The claim that Britain will be forced to join an EU army unless it leaves the EU is not correct.

The website ‘Full Fact’ is an independent and impartial fact checking charity based in the UK. Their conclusion reads:

“Incorrect. The UK has a veto on EU military policy so couldn’t be forced to participate in an EU army.”

Describing their effectiveness, they say:

“Factchecks alone are not enough to halt the spread of misinformation. When we see an inaccurate claim being repeated, we get in touch with those responsible to correct the record. We’ve secured corrections from the then Prime Minister David Cameron, both sides of the House of Commons, national charities, and every major newspaper. You can read more about our corrections work on our blog.”

Recently a claim about supposed plans for an EU army has been going viral again on Facebook.

The post claims that Britain will be forced to join an EU army unless the UK leaves the EU. It includes a screenshot of a 2016 article in the Express reporting then-armed forces minister Penny Mordaunt saying this during the EU referendum campaign.

The article discussing the claim, which can be found here, adds:

“The UK could not be “forced” to participate in EU military policies even if we stay in the EU.

Whether or not EU nations wish to create an “EU army”, and regardless of what that might actually entail, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security or defence. On issues like this, member countries effectively have a veto, so the UK would only take part if it chose to.”

Concluding:

“The EU does have various policies for defensive and security cooperation. For example, under the Common Security and Defence Policy, EU countries can pool military funding and resources. The UK participates in military operations through this policy.

The EU has also established Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) a strategy which aims to “jointly develop defence capabilities and make them available for EU military operations” which the UK has chosen not to participate in.”

This article is part of their work factchecking potentially false pictures, videos and stories on Facebook. You can read more about this—and find out how to report Facebook content—here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

77 COMMENTS

  1. To whoever felt the need to write the “fact check” article, all i have to say is……We are leaving. Quit crying, get your head around it and move on.

    • Hi Steven, part of what the UK Defence Journal does is discuss myths relating to defence. In addition, if you are truly asking why someone at a charity called ‘Fact Check’ felt a need to write a fact check article then I think you may want to have a cup of tea.

      Just because that happens to cross paths with your own personal politics does not mean it’s acceptable to post a rude comment.

    • You must remember Steven, we live in a world were words are ‘dangerous’, you making the hideous and unforgivable comment of “quit crying” is extremely ‘offensive’ these days.
      They have ‘moderation’ to help guide you to what you should and shouldn’t say, remember…their guidance is for your ‘benefit’, they know what words you ‘should’ be saying afterall!
      Wrong think is bad.

        • Wow, now not even a bit of teasing is acceptable?
          Jesus….i didn’t realise you lot were so precious!
          I was having a laugh….is that ‘offensive’ too now is it?

        • George Allison you are a mighty dark pot to be calling the kettle black. You are the one with a political agenda writing this Balderdash about the EU being unable to create an army. It’s called “Enhanced Cooperation” and at the end of the day it will end with an EU army. Will you £1,000 of your money where your dirty lying mouth is? The EU is an evil un-democratic entity that the UK democratically elected to BREXIT and it is treasonous traitors like you writing lies like your article above that is offensive. Now go ahead and use your “comment moderation policy” to censor my comment and “take care” going “the same way”.

          • It’s not just our armed forces that are in danger of being taken over and exploited,staying in the eu threatens our monarchy.watch lord James blackheath explain this fact in the house of lords.

    • Yes, it looks like Johnson will be PM and we will leave with s hard Brexit unless the opposition win a vote of no confidence and there is a general election.

      • which is quite likely to happen by the way. as much as I don’t like Corbyn and don’t want to see him in power, the country can’t be held to ransom by the MINORITY of hard-right tories who want Brexit for their own ideological reasons (forget the referendum vote.) I would just laugh to see those right wing tories with their smacked-arse faces when their own party turned on them as they wanted it all nd lost everything

        • I think you flatter the hard-right Tories by crediting them with an ideology. I believe the motivation for the (well orchestrated) Brexit campaign was very simple: the EU was gradually removing their hold on the levers of influence and wealth. e.g. with plans to force into the open the current opaque network of onshore and offshore Trusts it would become straightforward to question the grossly inequitable distribution of land and wealth in the country. With acknowledgement to Full Metal Jacket, for the ordinary person in the UK the financial wind doesn’t blow…..it sucks.

