Minister of State for Defence Frederick Curzon has claimed that the UK is “very keen” to support French President Emmanuel Macron’s plan for a European intervention force.

The European Intervention Initiative force would be separate from other EU initiatives, meaning the UK could take part if it wishes.

“We’re very keen to support President Macron in this initiative,” Curzon told AFP here.

“We look forward to sitting down with our French colleagues to work through the ideas that they have formulated for a more efficient and joined up security and defence system across Europe. We think it has a real part to play.”

Frederick Curzon, also known as the 7th Earl Howe, is Minister of State for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords.

“It certainly will help to achieve what we are looking for, which is a deep and special partnership with our European colleagues in defence and security” he added.

According to AFP, the European Union this week announced plans to spend nearly 20 billion euros on defence in its budget for 2021-2027, most of which will go on research and developing new military technologies for the union.

41 COMMENTS

  1. Given the EU’s dictatorial attitude to the UK I have one question for whoever is floating this monumental stupidity:

    WHY?

    • Because it will help us deliver our foreign policy goals, such as stabilising fragile states, e.g. Mali and Sierra Leone. Because none of the European powers can afford to do it all alone. Why wouldn’t we share the burden?

      • “Stabilising fragile states” why would your average British squadie want to fight other peoples wars?are they just guns for hire nowadays.

      • (Chris H) Anthony – You laid out some possibly worthwhile objectives for the EU’s foreign policy objectives not the UK’s but failed to answer my question WHY we should in any way support them in those objectives.
        Once again we are falling into the EU’s trap of supplying the skills and assets while they take the credit. And all this at a time when they are treating us like some twopenny third world country rather than respect us for what and who we are and how we have been one of the biggest providers of MONEY for their failed political Ponzi Scheme …

        We need to keep the hell away from the EU and all it stands for. Yes we need a trade deal but so do they even more so. That should be as far as ‘co-operation’ with the EU should go especially on military matters given their total lack of financial and technical effort maintaining what they already have. Let them provide their own assets for their own objectives

  2. Money money money. They need our heavy lift capability to make up for the 100 A400’s they ordered for industrial workshare but forgot to pay for.

  3. They need us because they would rather spend money on building huge HQ buildings, employing tens of thousands of beaurocrats and ensuring the EU has the best stocked champagne and caviar stores in the world.
    The UK has unique capabilities that the EU needs. 60% of Europe’s nuclear powered attack submarines. 2 out of the 3 real strike carriers and a large proportion of Europe’s drone and attack helicopter fleets. Heavy lift. The EU has little to no heavy lift helicopters or tactical air transport. The French needed the RAF Globemaster aircraft to deliver heavy supplies like armoured vehicles and helicopters to Mali recently.
    I struggle with the notion of an EU intervention force. Should this not be a NATO deployed asset? Unless our armed forces are willing to risk their lives whilst being at the beck and call of a political union we voted to leave?
    Summary. It is either a NATO force or we should not have anything to do with this.
    The 7th Earl Howe does not speak for the UK, parliament does. Has parliament voted on this issue?

    • Its easy to look at the weaknesses of the EU military, but equally we can play that with the UK forces, which has gaps all over the place, significant ones being lack of maritime patrol aircraft, no air based anti ship missiles, lack of punch in medium armored level, lack of soldiers/sailors/airman, lack of modern land based air defense, ship based anti-ship missiles that the admirals described as obsolete and the list goes on and on. Reality is any European countries days of a credible military force are over.

    • You do spout some guff. Exactly which 2 strike carriers do we field at the moment?
      How many of the T class boats are fit for service? For that matter, will the 7th Astute ever be finished if they keep robbing it to keep other boats in service?
      Who provides our MPA capability?
      We have helicopters deployed on a French platform.

      Try to post in a more reasonable factual style.

  4. Brexit means the EU Army is dead. Long live the European intervention force? Pragmatic move by Mr Macron.

  5. So he is another unelected turd from the House of Lords that apperantly does’nt understand the instruction that the British people sent with the referendum.

  6. It’s a fantastic idea and we should be well part of it, we have always been one of Europe’s main countries for defence and long may it continue. More British blood has been spilt on mainland Europe than anywhere else on the planet so it’s only right we continue to defend and work with our European allies, who some also are our oldest allies.

    Just read a little bit about it and it really is something that could be used.

    Point being, the refugee crisis that came from Libya, now i know a task group was set up with naval assets, but that was now knowhere near enough, imagine if we had a joint European force that could land and occupy the ports in Libya at the time and stop the root of the problem.

