4 ms·

> The EU/NATO has the same problem as the UN. I suppose many of the EU countries have a functional military, but they just can't project power. Only the UK and

> The EU/NATO has the same problem as the UN. I suppose many of the EU countries have a functional military, but they just can't project power. Only the UK and France have relevant militaries within the EU Nations as far as I'm concerned. Or at least they're the only ones with nukes - Germany's conventional forces might qualify otherwise. And you need some sort of retaliatory strike capability to really take a seat at the big boys table. (Which they both do, with their SSBNs)

adrianN 7y ago
Germany's army is barely functional. What we need is a small, well trained and equipped, EU army and a disbanding of the national armies. It makes no sense that each EU member has their own army.
- novaRom 7y ago
  This is absolutely will be blocked by UK and other right-wing and euro-sceptical parties in Euro Parlament. USA will also oppose it with all possible means. I think it's one of their greatest fears ( Russia, Turkey, USA)
  - hyperman1 7y ago
    And this is exactly why a lot of Europe sees Brexit as potentially positive in the long term, even if it is painfull in the short term: The UK is the main blocker to further political unification of the EU.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Maybe. Views of the EU were more negative in French polling than in the U.K. in 2016. Holding a referendum on Frexit was one of Le Pen’s campaign promises. (She lost, but still got 1/3 of the vote.) Further political unification may or may not make France more pro-EU.
      - TMWNN 7y ago
        Macron admitted in 2018 that the French would probably have voted to leave in a UK-style referendum. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/21/emmanuel-macron-uk-yes-no-brexit-vote-mistake https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/21/emmanuel-macro...
        hyperman1 7y ago
        I think most people feel something is wrong with the EU. But this is apart of it: Is it an economical union, or a step towards a fully integrates US-like country. For now it tries to be both,and succeeds in neither. But removing the UK shifts the power balance in this story, and that influences the vote.
- reinier 7y ago
  No, we need each EU country to realize that they all need to have a functioning army that all train together and all contribute to a force that can possibly defend the EU together. Maybe we could standardize a lot of equipment across the armies, but why would we want a general EU army? Who would be in control of it? The possibility of an unelected comission ending up with control is unacceptable IMHO.
  - SllX 7y ago
    In essence, this is more or less what NATO is, and it does standardize a lot of equipment across different forces and provide a chain of command. If NATO didn’t exist though, the other guy is right: you want one military with one chain of command. The more fractured you guys are, the more ineffective any kind of unified military you create will be because you have to convince Frenchmen and Spaniards it is worth dying for Poles and Hungarians and vice versa.
    - i_am_proteus 7y ago
      The existence of separate political/economic (EU/EEC) and political/military (NATO) unions in Europe is remarkably dissonant.
  - hnmullany 7y ago
    A reminder that the members of the EU Commission are proposed by the collective ministers of all European governments, appointed by the group of all EU Heads of Govt (prime ministers/presidents) and ratified by the EU Parliament (directly elected). It's as unelected as the US Supreme Court is - which means - technically unelected, but definitely reflective of the wishes of the electorate via the people they elect to populate it.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > What we need is a small, well trained and equipped, EU army and a disbanding of the national armies. It makes no sense that each EU member has their own army. I understand why someone who wants to create a "united states of europe" would want that, but why would the member countries ever agree to that?
  - dboreham 7y ago
    Money? It'd cost less than 1 army each.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      It also gives them none of their sovereignty a national army does. In fact it lets 27 others co-decide on their economy, social policy, foreign policy, and so on, with some top dogs like Germany getting undue influence, the very top dogs individual countries fought hard to push back in two worlds wars...
      - bobthepanda 7y ago
        The alternative is Britain and France asking for American help in Libya because they can’t actually even do the things they want to do. Regardless of the utility or desirability of action in Libya.
        coldtea 7y ago
        Well, Britain and France have no reason being in Libya, besides plundering resources, and turning a stable, albeit autocratic regime, into a hell-hole of instability, civil war, and fundamentalism...
- coldtea 7y ago
  >What we need is a small, well trained and equipped, EU army and a disbanding of the national armies. So that the people of European nations would give up the sovereignty their ancestors and them fought hard to gain, for a bureaucratic federal scheme nobody asked for (it was built and promoted by bureaucrats and force-fed with promises, threats, and bribes) that prioritizes the top dogs (Germany, to a lesser degree France) to smaller countries detriment?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    No, so that Europeans don't pay extra taxes for duplicate stuff. It's not like France will invade Spain anytime soon. There is no point of both having armies.
    - new2628 7y ago
      Yes, these cross-national committee-based institutions tend to be cost-effective and efficient.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >It's not like France will invade Spain anytime soon. Well, Europeans powers fought twice among them in the 20th century. And in its beginning many said the exact same thing (there was even a popular book called "The Great Illusion" about how a great war in Europe is no longer conceivable, because peace and commerce). Similarly, after the collapse of the USSR a Japanese-American thinker smugly wrote about the 'End of history'. We saw how that turned out... The main reason Europeans powers have stopped in-fighting in the latter part of the 20th century is because they were devastated by the previous wars, in the process of losing their colonial empires (and like Britain, France, etc) and so had their concerns elsewhere, e.g. France in "Indochina". Some were also under control (from USSR), and Germany was split into two and under US and USSR supervision. The power balance had shifted between the US and USSR, so there was little at stake for the European powers to fight, even if they had the might. If more things get at stake, including after long and deep recessions, perceived or real threats to sovereignty, resources, etc, in a troubled climate-change-hit late 21st century, all bets are off. >No, so that Europeans don't pay extra taxes for duplicate stuff. The EU only makes sense if it's a shared political and cultural vision (which at the moment it's not). If European countries want to avoid "extra taxes" and want to think of their economic interest, then should probably do the inverse, and split from the EU (keeping only the trade deals), so that they have their own local currency they can control, instead of a currency that's tuned to Germany's economy (or to some compromise that either hurts the weak economies or the strong ones).