          • The Labour Party was in power for 10 years and did nothing to resolve mine and your legitimate grievances about the direction of the UK. The leadership of the EU is as bent as ours and were doing nothing to shed any light on their own kinds behaviour.
            As for the hard right conspiracy theory that includes 17m+ UK citizens that is just not credible.

          • I agree with your comment re the labour party. Corbyn’s ambition is to supplant the current establishment with his own Marxist management of the country. On the EU I am more generously minded. My reading of EU is that it is an attempt to implement Catholic social teaching, blending individual responsibility with strong emphasis on family and community. This is not Corbyn’s idea of socialism so he supports Brexit. Sadly the philosophy of the EU founders went pear shaped when Mitterand fell victim to Masonic influence ( Me,me,me) got a penchant for glass pyramids and insisted on the Euro as the price of German reunification.
            The ‘direction’ of the UK has been characterised (by the French) as the ‘Anglo Saxon agony’, which I interpret to mean a semi- permanent state fear, survivalism and internal confrontation and a consequent inability to compromise. Our politics is excessively polarised.
            Fabio Capello used to say he wanted the England soccer team to ‘play without fear’. It takes a foreigner to see what prevents us being happy and successful.
            Lastly the 17m were sold a pup by the likes of the Daily Mail…which is on display in every shop, pub, dental surgery etc in the country. As Goebbels said, if you say something often enough ( the EU is the problem) people will believe it. Kudos to George Allison for fighting back against the Brexit disinformation.

          • Paul the problem is indeed within our shores and I get the point regarding the Daily Mail but it did not make the difference in the referendum no more so than project fear. They probably cancelled each other out.
            The article is well reasearched and written but misses the fundamental point that the EU will one day have an army and if we stay in, UK politicians will sign us up just like they have with freedom of movement and a multitude of other treaty commitments over the last 40 years. Now despite a democratic vote this is all now proving very difficult to unpick and that was and remains the plan. It is now consequently tearing the UK apart.
            We need sadly to leave and start again
            All the best

          • Lies on both sides don’t cancel each other out! |They just make the fraudulent referendum of 2016 even more undemocratic. The EU can’t have an army if we veto it, assuming that we come to our senses again and cancel Brexit. If we leave the EU, what’s to stop such an army from happening?

    • Nothing to do with crying, rather the constant lie spread by leavers about an EU army, as for your comment, grow up

    • I believe the EU simply wants to amortise defence costs across all 27 members, and ask for contributions to achieve that goal. As for the UK veto, if we remain I fear the veto will be squashed by law, and we will have to contribute to both NATO and the EU Force. The whole idea is flimsy at best and ill-judged.

      • Veto needs treaty change – which we can veto. The 2011 European Union Act required parliament and referendum backing for powers to be passed to Brussels. That Act was repealed by the Brexit legislation! Let’s put it back in place! Leaving the EU treaties could (perversely) make it easier for a future UK government to sign us up to EU defence initiatives!

  3. Fact checkers are a waste of time as people believe what they want to believe (and are quite happy to share the lies) or aren’t educated to a standard where they’re able to distinguish disinformation for themselves. If you find yourself having to use a fact checker you’re doing it wrong. For instance the US president would say fact checkers are fake news if they disagree with his opinion, using it to reinforce their view and help perpetuate the fake news. See below

  4. This “fact check” is a waste of time. The only truth to this is yes, as things stand at the moment the UK cannot be forced into an “EU army”.

    What this ignores is the strong likelihood that the EU will change the laws in the future, implement a new defence policy or have some special circumstance, under which the UK is forced to join into an “EU military campaign”.

    Added to this, this fact check is simply indulging in word play regarding the term “EU army”. The principle concern of people around this point is that UK troops or civilians will be forced into armed conflict by the EU, without them having a say at the parliamentary level. Concerns about the UK joining an EU army is only one small aspect of this. (i appreciate the article goes on to clarify this a bit more, but I feel the general point still stands)

    This also touches on the issue a lot of people have with the EU, the lack of democratic representation that they have within the institution.