    I can see some people are already spitting their Union Jack/star spangled coloured dummies out but this isn’t a replacement for NATO, NATO is ultimately for defence on a massive scale, it is pretty unworkable for offensive operations at this time because the US and European foreign policy is not exactly seeing eye to eye at the minute.

    The refugee crisis was a European problem that needed a strong European response.

    Britain, France and Germany, 4th, 5th and 6th largest economies in the world, it’s about time we got together and led something like this.

    • the problem will always be one of politics and the 3 nations wanting different things from a situation. A clear military threat is unlikely these days and so militaries are used for less obvious threats real or more likely not. Any European nation alone could easily have sent a force to take and hold the maIn Libyan ports or just blockage them with an aggressive naval move, but there is no political will to do it and no belief it would really solve the problem.

  7. The EU is actively encouraging it because it is another way to get the UK to pay and then potentially bleed for their defence. Take this notion to parliament and let’s have a proper debate by our elected representatives.
    Join the EU intervention force or not?
    This is not Lord Howe’s decision to make. He is an unelected baffoon.

  8. I just hope the EU are careful what they tell us. They’ve thrown is out of the Galileo project because we’re not to be trusted with security details. Yep i’m being sarcastic. This is reason number 693 why I would make a terrible minister. I’d tell them to go have sexual relations with themselves.

  9. The same old xenophobic, anti European clap trap comes out again. So predictable! I really don’t see what is achieved by this. But let’s return to the point. Our history, our heritage, our culture, our social values are all shared with most of our European partners, many of which are old allies of the U.K. The U.K. is a European country. It is in our interest for Europe to be safe and stable. We have a lot to contribute to that safety and stability. NATO is our primary defence and security alliance, and long may it survive and prosper, but there will be instances when European countries will want to act independently and a well established and rehearsed C2 structure able to effectively back up our foreign policy aims will be useful to enable it to do so. North Africa is one example. What is going on right now with the Iranian nuclear deal is another. It doesn’t in any way contradict or threaten our membership of NATO. Also, by being an active member we can shape policy. If we don’t take part it will happen anyway and we will be passive observers. I think it’s an excellent idea all round.

    • Good post. Brexit is a reality. Europe is now the EU + UK + a few others. Junker might ‘lead’ the EU but Macron is leading Europe. He is pointing a direction and leading by example.

      • That’s an important point, Europe is not defined by the EU, more so now we are leaving, Europe is Europe.

        Macron is leading Europe at the moment, and if we had a better leader there is no reason why the UK cannot lead Europe in foreign policy and defence matters.

        To lead Europe is simple, it’s to be the leading man or women out of Britain, France and Germany, nothing to do with the EU as a whole, it’s whoever is taking the lead out of those three leaders.

    • Good comment Richard.

      In regards to the Iranian Nuclear deal, last night was a sad day in history when the German Chancellor, French President and British foreign secretary go to the US on a lobbying mission, and then lose to the Israeli lobby and Saudi Arabian demands.

      It is concrete proof that the UK’s voice is not listened to by the current regime in the White House.

      And yet certain posters on here think we are going to shape the world by America’s side when we leave the EU, absolute pie in the sky thinking from people with their heads buried well and truly up their own rear.

      More European cooperation is needed, there needs to be a united European front to tackle a whole host of issues, further develop our technologies, and have a real say in global affairs.

      After the war and decline of the empires Britain and France thought a bilateral front would be enough to have a say, and that lasted until Suez. Now throw in a resurgent Germany, backed up by the EU’s economic and trade power, we can actually have a say on global affairs. And possibly conduct military action/intervention without the go ahead from America.

      • (Chris H) Solesurvivor – Quote:
        “And yet certain posters on here think we are going to shape the world by America’s side when we leave the EU, absolute pie in the sky thinking from people with their heads buried well and truly up their own rear.”

        Having belief and hope for your country’s future is not pie in the sky nor is it an indicator I have my head up my arse. Quite the opposite in fact. My eyes are looking to new horizons and a belief we will succeed by our best efforts or fail by them as well. Given our position as the No 1 ‘Soft Power’ nation, our permanent membership of the UN Security Council, the second largest contributor to NATO and the 5th largest economy in the world we have clout and influence. We may not always win over others but we have the ability and experience to stand as the UK rather than as 1/28th of the EU whose policies may well be contrary to our best interests. But at least it will be us, the UK, doing that not being quietly written out of history by a clawing political body led by unelected bureaucrats.

