6 ms·

European Union is not a sovereign entity that can have its 'own' military.

by adhvaryu 3y ago

TotempaaltJ 3y ago
Why not? What's preventing the EU from making a law that established a European military force?
- beebeepka 3y ago
  The US. That's what.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  a) no-one wants that, so b) no-one would vote for that, and so c) it won't happen. In some remarkable circumstance that the EC proposed such a thing, and all the MEPs did think that was a good idea, there'd still have to be an EU treaty that allowed for it, because it's certainly beyond the scope of the CFSP. Said treaty would have to be ratified by the member states.
andsoitis 3y ago
> European Union is not a sovereign entity that can have its 'own' military. From a cursory read, it doesn't seem like that stands in the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_army
cpach 3y ago
That’s true, but there has been discussions about it for at least twenty years. Will it ever materialize? Dunno.
zabzonk 3y ago
the UK, with one of the more powerful militaries, is not part of the EU. many EU members and the UK are part of NATO which performs much the same job that an EU force would.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  NATO armed forces would be under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who by pure coincidence happens to always be an American. Right below him is the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who has been British in 22/30 cases. If the EU wants to have an army that serves their interests, I would consider it prudent to have the command of that army be in EU hands, instead of just handing their soldiers to the US. They can still join defensive treaties with the UK, or simply stay in NATO, but that's a different question from how the army is organized when Article 5 of NATO hasn't been triggered.
  - zabzonk 3y ago
    but who would this EU force fight that NATO wouldn't?
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      A future equivalent to the Kosovo war (that time NATO intervened, but they didn't have to). Or what about wars on the EU's South-Eastern border? Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran. The US has complicated feelings about the region that don't always align with the EU. Also protecting European interests in a future war between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia over the water in the Nile River (Egypt is right next door to Greece and Cyprus after all). Not to mention future actions in Lybia, Algeria or Morocco to deal with illegal immigration. If we are to convince France to merge their army with the common EU force the EU might be forced to also protect French interests in West Africa (they are quite involved in that region still)
      - zabzonk 3y ago
        well, i'm not convinced that an EU force is viable. NATO has a pretty clear raison d'etre - attack one of us and all of us will respond. but somehow I can't see germany supporting france in west africa, or poland supporting italy in actions against libya.
goerz 3y ago
That’s not true, the EU is a suprantional entity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_union That is, its members transfer part of their sovereignty to the EU
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
crote 3y ago
There is no reason why it couldn't have. There are currently already combined German-Dutch military units, for example, and NATO often acts like a single military too.
ben_w 3y ago
Not yet, no. Theoretically this can change at any time with the agreement of the members. That said: even now the UK has left, there are many in the EU who don't want total integration — as you can see from other aspects like the Euro, Schengen, and the Blue Card not applying to all member states — combined with with the language barriers between almost every pair of states[0], I think this would be a long time coming even if everyone was on board. Although, NATO is a thing and arguably does all that without any of those problems, so perhaps it's easier than I'm assuming… [0] Austria and Germany being an obvious exception, except they're banned by treaty from ever being combined again

European Union is not a sovereign entity that can have its 'own' military.

TotempaaltJ 3y ago

Why not? What's preventing the EU from making a law that established a European military force?

beebeepka 3y ago
The US. That's what.
NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
a) no-one wants that, so b) no-one would vote for that, and so c) it won't happen. In some remarkable circumstance that the EC proposed such a thing, and all the MEPs did think that was a good idea, there'd still have to be an EU treaty that allowed for it, because it's certainly beyond the scope of the CFSP. Said treaty would have to be ratified by the member states.

andsoitis 3y ago

> European Union is not a sovereign entity that can have its 'own' military. From a cursory read, it doesn't seem like that stands in the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_army

cpach 3y ago

That’s true, but there has been discussions about it for at least twenty years. Will it ever materialize? Dunno.

zabzonk 3y ago

the UK, with one of the more powerful militaries, is not part of the EU. many EU members and the UK are part of NATO which performs much the same job that an EU force would.

wongarsu 3y ago
NATO armed forces would be under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who by pure coincidence happens to always be an American. Right below him is the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who has been British in 22/30 cases. If the EU wants to have an army that serves their interests, I would consider it prudent to have the command of that army be in EU hands, instead of just handing their soldiers to the US. They can still join defensive treaties with the UK, or simply stay in NATO, but that's a different question from how the army is organized when Article 5 of NATO hasn't been triggered.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  but who would this EU force fight that NATO wouldn't?
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    A future equivalent to the Kosovo war (that time NATO intervened, but they didn't have to). Or what about wars on the EU's South-Eastern border? Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran. The US has complicated feelings about the region that don't always align with the EU. Also protecting European interests in a future war between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia over the water in the Nile River (Egypt is right next door to Greece and Cyprus after all). Not to mention future actions in Lybia, Algeria or Morocco to deal with illegal immigration. If we are to convince France to merge their army with the common EU force the EU might be forced to also protect French interests in West Africa (they are quite involved in that region still)
    - zabzonk 3y ago
      well, i'm not convinced that an EU force is viable. NATO has a pretty clear raison d'etre - attack one of us and all of us will respond. but somehow I can't see germany supporting france in west africa, or poland supporting italy in actions against libya.

goerz 3y ago

That’s not true, the EU is a suprantional entity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_union That is, its members transfer part of their sovereignty to the EU

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

crote 3y ago

There is no reason why it couldn't have. There are currently already combined German-Dutch military units, for example, and NATO often acts like a single military too.

ben_w 3y ago

Not yet, no. Theoretically this can change at any time with the agreement of the members. That said: even now the UK has left, there are many in the EU who don't want total integration — as you can see from other aspects like the Euro, Schengen, and the Blue Card not applying to all member states — combined with with the language barriers between almost every pair of states[0], I think this would be a long time coming even if everyone was on board. Although, NATO is a thing and arguably does all that without any of those problems, so perhaps it's easier than I'm assuming… [0] Austria and Germany being an obvious exception, except they're banned by treaty from ever being combined again