    I can’t think of anything more adapt to this than Murphy’s Law. The one way to ensure the UK is not forced into an EU controlled armed conflict is by leaving the EU.
    If we are not in the EU nor bound by its rules and regulations, if we truly have our own autonomy, then we will only get involved in an EU war if it is something our parliament thinks is best for this country, which is they way that it should be.

    • The whole point of a fact check is to show the facts as they stand….so if ‘at the moment’ the UK can’t be forced into anything the EU does military surely that’s the relevant point?
      If and it’s a big if, you could expand on which armed conflicts the EU is likely to engage in or even start in the next 10-15 years where it would force a member state to participate against its will you may have a valid point.
      Likewise if you could point to the potential legislation or parties pushing for such legislation that you claim is highly likely to happen then again you’d have a point.
      Instead you just sound like some anti EU evangelist making things up to prove a point. At the moment and for the foreseeable future our own Parliament can veto any military action by UK forces. And that’s irrespective of remaining in the EU or leaving and is the point made by the fact checking website. And their facts remain far more valid than you’re argument/rant.

      • You’ve missed the point a bit, the fact check has basically cherry picked certain facts to debunk whilst ignoring others. Does the EU have a proven track record of poor democratic accountability? Yes (this is what I feel is the core point here).
        When Germany or France wants something within the EU, does it tend to happen? Yes.

        As facts stand, both Germany and France want to create a European army. and the people in power of the EU are pushing for ever closer intergration.

        It doesn’t take a genius to piece these together, look at the course of the EU over the last 40 or so years to get an idea of where it will be in the next 40 or so years it will go.

        If the EU does not have some sort of combined defence policy in the next 40 years I will be very surprised.

    • ‘Strong likelihood’? – Whilst there are some members of the EU Parliament who would like an EU Army that doesn’t mean there is any likelihood of it happening as it stands.

      Firstly it would need to be proposed by the Commission which is highly unlikely as they can’t propose anything based upon defence. For it to happen would require the Council of Ministers to do something and there isn’t any support for the idea there and only one nation would need to be opposed to the idea to kill it via the use of their veto. Finally there is no majority in the European Parliament for the idea.

      It is just the usual anti EU scaremongering

      • If the EU keeps pushing with “Ever closer intergration” it will happen. As it stands the EU is reliant on NATO (i.e. America) for its defence. This means that it is not truly independent as America currently holds this Trump card. (As Donald Trump recently mentioned). The EU wants to be independent from outside influence and chart its own course, the only way for the EU to be independent of American influence is to form its own defence policy of some sort. What shape or form this takes remains to be seen.

        The only way I believe this wont happen will be if either more countries leave the EU, or following brexit, there is a serious effort by those in power within the EU to change its fundamental structure.

        • The EU has its own defence policy and that doesn’t include an army. It just won’t get past the Council of Ministers so the time that gets wasted on this paranoid nonsense is tiresome.

          Academic really, as it stands there will be a General election in October and a referendum in the spring of 2020. Watching the Tory leadership contestants bring up all the same Flying Unicorn ideas that will be shot down all over again is fascinating to watch in a morbid kind of way.

          • I knew someone would nitpick over the term defence policy. You have succeeded in nitpicking over one point while ignoring the main thrust.
            Yes the EU does currently have a defence policy.

            However, in the context of this article, and all of the points I have been making, there is and will continue to be a strong drive from within the EU, for members to more heavily commit to collective EU defence. As things stand, without NATO (America), the current EU defence policy is pretty limp. People in the EU are aware of this and don’t want to be reliant on America for their defence. The only way they can do this is improve the armed forces if the EU countries and get them to work better under centralised EU command.

    • The eu could not change the law without the consent of the UK. I’m afraid any failing of the EU is also a failing of our nations political leadership. Leaving or remaining will not change how our nation is now very much governed by the few for the even fewer ( yes thats rubbish English).

      Being an individual who has never been completely sure of the best action re Europe I really got down to a job of work in trying to understand what would be the best for our nation. What really came across clearly is

      1) that most of what was said and argued ( on both sides) was unsubstantiated opinion at best and cynical lies at worst.
      2) Anyone who says they know what they voted for pisses me off no end. I as a very well education “Professional” who’s job is to study and understand the outcome of change in complex system had no clue. Even after I had studied the living out of the whole subject I still could not decide what my vote would really mean.
      3) The whole debate has been great at creating an external enemy, just at a point our nation was in the grip of a real crisis of trust in the ruling classes because of austerity and how unfairly it hit some groups. Dictators who are losing grip invade nations, it seems our political class roll out the Europe issue.
      4) There are no working class hero’s anymore Farage, Corbin, every Tory bot and far left or right wing demagogue they are all part of a power mad elite ( or just power mad at the far extremes) who just don’t give a flying about the greater good or our nation.

