THE question in the MDB (5/2) “Should there be a European Army?” the pros and the cons of this question are not complete, and the answer may lie somewhere inbetween.

We already have NATO, and this could be enlarged in line with the EU where possible. Obviously that works with language wise when called into action, and not only spreads the load but unites different nations through being brothers in arms. Also Britain as a member of the UN also contributes armed forces when requested/required/suitable.

To at the same time try to maintain an independant position, is I am afraid reflecting the past positions of glory of Great Britain. We are not today- rich enough and sufficiently powerful to “go it alone” in larger military ventures like the big boys on the block, being USA, China and Russia, and simply put, Britain cannot afford to spend so much to maintain a fictional position.

Costs for items like Trident and aircraft carriers rise astronomically and by the time they come into service could well be becoming out of date, with a whole new batch of multi billion war machines being proposed.

This is a permanently crippling debt that Britain can ill afford. Conventional regular forces, to work in confliction with existing bodies (NATO and UN) is all that is required, and let the leading nations of the world spend the money, afterall what they say is, in the end what will happen, however big we think “our bark” is. Britain's time of being a leading nation at war is over, it certainly has done “its bit” in the last century, which in part brought to its present state (financially) and that vast amount of funds can be better spent at home.


Graham Phillips