        Unlike your eyes of course, blinkered by the cesspit of failed politics and corruption of the EU and the destruction of the Sovereign Nation State within its Federal Socialist ambitions for a USSE. Look to history and you will see how this subsuming of peoples, cultures and nations into one Socialist body sucking power to the centre failed. It was called the USSR. My head is not up anyone’s arse but yours clearly is up the EU’s….

        • Chris all that means nothing against great powers/superpowers, UN Security Council, top 5 economy etc, we have absolute zero influence on any other top 5 economy barring Germany maybe.

          Look at the flashpoints in the world, no influence in the SCS with China, no influence over Russia in Ukraine and Syria, and absolutely zero influence over the USA in the Middle East, or anywhere else the US is around the globe.

          It’s all good to have hope and belief but be realistic please.

          You are the exact kind of person I’m talking about, you have no respect for the 48%, the 16 million Brits that have a different opinion from you.

          Yet most remainers have accepted the result, they respect it and are on board now, it’s you that’s constantly bringing it up, you can’t let go, because leaving isn’t enough for you is it, in your little mind we should have nothing to do with Europe, not one little thing.
          Well Chris I’ve got some really bad news for you, we are still in Europe, we always will be, we will continue to have strong European links in culture and values, and most importantly we will continue to lead and have a say when it comes to defence and security of the continent. Nothing you do or say will ever, ever change that.

          • (Chris H) SoleSurvivor – I just checked and nowhere do I show I ” have no respect for the 48%, the 16 million Brits that have a different opinion from you”. I argued against YOUR point of view that disrespected me and others in a very personal way for holding a different point of view to you. So maybe look in the mirror on the disrespect …

            quite amusing you list the issues where the EU has had zero influence at all and somehow label this as a UK failure. On that argument we couldn’t be worse off could we? Except that free of the EU we will follow our own policies and handle matters in our way. Successful or not I feel that is far better than being 1/28th of something that (apparently) has zero influence.

            As for your “most remainers have accepted the result, they respect it and are on board now” that is an utter and complete lie. So if that is so why are we STILL fighting the issues in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Look in most discussion boards (like the BBC HYS) and you will see endless abuse from Remainers. Forgive me for mentioning this but 300 Remainer MPs are intent on bringing down the elected Government and defying the will of the 17.4 Mn people who voted Leave. You know ‘the Majority’?

            And again you do the typical Remainer trick of ‘sleight of fact’. The EU is in NO way ‘Europe’ and for you and your friend to feel the need to keep misleading on this is quite telling. This project in the article is an EU project led by the ever ambitious France. Do not insult our intelligence by calling it ‘Europe’. And as it is an EU project and for the reasons I gave at the outset the UK should stay the hell away ….

          • “I argued against YOUR point of view that disrespected me and others in a very personal way”

            You wrote that because of this..

            “And yet certain posters on here think we are going to shape the world by America’s side when we leave the EU, absolute pie in the sky thinking from people with their heads buried well and truly up their own rear.“

            Wow. And just a tip CHRIS using CAPITALS on certain WORDS does not make your ARGUMENT any more VALID, it just looks like I’m ENGAGING with a 15 year old.

            I can see why some people haven’t excepted it Chris.

            “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market” MEP leave campaign 2016

            “Only a madman would actually leave the Market” MP leave campaign 2016

            “Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing” Nigel Farage 2016

            “Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK” Aaron banks Leave.EU founder.

            The leave campaign was won on lies, the evidence is there, the only thing that can be taken from the referendum is thy the people voted to leave the EU, but please don’t insult mine and millions of others intelligence by now saying that leave vote meant leaving everything else and also what sort of relationship with the EU we would be having after it.

            As far as “going against the will of the people” is concerned, it only the Lib Dem’s that are actively trying to reverse the Brexit decision.

            You’re talking about the cross party bunch of MP’s and Lords who are making amendments to the Brexit bill including voting on staying in customs union etc. And because none of that was mentioned in the referendum except guarantees that we wouldn’t be leaving it, I’m pretty sure it should be debating on in Parliament and decided in Parliament.

            Seen as you labelled me again (I know it’s your favourite thing to do) I will label you with a modern classic.

            Brexiteer in 2016 “lets make our Parliament sovereign again!!)

            Brexiteer in 2018 “damn Parliament being sovereign making decisions that we don’t agree with”

            It really is laughable.