  5. To be fair it would be a huge and strong army with many reinforcements and ships, aircraft, ect ect, surely second strongest on earth. A superpower??

    • And would all countries contribute equally?
      Quite unlikely.

      Would it weaken our own sovereign forces due to another easy defence cut. ” We are part of the EU army we can reduce more.”
      Quite likely

      What language would be used? Chain of command?
      Lots of questions.

      With NATO what is it’s point? Would there be EU only operations where NATO assets were not involved?

      Who would take part? Are the Balkans countries, Spain, ect, reliable?

      So many questions.

      I know, let’s have a vote!!

      • Looked at coldly and logically, the EU is the world’s second largest economy – only a fraction behind the USA and a third larger than China, has 500 million population compared to the USA’s 330m and Russia’s 148m and faces hybrid threats from Russia, potentially Iran and who knows what other Middle East rogue state in the future. The only reasons it doesn’t have an ‘army’ are that (a) most member states are NATO members and defence of Europe would be undertaken by NATO and (b) there has been no political drive to create a unified military force to date.

        But things change. The NATO-US defence umbrella is no longer as viable as it was, Obama informed all of the USA’s switch to a predominantly Pacific strategy, resulting in a major draw-down of troops in Europe and in troops available to reinforce Europe in an emergency. There is still the US nuclear umbrella and the US air force would contribute considerable assets to defend Europe, but not on the scale planned for in the Cold War, particularly ref land forces.

        There is thus a good case for Europe, which is now largely the EU, to develop its own unified armed forces. They need not be an alternative to NATO, rather that NATO has a European leg and a USA leg, working together under the NATO umbrella.

        It would be a logical way for the EU to go. It hasn’t happened yet and there is no drive towards it so far. However, it is a logical long-term prospect. Whether the UK participates, or we sit on our little island glowering eastwards and deigning to take part in European defence affairs, matters not a great deal – our depressed service numbers account for less than 10% of the forces available to an EU army in peacetime and a good bit less on mobilisation, so we are not exactly a pivotal player.

        So we can safely stay at home, watching from afar while boasting about ‘punching above our weight’ and sending underarmed T31s to show a ‘presence’ in minor island dependencies, while the world passes us by.

        Way to go, once proud and dependable island nation that ‘never lost a war’.

    • i’ve crunched the numbers(tanks ships, troops e.t.c and it would be a formidable organisation, quite what ‘wiggy’ and the ‘cousins in the u.s would be worth hearing

  6. The British Government would in normal times quite happily nod through complete control of our armed forces to Brussels…luckily these are not normal times.

  7. Hi folks hope all are well.
    I agree with Daniele, the veto is key in EU matters. But I would add that whatever the outcome of the B word, a calculation has to be made of whom will take and make the lion’s share of such a military force. Let’s just think in tandem the issue of NATO and the Nations that shoulder the cost and commitment. I would guess the UK would place majority of funding and deployed forces. Let’s face it, we are not impressed with many of the NATO partners most of which are EU members.
    All the best
    George

  9. Veterans for Britain have real concerns, and have done for a couple of years over what the UK has signed up to, even post EU.
    So ‘fact check’ always makes me dubious, and it reminds me too much of the BBC, as though one person is the sole authority on what is ‘fact’ and what isn’t.
    We simply do not know the full extent of what the May Govt has signed up to, the infrastructure the EU are putting in place and how this all affects UK military post EU.

    If it turns out we are 100% in control, no problem, but genuine military peoples have genuine concerns, and if they are concerned then so am i.
    Putting ‘fact check’ in any title fills me with scepticism.

    • Yes, a good question to ask is “who is behind this fact check”. That will shed some light on whether there is political bias involved or not.

