EU Court Trying to Take Control of Member State Militaries [VIDEO]

ER Editor: As ever with The Duran‘s video discussions, we’ve provided some notes below but highly recommend watching the video.  We remind readers of the nonsense General Milley has been advocating over the acceptance of critical race theory among the US military. This wouldn’t be taken seriously in Europe, so – we believe – this is the EU’s way of both centralizing power and castrating yet another important aspect of the nation state. Here are some key points:

  • An EU Court of Justice decision is currently annoying the French power caste: militaries within EU member states are to be subject to an EU directive, which makes them employees subject to individual time keeping requirements, limitations on night work, rigid activity planning, precise calculation of time off, rest time each day, etc. Armies clearly don’t and can’t work like office workers on a daily schedule, so this isn’t appropriate.
  • This has caused uproar in France. The minister of defence has condemned it, promising to fight it locally and at the EU level. Even pro-European French politicians are against it.
  • It’s all related to the desire to get an EU army underway. It’s also about the European Court of Justice looking to extend its reach into every area of life.
  • France has a powerful military, and it has a very difficult relationship with Macron. They will see this as a way to undermine them, and undermine discipline, limiting the abilities of senior officers to manage them. It’s difficult to see how discipline can be maintained under this directive. Likely, many French soldiers will blame Macron for this.
  • Is the EU court above the EU member states? Yes, its decisions take precedent over domestic courts. French courts are subordinate, so if this becomes EU law, French courts will have to submit to it.
  • None of the EU treaties give the ECJ this enormous power. It assumed this power from a decision taken in the 1960s, so it simply gave itself this power historically. Remarkably, this decision was accepted. Countries have tried to rebel over the years, but have done so unsuccessfully. For the British this was a sticking point: they wouldn’t allow domestic laws to be governed by the laws of another power.
  • There has always been military law and civilian law. Now, we have civilian law applied to the military.
  • How is this co-ordinated with NATO? We can see the same philosophy applied to the US military – General Milley has gone to Congress with concerns about identity issues. They haven’t YET gone so far as to generalize civilian law to the military, not yet. So across the West, it is inevitable that there will be a steep decline in military discipline. Young people often join the military for a different esprit, of discipline and service. This is totally different to a civilian mindset. The Chinese and the Russians must be laughing!
  • Has the West just decided to change the role of the military? Against one of protection and defence? It now seems to be turning into just another bloated institution that’s sucking up taxpayer money for insider gravy trains. Now we have drones and unmanned aircraft, cyber attacks, etc. So do we have a need to put a person in a fighter jet to go somewhere and protect a territory? Is this the plan? Our borders are being opened and destroyed after all.  Yes, it is the plan and belief. That war can be done without soldiers is what they likely believe.
  • The ideology of the elite is antithetical to the traditional military philosophy of defending nation states – they don’t like states, which are antithetical to the whole EU project.
  • Armies need soldiers, and without soldiers, they can’t function anymore.
  • Could soldiers be turned on the populations in EU nation states? Like a kind of globalist, authoritarian surveillance system. So it isn’t about fighting foreign states but about suppressing uprisings among local people. It probably is, but traditional militaries HATE having to fulfil this role against their own people – it’s against their mindset, and tends to demoralize militaries. But yes, they want the military onside politically, that’s available to be used by them as they require.
  • Armies can’t afford to rely on machines – Churchill said this. It is soldiers who win wars.
  • This is clearly part of the centralizing agenda within Europe, and extending the reach of institutions like the ECJ. So the French military having to follow European law is the central theme here.

Source

************

••••

Click on the image below to visit site:

••••

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

1 Comment on EU Court Trying to Take Control of Member State Militaries [VIDEO]

  1. This power-grab over the military is also about sovereignty. There is only one ultimate way to enforce your national sovereignty, and that’s national defense. The “war power” in daughter parliaments of the UK is vested in the “Sovereign”, in the Crown.

    This EU court directive surely, when someone deeply analyses it, cannot stand if it trenches on, diminishes, interferes with or undermines this fundamental national power designed to ensure one’s very existence. Which is not to say that isn’t the court’s objective.

    You ask, “Is the EU court above the EU member states? Yes, its decisions take precedent over domestic courts.” I would caution, again if anyone wants a dive down the rabbit hole, that the place to begin with a jurisdictional question like this is at fact #1.

    Fact #1 is likely to be the alleged “decision” of any member country to join the EEC-EU and subject itself to the dictates of basically a “foreign power” constituted by the members. If the original decision to join and submit was not constitutional, then the courts of the relevant member state are not subject to the dictates of the EU courts.

    In other words, we’re looking at whether “joining” the EEC-EU was a constitutionally valid act, or a coup d’état. And voting for it doesn’t validate a coup, in case there were referenda in certain member states. If you vote for a coup d’état, you become a part of the coup; your vote does not make a coup constitutional.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*