The Student Room Group

The UK is may be officially at war and the media ignore it!

"The French president announced that on Tuesday France will invoke the European mutual defense clause.

Rather than article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which requires assistance when a member state is "the object of a terrorist attack", France chose to trigger article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union.

This article states that "if a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power."

This is consistent with Hollande's repeated claim that France was attacked by an "army of terrorists" operating from abroad.

The attacks were "planned in Syria, organized in Belgium, and perpetrated with French complicity," he told MPs and senators."

https://euobserver.com/political/131136

Scroll to see replies

At war with terrorism? We already knew that.

If you are suggesting that we are in a state of war with another state then I disagree; the Islamic State is neither a state nor a representation of Islam.
The West was already officially at war with terrorists before Friday. None of what Hollande said is unusual or unexpected.... what's your point?
Original post by 16Characters....
At war with terrorism? We already knew that.
If you are suggesting that we are in a state of war with another state then I disagree; the Islamic State is neither a state nor a representation of Islam.


Invoking Article 42.7 is a very significant ramp up of commitment, it includes bombing Syria and even boots on the ground.

"the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power"

I don't believe that the UK can back out of this commitment without violating the EU Treaties.
Reply 4
Original post by driftawaay
The West was already officially at war with terrorists before Friday. None of what Hollande said is unusual or unexpected.... what's your point?


France and Russia are, but Britain has made no 'Official' declaration of war as such.
We should be. It's absurd that we let these clowns do things like this. We should march in and clear the whole lot out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_activity_of_ISIL#Weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_British_Army
Original post by driftawaay
The West was already officially at war with terrorists before Friday. None of what Hollande said is unusual or unexpected.... what's your point?


Article 42.7 is specifically about being an object of an "armed aggression" rather than a "terrorist attack". If accepted by the EU Council the UK will be committed to an overseas war against the armed aggressor. This is very different from a "war on terror", it is a real war.
Original post by newpersonage
Article 42.7 is specifically about being an object of an "armed aggression" rather than a "terrorist attack". If accepted by the EU Council the UK will be committed to an overseas war against the armed aggressor. This is very different from a "war on terror", it is a real war.


The 'armed aggression' happened to be a terrorist attack..

I don't know why the UK would wish to opt out of fighting them, should we wait until they bomb the tube? Dave already said the UK is providing every assistance necessary. So the war is on :mob:
Original post by sw651
France and Russia are, but Britain has made no 'Official' declaration of war as such.


I think you may be missing the point, Article 42.7 commits the UK to an overseas war. The UK needs no independent declaration of war.
Reply 9
Original post by newpersonage
I think you may be missing the point, Article 42.7 commits the UK to an overseas war. The UK needs no independent declaration of war.


I see, but does the article state they have to provide men or weapons?
Original post by driftawaay
The 'armed aggression' happened to be a terrorist attack..

I don't know why the UK would wish to opt out of fighting them, should we wait until they bomb the tube? Dave already said the UK is providing every assistance necessary. So the war is on :mob:


The crucial point is that the French maintain that it was an attack by an identifiable, external aggressor in Syria.
Reply 11
Original post by newpersonage
The crucial point is that the French maintain that it was an attack by an identifiable, external aggressor in Syria.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-34840858

My bad look at the 11:17 update, we are providing military aid.
Original post by sw651
I see, but does the article state they have to provide men or weapons?


It states: "... assistance by all the means in their power". Yes, real war.
Original post by newpersonage
Invoking Article 42.7 is a very significant ramp up of commitment, it includes bombing Syria and even boots on the ground.

"the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power"

I don't believe that the UK can back out of this commitment without violating the EU Treaties.


I am not disagreeing that Britain might have a legal responsibility to fight. But this is not the same as a formal declaration of war (which I do not think would be even possible since IS is not a state). That said formal declarations of war have been dead in the post-WWII world so I suppose we are as officially at war as we will ever get so I am probably being pedantic.
Reply 14
Original post by newpersonage
It states: "... assistance by all the means in their power". Yes, real war.


If the UN made a declaration, would it override the EU one?
Original post by 16Characters....
I am not disagreeing that Britain might have a legal responsibility to fight. But this is not the same as a formal declaration of war (which I do not think would be even possible since IS is not a state). That said formal declarations of war have been dead in the post-WWII world so I suppose we are as officially at war as we will ever get so I am probably being pedantic.


I agree, Article 42.7 appears to be drawn up so that States must make all the commitment of a war but there is no requirement for a declaration of war.
Original post by 16Characters....
the Islamic State is neither a state nor a representation of Islam.


ISIS may not be a nation state but it is certainly a representation of Islam - the original and literal interpretation of the Koran. You cannot get away from that.

The USA once went to war with the Confederate Sates of America - another self-proclaimed state that wasn't recognised by a single other country (though Britain and France both accorded it belligerent status), so you don't need a recognised state to have a state of war.
Original post by sw651
If the UN made a declaration, would it override the EU one?


According to Article 34:

"Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union’s position."

So the EU has some pretty powerful influence at the UN and will probably obtain UN clearance.
Reply 18
Original post by newpersonage
According to Article 34:

"Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union’s position."

So the EU has some pretty powerful influence at the UN and will probably obtain UN clearance.


I see, especially with the likes of the USA who are whole heartedly supporting this war, the UN would definitely approve
Original post by sw651
I see, especially with the likes of the USA who are whole heartedly supporting this war, the UN would definitely approve


With the UN you always have to look at the veto-wielding states. Russia, France, Britain and the USA would be onside, but China is always a loose cannon and may want to cause trouble.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending