EU army

[Murph7355]

JMGS4 said:

...
I can't see an EU "army" as anything except a shambles, ...

When all they are doing is wasting money with their political meddling then it can be ignored to an extent. But when they have weapons at their disposal it will be very concerning...

[Mothersruin]

gruffalo said:

98elise said:

I see a flaw in the an EU army. I joined the British Armed forces, I would not have joined a Euro Armed force.

I was happy to be a part of NATO and to work with other nations armed forces, but I would not join a single EU armed force.

Yep, that rings true for me as well.

And me.

In fact, the prevailing political wind in the mid-90s made up my mind to leave when I did as I didn't have confidence in the ability of a Labour government and didn't want to 'work' for them.

EU Army, not a chance.

[anonymous-user]

ATG said:

That's not what's being proposed. You wouldn't be joining an EU Army, you'd be joining the Belgian Army (hoo hah) or whatever, and going on joint exercises and operations with armed forces from other EU member states, using compatible equipment and looking to build collective capabilities; pretty much exactly the way NATO operates.

There certainly are people looking to create a genuinely federal european state out of the EU, but they are nowhere near succeeding and their ambitions to date have been roundly defeated over and over again. For example, there is no "european foreign policy". There was an attempt to get member states to pool their foreign policy competence within an EU entity, and, guess what? It was roundly rejected by the member states and is now off the table. It's one of many examples of where the proposed "EU Constitution" was a daft fantasy that got watered down to the point of ceasing to exist in all but name. In the absence of EU-level, collective foreign policy, the idea of having an "EU Army" in the way that the French of British have an army is absolutely bonkers, and no one is proposing such a thing.

So, the question really is whether or not having an EU version of NATO operating alongside NATO makes any sense. Is it just an unnecessary duplication? Would it create yet more bureaucracy? Would it make NATO more capable? Etc, etc.

You may wish to read this http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/confi...

I have seen Federica Mogherini interviewed multiple times on TV stations world wide discussing the EU position on foreign affairs.

[ATG]

jsf said:

You may wish to read this http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/confi...

I have seen Federica Mogherini interviewed multiple times on TV stations world wide discussing the EU position on foreign affairs.

This is the still-born compromise that was left after the member states rejected the original draft of the constitution. It can't dictate foreign policy to member states. It can't coordinate it. On those occasions when member states have got a common position, they can use the institution to collectively express their view. All the policy initiative comes from the member states' foreign ministries. It's a talking shop for the member states, not a central control ordering them about.

[Norfolkit]

ATG said:

jsf said:

You may wish to read this http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/confi...

I have seen Federica Mogherini interviewed multiple times on TV stations world wide discussing the EU position on foreign affairs.

This is the still-born compromise that was left after the member states rejected the original draft of the constitution. It can't dictate foreign policy to member states. It can't coordinate it. On those occasions when member states have got a common position, they can use the institution to collectively express their view. All the policy initiative comes from the member states' foreign ministries. It's a talking shop for the member states, not a central control ordering them about.

So how much was Baroness Ashton of Upholland paid for this non job.

[ATG]

Norfolkit said:

ATG said:

jsf said:

You may wish to read this http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/confi...

I have seen Federica Mogherini interviewed multiple times on TV stations world wide discussing the EU position on foreign affairs.

This is the still-born compromise that was left after the member states rejected the original draft of the constitution. It can't dictate foreign policy to member states. It can't coordinate it. On those occasions when member states have got a common position, they can use the institution to collectively express their view. All the policy initiative comes from the member states' foreign ministries. It's a talking shop for the member states, not a central control ordering them about.

So how much was Baroness Ashton of Upholland paid for this non job.

You could pay her as much as you like, but it isn't going to turn the EU into a superstate seeking to subjugate its members' autonomy which is what was being discussed.

[Murph7355]

ATG said:

You could pay her as much as you like, but it isn't going to turn the EU into a superstate seeking to subjugate its members' autonomy which is what was being discussed.

Emotive language aside, do you not think the 4 freedoms are ALL about turning the EU into a superstate? Ditto the rhetoric coming out of many of the EU elite about "more EU" being the answer to everything (what did Douglas Adams know anyway) and the absolute panic around anything that might be perceived to threaten the project? What about "ever closer union"?

The people currently controlling the EU are still hell bent on the idea of a superstate. They are unable to change their views. They may have wanted different timescales, but they are still blindly heading in that direction.

tbh, as I've posted before, I think they either need to piss or get off the pot on that topic. The uncomfortable one foot in, one out that is the current EU is a disaster yet to reach its peak.

[ATG]

Murph7355 said:

ATG said:

You could pay her as much as you like, but it isn't going to turn the EU into a superstate seeking to subjugate its members' autonomy which is what was being discussed.

Emotive language aside, do you not think the 4 freedoms are ALL about turning the EU into a superstate? Ditto the rhetoric coming out of many of the EU elite about "more EU" being the answer to everything (what did Douglas Adams know anyway) and the absolute panic around anything that might be perceived to threaten the project? What about "ever closer union"?