            And you’re last paragraph, i genuinely don’t understand it, can’t make out what you’re trying to say or point you’re trying to make.

          • (Chris H) Solesurvivor – Well done you list a series of quotes that no one here made and then when you quote me you completely change the words. Tut!

            You then of course play the Remainer game of projecting a falsehood to justify further sarcasm about what my views were in 2016 and what they are now having no idea who I am or what my views were or are now. As for Sovereignty of Parliament you seem unable to comprehend that Sovereignty cannot return until we leave the EU. Which we haven’t actually done yet

            I commented to someone else its pointless arguing with Remainers (to which you added an even more pointless and sarcastic comment) and you Sir have just proved I was correct very eloquently

          • How many times do remainers have to make the same mistake we are leaving the EU not Europe as for remainers accepting the result ha bloody ha is that why Clegg ,Milliband ,Sturmer the BBC and their ilk are still trying their damndest to thwart the result,a pox on all of them as far as i am concerned.

    • (Chris H) sceptical Richard – I got as far as you calling me a xenophobe and realised its pointless having discussions with Europhiles. Like all Remainers you trot out self righteous and sanctimonious attitudes towards people who have possibly been around a bit longer than you and who have a different but equally valid PoV. I voted to Remain in 1975 and came to regret it as the ‘Political Union’ lie came to the surface. Of course you Remainers never asked us about joining the EU did you?

      And then you play the blurring game by carefully using the term ‘Europe’ rather than ‘EU’. Sorry they are not the same thing in military, geographical or political terms. You do realise for example the Continent of Europe extends into Russia? The EU ventured into Ukraine and didn’t that all work out well……

      And what on earth has the Iranian deal to do with the EU exactly? This was a UN Security Council deal with Germany added as a bilateral partner. No EU – No Juncker – No bloody Tusk. So the USA has pulled out? More fool Trump. 7 parties signed that deal and the EU was not one of them which proves their irrelevance in this matter. 6 remain signed up – Iran, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany. What you failed to observe is this is the Israeli Tail once again wagging the US Dog ….The real corollary of this pull out will be IF (as he has threatened) he extends US sanctions to non – US companies still trading perfectly legally with Iran. Like UK companies building systems and components for Airbus who are selling aircraft to Iran. The two strongest and historically supportive allies of the USA (the UK and France) for over 200 years are now in Trump’s firing line. Iran is not the the problem – Trump is.

      • Agreed, Trump is the problem. What with moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and now this derogation of the Iran deal it seems he is a puppet of the US Jewish lobby. The Jews are pretty adept at setting other nations at each others throat, in their own interests.

      • “I got as far as you calling me a xenophobe and realised its pointless having discussions with Europhiles”

        Proceeds to have discussion…

        🤔

        • (Chris H) Solesurvivor – Knowing arguing is pointless with the person concerned doesn’t preclude laying out the arguments against for the benefit of other readers. This is a discussion board with more than just you two contributing is it not? Maybe that is too subtle for you?

          Not sure what the Iranian deal has to do with the EU. And therefore a completely different topic…

          All you have added is the ‘really clever’ sarcasm and making everything personal but then its what you do when challenged as we see frequently.

  10. Iran is continuing to destabilise the Middle East in Syria. The Nuclear proliferarion agreement has not it seems quelled their ambition to destroy Israel. This is a defining moment. We have decided our interests and values are closer to those of France and Europe than they are to the US.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/24/war-iran-israel-coming-britain-must-take-stand-against-formers/
    Could HMS QE could be in service with a squadron of F-35Bs within the time frame of Trump’s reimposition of US sanctions?
    To what extent are Russian S-400s sheltering Iranian forces in Syria?
    Time to put your tin hats on.

    • (Chris H) Paul.P – You make an astute observation about the wider ambitions of Iran. All I would add is if we can all park Iran’s nuclear ambitions it allows the political and trading space to influence them on the issues you mention. Without this Treaty the only item under focus will be Iran and nuclear weapons. Which will give Iran freedom to do as it wishes elsewhere unseen.

