• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

British army under french orders.


andrejsv

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
234
I just cant believe it.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: British army under French orders

How low have the british sunken. And now they have to ask permission to France to defend the Falklands?

This is just plain ridiculous. How come it is not the other way around? In which way have the french contributed to merit this power grab?

I also hear that all Harrier jets are to be sold or decommissioned.

PS: also
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/02/britain-france-defence-cooperation

Argh. Weakness breeds contempt, contempt breeds attack and war.
 
Last edited:

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
It is always a mistake to run a military establishment greater than your income can afford.

If relations between what is now England and France had been sorted out properly between 1000 and 700 years ago Europe would have been a very different place now.

What is wrong with cooperation? Assuming of course the pair of them can for once agree on a common foreign policy and that relations with the US can be squared.
 

Jezza

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,766
The Daily Express is a pile of middle-English whining toss. There is nothing unusual about this. It's been going on for years. I remember an Army recruitment ad from years ago which made it clear that British troops could come under the command of other nATO officers as 7 when required. It's the logical conclusion of the EC, NATO etc, which the Tories are just as committed to as labour, whatever they say to the party faithful.
 

LowIQ

Active member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
287
I just cant believe it.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: British army under French orders

How low have the british sunken. And now they have to ask permission to France to defend the Falklands?

This is just plain ridiculous. How come it is not the other way around? In which way have the french contributed to merit this power grab?

I also hear that all Harrier jets are to be sold or decommissioned.

PS: also
Britain and France to seal defence pact | Politics | The Guardian

Argh. Weakness breeds contempt, contempt breeds attack and war.
Get a life.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,482
Twitter
twit taa woo
At a few levels this move makes sense for the British and French. The economics are plain to see, expensive carriers will be a shared responsilbity. Both France and the UK are members of NATO, so either way their troops if put into action under NATO are under command of another nation anyway. In actual fact the US maintains the popular belief that its troops are never commanded by non US officers - that is actually untrue, US forces have regularly been under foreign command.

But I think into the future this will have another facet. A joint UK/French military command will form the kernel of an EU based force. That will also allow the introduction of Germany. In turn such a force would also provide an balancing force within NATO that is currently US dominated.

Another aspect is of course that the Falklands is British territory. If there were another flare up with Argentina (which is incredably unlikley) the Argentines would be facing the UK and France. That alignment would of course be perfectly natural - Argentina is neither a member of the EU nor NATO.

This move, if it goes through should be seen not only in terms of consolidating expenditure, but also consolidating territorial boundries and NATO influence.

I do think the Express is over-the-top in their converage though. Especially this:
But last night critics branded the plan a betrayal of British military tradition going back centuries to the battles of Waterloo, Trafalgar, Agincourt and Crecy.
.... little islander stuff to say the least.

The military reality on the ground has changed. The prospect of a war within the EU has receeded to nil, being reduced to near nothing by the establishment of NATO and reduced further to absolute nothing by the progression of the EU. There has been an expressed desire for a long time now by some major EU powers to act in unison in terms of foreign policy and projection of military. Seems like this proposed arrangement delivers exactly that.

If this story has one major implication, then perhaps unsprisingly the Express has missed it. It is that his may herald the development of a two tier Europe which we in Ireland will have no choice about joining, we simply won't be asked to partake.
 

Ingersoll

Active member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
234
what a load of crap - this has been going on for years - get over it.
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
11,003
I just cant believe it.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: British army under French orders

How low have the british sunken. And now they have to ask permission to France to defend the Falklands?

This is just plain ridiculous. How come it is not the other way around? In which way have the french contributed to merit this power grab?

I also hear that all Harrier jets are to be sold or decommissioned.

PS: also
Britain and France to seal defence pact | Politics | The Guardian

Argh. Weakness breeds contempt, contempt breeds attack and war.
Calm down, close the curtains and give yourself 10 minutes of deep breathing. You're reading the F**king Daily Express here, not the New York Times, it's like the the National Enquirer only with the occasional three-syllable word thrown in. All it means is that the Brits and the Frogs have signed a cooperation agreement to share certain capabilities and facilities, mainly concerning the use of submarines and aircraft carriers. It does not alter the sovereign control of each countries assets. It's pretty much what's been going on in a much wider sphere between the Brits and the Yanks for years. France and the UK are both NATO members y'know?
 

