently sits as one of the non-permanent members of the UN security council. We should watch how they vote on any resolution also.
Read through Articles 24 to 34 in the Lisbon amended Maastricht treaty - the stance on a unified Foreign Policy is made very clear. And despite the idiocy of the Argentine government and stupidity of Team Obama, this is a very clear cut issue. Clinton has acted as if Argentina has a case. It does not.
A final point - on the issue of NATO not leaping to the UK's defence, don't forget that NATO is a U.S. dominated institution. A lot of people involved in the EU project dearly want to find something that would give the EU 'big-hitter' status. Backing the UK on this would achieve both this goal and that of bringing the UK onside for continued EU expansion. Also remember the EU response was quite belligerent with regard to recent tensions between Russia and Estonia, not to mention the rhetoric flying around with regards to Georgia (and proposed EU membership of the latter)...
Post a Comment