Absurd claims from politicised generals are thankfully rather rare in Britain, but on 24 February a number of retired commanders blotted their copy books by claiming Britain’s security was threatened by EU withdrawal.
Ignorant to the basic facts that the EU is eroding NATO and yet not replacing it; that the Anglophone ECHELON and Five Eyes systems are the basis of UK intelligence; and that our close relationship with America is the source of our military advantage, they argued bizarrely that we can only cooperate with Europe if we are inside the EU, which makes one wonder how America achieves cooperation.

Yet Section 2 of the Treaty on European Union (Articles 42 to 46) of the consolidated texts of the treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon shows how much impact the EU has had and will have on Britain’s ability to defend itself.

Article 24.1 has the EU’s competence in foreign and security policy extend to the “…progressive framing of a common defence policy…” For a very long time, we have warned that the EU’s stealth integration is robbing the UK of its security. Without any say in the matter, the British people are having their national defence handed over to Brussels, with the consequence that the US will deem it too risky to engage in intelligence sharing with us.

Article 42.1 gives the EU access to civilian and military assets belonging to Member States. British military hardware, forged in battle and using the latest American technology, will be made subject to European masters – with all the potential risk of loss of intellectual property that will entail.

The above two treaty obligations fundamentally undermine the UK’s ability to defend itself properly. Yet it only gets worse.

Article 42.2 clearly states that “The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence…”

Everyone knows that critical to the function of an effective military is clear command and authority structures. Yet here we have UK forces being integrated into a European force, answering to an EU President. Not only is this dangerous, it is difficult to see how any British soldier – or any soldier from any other state – would be willing to risk his or her life in the service of Brussels.

It is worth remembering that in 2000 the British government and Tony Blair denied that plans to create a European Rapid Reaction Force were plans to create an embryonic European army. Now, Blair openly calls for a permanent standing army as the only way to stop ISIS. This pattern of denial and deceit riddles anything to do with the EU, showing how little you can trust what politicians say. The facts lie in the unchanging words of the legally-binding treaties.

While Article 42.2 then reaffirms NATO, Article 42.7 replicates NATO’s collective defence clause. This clause has already been activated by France, when terror hit the streets of Paris in November 2015. Rather than turn to NATO, France symbolically rejected American involvement and chose Article 42.7, confirming Europe’s antipathy towards the US.

Article 42.3 continues the militarisation of Europe by creating the European Defence Agency (EDA) to coordinate purchasing and acquisition of arms. The EDA is authorised to implement “…any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base…” of defence within Europe. This fundamentally threatens that UK defence research may potentially be requisitioned by the EU.

The EU foreign minister is given authority by Article 42.4 for making proposals to the Council for adoption. In order to successfully make proposals, the EU foreign minister will need in-depth and compromising knowledge from all Member States in order to know what he can call on. This risks information leakages and compromises national security.

In Article 42.6, the UK is specifically targeted by the rest of Europe. Desirous of British capabilities, our forces are subjugated into establishing permanent structure cooperation “…within the Union framework.” The logic of the article is that to avoid 42.6, Britain would need to lose our advanced capabilities. Perhaps this is why our forces remain underfunded, constantly being cut back?

Article 43.1 places UK forces into violent situations reporting to EU commands. It references the use of force in “peace-making” operations, begging the question of whether the EU commands the loyalty or has the capacity to truly conduct any such operation without nation states in reality controlling things.

Article 42.3 is complemented by Article 45, which authorises the EDA to snoop and seek to gain intrusive information on Member State military capabilities, while harmonising all EU defence equipment. This logically leads to the creation of an EU force and EU defence complex, excluding the advanced technology and capabilities of the United States.

All of this can be verified by yourself here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228848/7310.pdf

In case there are still doubts about creation of a European army, the European Parliament resolved on 21 January 2016 that an autonomous security and defence capability to face internal and external threats be created. It will be disunited, riven with internal rivalry, and lacking in the best equipment.

To ensure your security, on 23rd June, vote to leave the EU.