      • A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true, and yet you still want to refuse to acknowledge it becuase it goes against your point of view, so you come up with the excuse of “who is behind it”

    • call me a cynic(everyone else does), but,what really does get discussed in the halls of power,the subject is always open to debate, as i’ve said before, with allies like spain i’d want to know how it could all be held together

      • Fascinating, truly fascinating.

        Except for a couple of things, it does nothing to address the genuine concern of military personnel, former and serving. Is as biased as you can get, the cherry picked pieces for each individual had no relevance to my broader point. Failed to virtue signal over the Lib Dem and BSIE fine from the EC, never pointed out that the EC had already given TBP a clean bill of health days before the politically motivated, staunch EU luvvie, Brown’s pathetic smear that led to the EC conclude that TBP is open to ‘foreign’ donations….just like every other party!

        And then you do what all other far lefties do…

        The “faaaaaaaar riiiiiiighhhht” ?☠️ when you don’t agree.

        Your reply was at best quite a sad insight into your mind.

        There is genuine concern, you nor i know what has been signed, what has been agreed and how much (if any) power the EU could still wave once we have left.

        But thank you for your reply, made me roar with laughtet

  10. Plenty of times in the past countries have been hounded and bullied in to compliance because they had the temerity to use their national veto or where the EU institutions have removed national vetoes in favour of QMV.

    “A change of the Treaty is not necessarily needed to move from unanimity to qualified
    majority – this can be done with the so-called “passerelle clauses” in the current Treaties upon the approval of the Council or the European Council.” (statement on extending QMV in energy by the EU)

    For many years UK policy statements were closely aligned to EU proposals – was the EU giving us everything we ever wanted, or were UK officials simply strongly aligned with the EU? Times changed post 2009 (see the last link below).

    It is not difficult to imagine a situation, with a compliant UK civil services working with the EU via the passerelle clauses to incrementally water down our veto in key areas over the years – as has been the case in various other policy areas, see the second from bottom link. In the end, what remains of a national veto is a shadow of its former self and practically impossible to implement on account of wider developments.

    The disbandment of national vetoes has been the aim of the EU for decades, see links below – this is slowly being accomplished, see second from bottom link.

    The future of the EU is QMV and the abolition of national vetoes.

    This is why facts are often rendered meaningless by context and why fact checking websites so often miss the point.

    Facts are one thing. True facts are another. And truth is something, oftentimes, altogether different. (Me, 13/6/19)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passerelle_clause

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/eu-national-veto-must-go-santer-warns-britain-1619003.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/debates/european/645066.stm

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/extending-qualified-majority-voting-in-the-european-union-does-this-mean-the-end-of-british-sovereignty/

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does-the-uk-win-or-lose-in-the-council-of-ministers/

  12. The EU has a president, parliament, courts, currency, legislates, anthem and flag etc. It will have an army and if the UK remains it will be part of it and anyone who states otherwise is as gullible as those who believed in the £350m for the NHS strapline during the referendum. Can you honestly trust a future government of the UK not signing up just like they have for the last 40 years or so. They have used large majorities in our broken system to pass treaties, which have de facto altered the UK constitution with no reference to the country. Now we can all see the mess this has created.

  14. Let’s face it. The British have a “sod you” attitude to authority. No matter what the truth is we’re just rebellious children and I’m proud of it

  15. The problem is not that the UK has a veto. The problem is the combination of the intention of the EU to create a EU army and the propensity of many in the British political class to want to act as a bunch of “pleasers” to the EU. Recently It has become obvious that there are many in the establishment who would rather concede vital UK interests rather than have to go through the unpleasantness of opposing the diktats of Brussels

    A veto has no power if it is ignored. The danger is the UK gets incrementally sucked into defence arrangements which only serve to further the political objectives of the EU and that those same objectives simultaneously act to undermine NATO, an organisation which actually does serve the defence interests of Europe.

  18. All well and good, but there appears to be an assumption here that we would continue to have a veto should we rip up A50 and remain. I’m quite sure we would end up in the single currency, lose veto plus much, much more if we were to end up going back to Brussels. This is something that doesn’t seam to get talked about and should be at the front of peoples minds when considering future options.

  19. Written by a ‘Remainer’ as EU is only moving in one direction – further Integration, and thank god UK is leaving.
    We all recall Nick Clegg saying “EU army is a dangerous fantasy” and yet what happens – it comes reality.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here