      As for Iran vs Israel there are two parties involved and to look just at Iran and ignore what Israel is doing in the region is to misunderstand the issues. Israel is a nuclear power, has a huge military and has no reservations about striking whoever and wherever it chooses knowing it will be sheltered politically by the USA. Why has Netenyahu welcomed this USA leaving the Treaty? It seeks to isolate Iran (see above) as that suits their local ambitions to rid the area of Palestinians and find someone to blame. I never understand why people are OK with America and American Jews funding Israeli Jews and supplying arms and yet its wrong for Iran and Iranian Muslims to support Palestinian Muslims. Its a very complex historical and bitter situation. What we are seeing is the Israeli Tail wagging the US Dog and its Foreign Policy.

      Better to keep Iran in the International Community ‘tent’ than let them wander around loose outside.

  11. I think we can all agree that Trump is a danger to the world. Between him, Putin, Kim, Xi and Modi we have the potential for a lot of testosterone fuelled firestorms round the world. As PaulP says, reach for your tin hats. It’s for this reason that I think it’s the worse possible time for Britain to be going it alone. In an unstable multi-polar world I happen to think we should be part of one of the most stable and best governed poles in the world to maximise our influence and protect our values. By the way, the EU is not governed by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. They may have big sounding titles and make pompous speeches but actually wield very little power. It’s the Council of Ministers that really rules the roost and that effectively means the (elected) prime ministers of Germany, Britain and France. All Brussels does is administer what the CoM approves and even then, its implementation at national level is entirely delegated to each of the national parliaments and civil services. But I don’t want to drag the EU into a forum where it doesn’t belong. This initiative proposed by Macron is a European initiative, not an EU one. That is why the U.K. feels happy to join. And so it should for the reasons I outlined before. I used the word xenophobic because some of the comments posted where not actually directed at the EU but at specific nations in Europe and at Europe as a whole. Also the vitriolic language used by some of the posters I found distasteful. I think we should be able to conduct these interesting exchanges in knowledge, experience and opinions without becoming nationalistic or being derogatory about other nationalities.

    • (Chris H) ScepticalRichard – Sorry but you mislead by your calling it ‘European’. Its not. Its a French led EU initiative simple as. You say you do not want to continue the EU debate (fair enough) but then write contentious comments to show support and advocacy for the EU which then need addressing:
      “I think it’s the worse possible time for Britain to be going it alone. In an unstable multi-polar world I happen to think we should be part of one of the most stable and best governed poles in the world to maximise our influence and protect our values.”

      Really?:
      * Whether its the best time or not we have decided to leave the EU. Thats it
      * Now to call the EU stable and best governed is bordering on the farcical. Its a Ponzi scheme created to take money from a few to fund the many and create a Client State of dependent supporting votes. (Some might call that corrupt). Why do you think they created Qualified Majority Voting?
      * Its the EU Commission that is the sole source and derogation of all EU Laws, Directives and Regulations. No one else. They are unelected and they are bureaucrats. And when did 1 nation outvote 27 others?
      * Oh and when exactly did the UK electorate agree to be ‘governed’ by this foreign power? I missed that event. I thought it was a trading arrangement .. how silly of me.
      * Do tell me how much ‘influence’ Cameron had when he laid out the UK’s huge concerns over FoM and other matters? There was NONE. He (and therefore the UK) was treated with disrespect and sent packing. THAT is why we voted to leave. We have NO influence as 1/28th of the EU despite being the 2nd largest funding country
      * I would remind you that the Iranian deal was put together by the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. We are 1/5th of that body and have equal power to veto anything we choose. THAT is but one example of influence at the highest level.

      As for language it wasn’t this Brexiteer that called you a xenophobe or said others had their heads up their arses (just 2 examples). Stop projecting false facts to suit your Remainer Confirmation Bias ….

  12. When Germany takes its own defence seriously and spends some money I’ll take notice. Until then I’m not interested. The German armed forces are a total joke at the moment. They should be told to get serious or the UK just isn’t interested. The only worthwhile defence bloc is NATO. It’s as simple as that. An EU defence bloc will be about as much use as tits on a fish.

  13. The UK Cabinet already said they want to continue defence and security co-operation with Europe, this is really just confirmation of that, and that it is being discussed. It’s not the same as PESCO, which by the way is also voluntary, Denmark and I think Malta having declined to join in (Denmark is a member of NORDEFCO). PESCO is also unlikely to be a military force.

    The UK and other countries have already done this in the past, and work closely with France already, and if it works it could actually reduce the load the UK carries with its combined operations with NATO, where the European Intervention force can act and perhaps save NATO involvement. It might also encourage more involvement and perhaps a higher GDP spend from its other members.

    And by the way, I think it’s “European” not “EU”, I think it’s likey to include Norway for instance which is a member of EFTA not the EU, though is in the EEA via EFTA.