The people currently controlling the EU are still hell bent on the idea of a superstate. They are unable to change their views. They may have wanted different timescales, but they are still blindly heading in that direction.

tbh, as I've posted before, I think they either need to piss or get off the pot on that topic. The uncomfortable one foot in, one out that is the current EU is a disaster yet to reach its peak.

No, the 4 freedoms are not all about creating a super state. They're the crux of an extremely effective free trade area. Did some people hope that the trade area would evolve into a superstate? Yes, of course they did. But they lost the argument years ago. This is the thing that people seem to miss. Look at what the federalists proposed for the EU Constitution and look what the member states did to the proposal. Game over. No federal super state. The EU remains what it has always been; a collection of member states whose national governments have agreed to pool sovereignty in a few areas of competence. Representatives of those governments come together to make decisions. So, for example, who makes economic decisions at EU level? EU nation states' finance ministers. The Commission and Parliament have very little actual power. All the power remains with the EU member states' domestic governments. There is no chance that this is going to change in the foreseeable future and no country could be forced down that route against its will. In fact any one country can choose to torpedo any further integration for the whole of the EU by exercising their veto. The idea that the EU is heading towards becoming a super state or indeed only makes sense if it is heading in that direction flies in the face of its history since the late 1980s.

[jjlynn27]

carinaman said:

44 minutes in, written evidence about EU Army submitted to Defence Select Committee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihFx3LiTJPw

From the same youtuber;

20 Facts Prove Satanic Ritual Abuse Is Going On Now!
GeorgeGreekTrucker

YOUR OPINION PLEASE ! Paedophiles ask for their practices to be legalised.
GeorgeGreekTrucker

Quality sourcing there. Is that your youtube channel?

[anonymous-user]

Good luck to them if they want an army. EU currently spends E200bn a year on defence, a quarter of which is the UK. Like him or loathe him Trump has a point, if the EU wants to be a superstate then it needs to pay for its own defence or if each country wants NATO to protect it then they need to pull their weight.

[Talksteer]

jsf said:

Talksteer said:

Collectively the EU spends a phenomenal amount on defence and fields a large number of men.

They don't, they don't even meet their obligated GDP spend to NATO.

This is why Trump is pissed off, the USA has been paying for Europes defence since WW2 whilst Europe wont pay their own way.

He is a business man and has looked at the numbers.

The EU spends over $200 billion PA on defence, equal to China's spending much more than any other block bar NATO.

If that budget was coordinated into a single force it would be massively powerful. It wouldn't need any US protection to outmatch the Russians either.

It's still pretty big without the UK contribution, most of which is pretty poor for supporting the defence of western Europe anyway.

Edited by Talksteer on Friday 20th January 22:00

[s2art]

Talksteer said:

It's still pretty big without the UK contribution, most of which is pretty poor for supporting the defence of western Europe anyway.

Edited by Talksteer on Friday 20th January 22:00

Errm, Trident? The rest of the RN? One of the best professional Armies in the world? God knows how many Eurofighters we could get operational if we had to. Lots of Helis. Pretty poor?

[Talksteer]

SKP555 said:

Talksteer said:

EU army is entirely logical and not particularly scary.

Collectively the EU spends a phenomenal amount on defence and fields a large number of men.

However they lack a number of capabilities particularly in terms of rare full spectrum stuff like ELINT, transport, expeditionary stuff, HQ and comms systems.

They replicate plenty of capabilities in small inefficient penny packets.

Chipping in for these capabilities at an alliance level makes sense so does common procurement.

The EU military command is only going to be able to command troops provided by members and will only be able to deploy with some complicated decision making.

Feasible uses for the EU army.

• Improved capabilities to respond to Russian little green men on the borders most probably under a NATO article 50 response.

• Deployment on a major operation like Iraq or Bosnia

• Provision of peace keepers

The EU collective decision making isn't going to allow for much adventurism.

It's not going to be used to attack other members anymore than NATO would nor will members be obligated to provide men. Like NATO it also wouldn't have had any prohibition on members acting independently.

As an aside the rest of the EU really wanted the UK to lead it as the EUs biggest defence spender and most belligerent member.

Wouldn't that just lead to more doubling up of NATO stuff, and wouldn't the economies of scale be greatly reduced by the need for countries to keep the ability to act independently?

A quick Google suggests that NATO only has about 1000 HQ staff, the integration of NATO nations isn't really that great beyond a common high command and common standards so they can have comms with each other. Aside from the NATO AWACS there is not much joint procurement.

The issue you raise is a difficult one and a reason why the EU military I described is aspirational.

Even with common procurement all the nations would still have soldiers armoured vehicles, helicopters, fighter jets, even if they bought them from the same source and trained and maintained them at a multinational facility.

In that case most nations would still be capable of independent action against anything other than a world power. France would still be the one with the aircraft carrier.

Relatively few EU powers have global power projection objectives of their own, those which do would probably need to arrange some more limited alliances with other EU powers to allow them to conduct operations without needing the say so of the whole EU.

That said I think there is a decent chance war as we know it will be over before the EU organises that level of coordination.