niropiro

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
227
Between 1066 and the loss of Calais under the reign of Queen Mary 'Bloody Mary' Tudor, France was part of the realm. The English monarch claimed dominion over France right up until the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
When the Normans during Richard 'Strongbow' De Clare, invaded Ireland in 1172, they spoke French as did the Norman King of England Henry II, the great grandson of William The Conquerer who came from Normany, and ruled much of England, parts of Wales and Scotland and large territories in Northern France.
The modern English language and modern Gaelige are full of adaptions of Norman French words.
The French dialect spoken by the Normans was of course also full of Scandinavian words - the Normans were after all the descendents of Norse raiders who settled in Normandy. Scandinavians also invaded England and their customs and language and genes rubbed off on the Gaelic Britons, Romans settlers who stayed on after the fall of their Empire and the Anglo-Saxons.
Both France and England were once part of a Celtic civilisation which encompassed much of Western Europe before the Roman invasions after which both became heavily Romanised.
The Germanic Franks (relations of the Anglo-Saxons) conquered Roman Gaul and mixed with the Latin Romans and the Gaelic speaking Gauls and later the Norse.
So the French and the English races that emerged out of this melting pot share many of the same influences and heritage and genetics.
It is a mere accident of history that the English rulers fell out with the French - Richard the Lionheart co-operated wit the French King in the invasion of the Holy Land during the Crusades. French knights rode with English knights and German and Italian and Spanish knights against the Turks and Saracens.
It is significant that the Arabs called the invaders Franks.
More recently during the Great War, the British and French fought together under French or British command on the Western Front.
However if history had been different Britain might well have joined with their German cousins against the French - the English Royal Family were literally cousins of the German Kaiser.
 
Last edited:

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
33,340
Between 1066 and the loss of Calais under the reign of Queen Mary 'Bloody Mary' Tudor, France was part of the realm. The English monarch claimed dominion over France right up until the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
When the Normans during Richard 'Strongbow' De Clare, invaded Ireland in 1172, they spoke French as did the Norman King of England Henry II, the great grandson of William The Conquerer who came from Normany, and ruled much of England, parts of Wales and Scotland and large territories in Northern France.
The modern English language and modern Gaelige are full of adaptions of Norman French words.
The French dialect spoken by the Normans was of course also full of Scandinavian words - the Normans were after all the descendents of Norse raiders who settled in Normandy. Scandinavians invaded England and their customs and language and genes rubbed off on the Gaelic Britons, Romans settlers who stayed on and the anglo-Saxons.
Both France and England were once part of a Celtic civilisation which encompassed much of Western Europe before the Roman invasions after which both heavily Romanised.
The Germanic Franks (relations of the Anglo-Saxons) conquered Gaul and mixed with the Latin Romans and the Gaelic speaking Gauls and the later the Norse.
So the French and the English share many of the same influences and heritage and genetics.
It is a mere accident of history that the English rulers fell out with the French - Richard the Lionheart co-operated wit the French King in the invasion of the Holy Land during the Crusades. French knights rode with English knights and German and Italian and Spanish knights against the Turks and Saracens.
It is significant that the Arabs called the invaders Franks.
More recently during the Great War, the British and French fought together under French or British command on the Western Front.
Look at me everybody i know about history!!
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,847

The Caped Cod

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
3,575
If there were another flare up with Argentina (which is incredably unlikley) the Argentines would be facing the UK and France. That alignment would of course be perfectly natural - Argentina is neither a member of the EU nor NATO.
It might also be pointed out neither are the Falklands, in any other sense than a territory stolen by the British Empire.


Of course it's worth remembering the invasion of Iraq. The French refused while Blair lied to the British public to bring the UK into line with US policy. Were the situation to be repeated, would it mean the UK would not go to war either, or the French would now go too?
 

Scipio

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
943
Hardly surprising. Britain is now downgrading its military capability, while France has the strongest military force in Western Europe (cue stupid French jokes).

A large number of British Army equipment, fighters, and other such material is now produced in France too.

From a historical point of view, it's nothing more than a swing back to the situation pre-1815, except this time, Britain's naval strength is second-tier.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
It might also be pointed out neither are the Falklands, in any other sense than a territory stolen by the British Empire.
?

And who exactly did they steal them from?

The French would of course cooperate in future if there is some oil! I think the bigger problem is squaring future relations with the US.
 

The Caped Cod

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
3,575
?

And who exactly did they steal them from?

The French would of course cooperate in future if there is some oil! I think the bigger problem is squaring future relations with the US.
The first settlement on the Falkland Islands, named Port St. Louis, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland in 1764.
John Byron, by Joshua Reynolds, 1759.