  14. Interesting threads above; first I go one way then the other; phew! Okay, Britain voted out of the EU and that is a good thing. But Britain must also stay militarily engaged with other European powers, because it can’t pull up anchor and move away from what it is, geographically a part of – Europe. It is no good for Britain to become a reverse colony of the USA under full scale idiots like Trump who are seemingly owned by America’s Jewish lobby. As someone remarked, the Israeli tail appears to wag that American dog, unfortunately. So, Britain has to coalesce with France and Germany as much as that is possible, to prosecute their shared national interests as far as possible. The attempt to destroy the Iran nuclear accord (and a slew of other international accords) by Trump already speaks to a serious divergence of British and American national interests. Being free of the EU gives Britain back its own voice in international affairs, but this voice will be completely lost if a fool like Trump has his boot on the UK’s economic jugular. NATO (America) will only ever take European defence initiatives seriously when the 3 main powers of Europe put their money into the necessary military power that commands respect. The Germans will have to step up and rebuild their army and air force in particular. France will obviously try to be strong in all arms. Britain must focus on its navy and air force, but still keep a well equipped army for expeditionary warfare. Such a powerful Tripartite will squash any possible threat from Russia, and the nuclear forces of France and Britain will cover all European allies, as both nations deploy strategic, and France also deploys tactical nukes. These 3 countries must step up the research, development and production of all manner of advanced weapons for purchase and the use of European defence forces, (along with smaller nations that impress in this area such as Sweden, Norway, Spain and Italy) in order to support their own military/industrial base rather than America’s. Cooperation on defence related equipment should include non-euro major powers like Japan, India and Australia to share the costs. This will help to put some brakes on US military equipment dominance, which in turn lessens their ability to threaten sanctions on the legitimate economic interests of others.

    • 1. Japan either buys domestic or buys American and no European country can compete with US influence there.
      2. Same story with South Korea the president of which actually said Trump deserved a peace prize.
      3.”Jewish Lobby,” pray tell how you think 3% of the US population (who vote Democratic statistically) had Any bearing decision? The Iran deal was NEVER popular in the US that would be why President Obama had to lie repeatedly to get it passed. Also in the never managed even with lying to get through as a Treaty but as a Agreement which requires much less oversight and Senatorial approval in the US. Consider instead loyalty to allies is considered a premium in America and the Israelis are seen as both an ally and
      loyal. While Europeans are seen as fair weather friends who will undermine America and her allies efforts at every turn. By either doing nothing or in the case of Iran handing over gigantic loads of cash to a country that has attacked the US either directly or by proxy repeatedly.
      4. America has been in opposition to Iran since the 1970s when the Embassy was seized (during which time European trade with Iran increased). Then their was the Iranian sponsored terrorist attacks including bombing a Marine barracks. Hitting a USN Frigate with a mine. Then supporting the insurgents in Iraq against US forces there by increasing US casualties. Supporting the Houthis who have attacked US Naval ships multiple times. How anyone in Europe can claim that Americans and Iranians not getting along is new is mystifying. No the tail isn’t wagging the dog as it is being put. Americans are just tired of putting up with foreigners who think they know what’s best.
      5. Supporting Iranian terrorists is a legitimate economic interest? Good to know.

  15. Blimey folks- some heated debate- good on you all.
    Iran is not a nice benign country- they definetly do wish the west the worst possible outcome and would love to see us destroyed. Better for the west to stick together via NATO (not some EU conglomerate of Ethelred the unready)
    I think we should politely turn down the request to join this intervention force- unless of course this is debated in parliament and agreed by parliament.
    Our armed forces are already committed around the world and I cannot see the much reduced UK armed forces having the capacity to meet the demands of this intervention force as well as our other commitments.
    Having lots and lots of defence commitments just means our chances of becoming embroiled in a war that has nothing to do with us or our national interest is increased.
    Iranian nuclear deal was dead in the water already- they have continued to proceed with the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems- where did North Korea suddenly get the ability to launch ballistic missiles from? they did not develop this capacity themselves they were supplied and technically aided by Iran and possibly China.
    The only issue for me is that the UK needs to urgently develop a resurgent Royal Navy of adequate size and capability to deter aggression and an effective Ballistic missile defence for the UK to guard against rouge states like Iran. If only we had 6 more type 45’s we might have enough naval capacity to have BMD ships stationed in UK waters.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here