Except I didn't say that the Falklands happened because of the EU, did I? It happened because Argentina invaded British sovereign territory, and the British defended it. Interestingly, not a single other EU country aided the UK.
France aided the UK and was the UK's best ally during the campaign. They declared an arms embargo against Argentina, they allowed use of french controlled ports in West Africa, they provided lots of information about Exocet missiles and they aided British intelligence in preventing Argentina obtaining more of them.
Our biggest "frenemies" during the Falklands were the USA and Israel. Israel were selling them arms (or attempting to) throughout the war and the USA was neutral (with lots of Argentinian sympathy) until their hand was forced.
> USA was neutral (with lots of Argentinian sympathy) until their hand was forced.
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage would disagree with you. Reagan wanted to keep the USSR out of Argentina so the public line was neutrality even with Thatcher pushing him to do otherwise. Behind the scenes the US provided intelligence to Britain.
The USA was, at least at first, divided on the issue and didn't exactly come swingeing down on the British side - many members of the Reagan administration thought that aiding the UK would hamper their anti-communist efforts in South America generally and I guess as hegemon they just wanted the whole inconvenient problem between two US allies to go away.
Later when it became clear that the UK was going to war, that was that. They did support the British position but didn't get entangled publicly for their own reasons, not least there's no point getting involved if your ally can take care of it anyway.
That link showed that France did help the UK. Also they provided ports in West Africa for UK ships as well as details of all the weapon systems sold to the Argentinians. At least as much help as the Chileans.
I haven't said anything of the sort; I don't have enough knowledge of the period to comfortably comment on it.
I only commented above to explain why, it seemed, you were disagreeing on whether the multi-European-country group existed before the Falklands conflict.
Highlighting the Economic in EEC hardly seems relevant either, seeing as the EU is basically just MaastrichtTreaty(EEC) - a treaty which insofar I'm aware makes no mention of supporting member states' wars, "because.....reasons" or otherwise.
Since the founding of the EU there have been several steps towards common military work. In the mid 2000s EU battlegroups were created. In 2009 SAFE laid the foundations for a EU military. Since then EU forces have been involved in peacekeeping missions.
The EEC was very much just an economic body. Since then the EU has been taking steps in multiple areas beyond just it's initial economic competencies.
>Except I didn't say that the Falklands happened because of the EU, did I?
I understood that you implied that the UK 'did Falklands' because EU 'let the UK do it', as if .. as would have been proper, membership in the 'union' would have meant such unilateral warfare would have been anathema.
I mean, its not like the EU wants to sell billions of dollars of weapons to the world, including its enemies.
If anything, the existence of the EU almost certainly prevented things getting worse. While British warships were busy heading down to reclaim the Falklands, Spain was on the verge of invading Gibraltar...
Yeah, as someone with familial connections to both the Falklands and Gibraltar, this is absolute bullshit.
No citation needed, it's just cobblers.
There were Argentinians attempting to use Italian tech to cross the bay of Gibraltar and target Royal Navy assets at dock, but they were arrested by the Guardia Civil.