In January 1765, the British captain John Byron, unaware of the French presence, explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont. He sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770. The expulsion of the British settlement brought the two countries to the brink of war, but a peace treaty allowed the British to return to Port Egmont in 1771 with neither side relinquishing sovereignty.[17]
...

In January 1833, British forces returned and informed the Argentine commander that they intended to reassert British sovereignty.
Falkland Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The French would of course cooperate in future if there is some oil!
Really, was there no oil in the last Iraqi invasion because they didn't go then.

The invasion was massively unpopular in France and no doubt the clinching factor in Chirac's decision but had he had Tony Blair to blame the death's of French soldiers in an unjust war on, perhaps he would have seen it as a good way of avoiding "Freedom Fry" American policy.
 

Jakey

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
160
If there were another flare up with Argentina (which is incredably unlikley) the Argentines would be facing the UK and France.
It doesn't mean that at all. This is about interoperability, not some sort of mutual intervention pact.


Hardly surprising. Britain is now downgrading its military capability, while France has the strongest military force in Western Europe (cue stupid French jokes).

A large number of British Army equipment, fighters, and other such material is now produced in France too.
France has the strongest military force in western Europe? Since when? It's common knowledge that France punches massively below its superficially impressive numbers. When was the last time France projected force abroad as Britain did in Iraq '03 and now in Helmand?

As for all this French kit supposedly bought by the British, are you quite sure? Like what? Britain has its own mollycoddled defence industry remember.
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
Of course it's worth remembering the invasion of Iraq. The French refused while Blair lied to the British public to bring the UK into line with US policy. Were the situation to be repeated, would it mean the UK would not go to war either, or the French would now go too?
Let's say there was a planned invasion of Iran which the UK supported and the French opposed. This is what would happen:

French Defence Minister Herve Morin has already indicated that partners would "disengage" in "a conflict where our respective interests diverge". This is also how the concept is seen in London. Each side will have a veto on a deployment it does not want.
In other words, they'll only share equipment, facilities and forces if they both agree on an issue. If they don't agree, the co-operation agreement won't take effect.
 

Ganyer

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
586
If he thinks the Gauls spoke Gaelic, he really doesn't.
While they didn’t speak Gaelic per se, Gaulish (now extinct) is classified as a Celtic language, just as it’s descendant/remnant Breton is today.
 

Ganyer

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
586
The Caped Cod said :

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands, named Port St. Louis, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland in 1764.
John Byron, by Joshua Reynolds, 1759.

In January 1765, the British captain John Byron, unaware of the French presence, explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont. He sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770. The expulsion of the British settlement brought the two countries to the brink of war, but a peace treaty allowed the British to return to Port Egmont in 1771 with neither side relinquishing sovereignty.[17]
...

In January 1833, British forces returned and informed the Argentine commander that they intended to reassert British sovereignty.
Falkland Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So the British Empire acquired the islands from the Spanish Empire who acquired them from the French Empire whose subjects first set foot on what were then unhabited rocks.
It seems to me that given the absence of any indigenous people prior to the arrival of European powers, each of the aforementioned entities would seem
to have similar rights of claiming ownership – if anything it is the French who would have the strongest case of prior rights.

Perhaps the whole matter should be put to a plebiscite. Let the Islanders decide who they wish to be associated with.

Oh, wait a minute……….
 

LowIQ

Active member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
287
Hardly surprising. Britain is now downgrading its military capability, while France has the strongest military force in Western Europe (cue stupid French jokes).

A large number of British Army equipment, fighters, and other such material is now produced in France too.

From a historical point of view, it's nothing more than a swing back to the situation pre-1815, except this time, Britain's naval strength is second-tier.
Tea drinking surrender monkeys. Or was that someone else?
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
Really, was there no oil in the last Iraqi invasion because they didn't go then.

The invasion was massively unpopular in France and no doubt the clinching factor in Chirac's decision but had he had Tony Blair to blame the death's of French soldiers in an unjust war on, perhaps he would have seen it as a good way of avoiding "Freedom Fry" American policy.

On the Falklands are you claiming they should be French? Of course that in turn omits the previous Dutch and English landings. My view of those islands is that the British have as much right to them as anyone else and what matters now is the wishes of the people who actually live there.

Regards Iraq this highlights the real problem that may occur. Differing relations with the US. Personally I believe French policy to be a lot more pragmatic both on that score and in Iraq and surrounding area, but don't expect much by way of ethics from either nation in future ventures.
 
Top