adrianN 7y ago

Germany's army is barely functional. What we need is a small, well trained and equipped, EU army and a disbanding of the national armies. It makes no sense that each EU member has their own army.

novaRom 7y ago
This is absolutely will be blocked by UK and other right-wing and euro-sceptical parties in Euro Parlament. USA will also oppose it with all possible means. I think it's one of their greatest fears ( Russia, Turkey, USA)
- hyperman1 7y ago
  And this is exactly why a lot of Europe sees Brexit as potentially positive in the long term, even if it is painfull in the short term: The UK is the main blocker to further political unification of the EU.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Maybe. Views of the EU were more negative in French polling than in the U.K. in 2016. Holding a referendum on Frexit was one of Le Pen’s campaign promises. (She lost, but still got 1/3 of the vote.) Further political unification may or may not make France more pro-EU.
    - TMWNN 7y ago
      Macron admitted in 2018 that the French would probably have voted to leave in a UK-style referendum. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/21/emmanuel-macron-uk-yes-no-brexit-vote-mistake https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/21/emmanuel-macro...
      - hyperman1 7y ago
        I think most people feel something is wrong with the EU. But this is apart of it: Is it an economical union, or a step towards a fully integrates US-like country. For now it tries to be both,and succeeds in neither. But removing the UK shifts the power balance in this story, and that influences the vote.
reinier 7y ago
No, we need each EU country to realize that they all need to have a functioning army that all train together and all contribute to a force that can possibly defend the EU together. Maybe we could standardize a lot of equipment across the armies, but why would we want a general EU army? Who would be in control of it? The possibility of an unelected comission ending up with control is unacceptable IMHO.
- SllX 7y ago
  In essence, this is more or less what NATO is, and it does standardize a lot of equipment across different forces and provide a chain of command. If NATO didn’t exist though, the other guy is right: you want one military with one chain of command. The more fractured you guys are, the more ineffective any kind of unified military you create will be because you have to convince Frenchmen and Spaniards it is worth dying for Poles and Hungarians and vice versa.
  - i_am_proteus 7y ago
    The existence of separate political/economic (EU/EEC) and political/military (NATO) unions in Europe is remarkably dissonant.
- hnmullany 7y ago
  A reminder that the members of the EU Commission are proposed by the collective ministers of all European governments, appointed by the group of all EU Heads of Govt (prime ministers/presidents) and ratified by the EU Parliament (directly elected). It's as unelected as the US Supreme Court is - which means - technically unelected, but definitely reflective of the wishes of the electorate via the people they elect to populate it.
nordsieck 7y ago
> What we need is a small, well trained and equipped, EU army and a disbanding of the national armies. It makes no sense that each EU member has their own army. I understand why someone who wants to create a "united states of europe" would want that, but why would the member countries ever agree to that?
- dboreham 7y ago
  Money? It'd cost less than 1 army each.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    It also gives them none of their sovereignty a national army does. In fact it lets 27 others co-decide on their economy, social policy, foreign policy, and so on, with some top dogs like Germany getting undue influence, the very top dogs individual countries fought hard to push back in two worlds wars...
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      The alternative is Britain and France asking for American help in Libya because they can’t actually even do the things they want to do. Regardless of the utility or desirability of action in Libya.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        Well, Britain and France have no reason being in Libya, besides plundering resources, and turning a stable, albeit autocratic regime, into a hell-hole of instability, civil war, and fundamentalism...
coldtea 7y ago
>What we need is a small, well trained and equipped, EU army and a disbanding of the national armies. So that the people of European nations would give up the sovereignty their ancestors and them fought hard to gain, for a bureaucratic federal scheme nobody asked for (it was built and promoted by bureaucrats and force-fed with promises, threats, and bribes) that prioritizes the top dogs (Germany, to a lesser degree France) to smaller countries detriment?
- adrianN 7y ago
  No, so that Europeans don't pay extra taxes for duplicate stuff. It's not like France will invade Spain anytime soon. There is no point of both having armies.
  - new2628 7y ago
    Yes, these cross-national committee-based institutions tend to be cost-effective and efficient.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >It's not like France will invade Spain anytime soon. Well, Europeans powers fought twice among them in the 20th century. And in its beginning many said the exact same thing (there was even a popular book called "The Great Illusion" about how a great war in Europe is no longer conceivable, because peace and commerce). Similarly, after the collapse of the USSR a Japanese-American thinker smugly wrote about the 'End of history'. We saw how that turned out... The main reason Europeans powers have stopped in-fighting in the latter part of the 20th century is because they were devastated by the previous wars, in the process of losing their colonial empires (and like Britain, France, etc) and so had their concerns elsewhere, e.g. France in "Indochina". Some were also under control (from USSR), and Germany was split into two and under US and USSR supervision. The power balance had shifted between the US and USSR, so there was little at stake for the European powers to fight, even if they had the might. If more things get at stake, including after long and deep recessions, perceived or real threats to sovereignty, resources, etc, in a troubled climate-change-hit late 21st century, all bets are off. >No, so that Europeans don't pay extra taxes for duplicate stuff. The EU only makes sense if it's a shared political and cultural vision (which at the moment it's not). If European countries want to avoid "extra taxes" and want to think of their economic interest, then should probably do the inverse, and split from the EU (keeping only the trade deals), so that they have their own local currency they can control, instead of a currency that's tuned to Germany's economy (or to some compromise that either hurts the weak economies or the strong ones).