Stage 1:

Nuclear MAD, prevented nations covered by a nuclear umbrella fighting other nations similarly covered.

Stage 2:

Conventional MAD, long range precision weapons essentially make overt combat between two nations who own them too risky. Instead proxy or limited wars take place.

Stage 3:

Automation and persistent surveillance technologies mean that a western military can pacify a country remotely. At this point ISIS, Boko Haram or similar can't function, at this point the general trend of reduction in violence gets to the point where you question what militaries are for.

[Murph7355]

ATG said:

...Look at what the federalists proposed for the EU Constitution and look what the member states did to the proposal. ....

Didn't it get re-branded as the Treaty of Lisbon. And in this country at least then just get signed without the referendum that was planned for the "constitution"?

The treaty that brought the EU a president, made "EU rights" a legal thing and gave the EU stronger powers? The one that moved decision making from unanimity to qualified majority?

Thankfully Article 50 was there too. I guess they thought no one would ever pull the trigger.

ATG said:

...In fact any one country can choose to torpedo any further integration for the whole of the EU by exercising their veto. The idea that the EU is heading towards becoming a super state or indeed only makes sense if it is heading in that direction flies in the face of its history since the late 1980s.

The course of the union since 1957 has been "ever closer". It has never, ever changed as far as the EU elite are concerned. And when you listen to the play makers in the EU, it's not about to any time soon.

Vetos are all well and good if the people in power in the nation states are prepared to use them. The majority of states are net recipients from the project. The likelihood is that they'll keep sucking up "more EU" as long as that position remains the same. And now decisions can be passed by qualified majority...hmmm...pass the bacofoil? Maybe.

And when net contributors kick the constitution into touch (let's call it veto it) what happens? Re-brand it and run new votes until the correct result is forthcoming. Yes, yes. Changes were made...but steady creep has happened either without a vote being held or by re-running the ones that were. Since the treaty of Rome there has been steady, gradual creep towards the objective they are now much more brazen about (unlike in 1975). The only thing to throw a decent sized spanner in the works was 23rd June. And even that won't stop it - just look at how the EU elite are reacting.

A currency. A president. Legally binding rights. An army at some point soon. Those in charge being very clear on which direction they want to go and also very clear on their views of the views of the citizens. If it walks like a duck etc.

The one saving grace is Article 50 and that we've had the balls to call a stop to it as far as the UK is concerned.

The other member states may or may not be happy with the direction of travel. It makes a lot of sense for some of them. For others I can't see what they see in it. But they'll make their own minds up in due course I expect.

It will be interesting to see how the EU pans out. You may be right. I may be the world's biggest tin foil hatter. A good part of my vote was to not take that risk though

[grumbledoak]

Murph7355 said:

ATG said:

...Look at what the federalists proposed for the EU Constitution and look what the member states did to the proposal. ....

Didn't it get re-branded as the Treaty of Lisbon. And in this country at least then just get signed without the referendum that was planned for the "constitution"?

One of them - I think Juncker - even said words to the effect that "all the important parts were still in it". Lie more and carry on, as usual. Good riddance.


ETA - It was Giscard d'Estaing and he said it even more clearly than that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567804/Gis...

Edited by grumbledoak on Saturday 21st January 06:52

[wc98]

ATG said:

No, the 4 freedoms are not all about creating a super state. They're the crux of an extremely effective free trade area.

if that was the case why were they not part of the original agreement when we joined the common market ? it seemed to work perfectly well prior to 1993.
i personally have little issue with free movement of people , i have personally been moving around the world relatively freely for over 40 years. what i do have a problem with is people being treated purely as a commodity to be shifted around the eu as cheap labour.

[CrutyRammers]

wc98 said:

ATG said:

No, the 4 freedoms are not all about creating a super state. They're the crux of an extremely effective free trade area.

if that was the case why were they not part of the original agreement when we joined the common market ? it seemed to work perfectly well prior to 1993.

It's totally about creating a superstate. Remove people's sense of national identity by mixing the populations, until they come to see themselves as eu citizens rather than poles, or whatever.
Trade has always been an enabler for the end game. I'd forgive people like Atg for not seeing it, if only the federalists hadn't written it all down again and again.

[Mrr T]

CrutyRammers said:

wc98 said:

ATG said:

No, the 4 freedoms are not all about creating a super state. They're the crux of an extremely effective free trade area.

if that was the case why were they not part of the original agreement when we joined the common market ? it seemed to work perfectly well prior to 1993.

It's totally about creating a superstate. Remove people's sense of national identity by mixing the populations, until they come to see themselves as eu citizens rather than poles, or whatever.
Trade has always been an enabler for the end game. I'd forgive people like Atg for not seeing it, if only the federalists hadn't written it all down again and again.

This post shows how little the average brexiter understands the EU countries. I call it the Dover effect but it's more than that.

If you look at the working population of Dover many will work in the rest of Kent even in London. Almost no one works in France or Belgium. Partly because of language but also because of cost. The same is true of say Manchester as well, although there the issue is distance.

This is simply not true in most of the EU where the idea of crossing a border to work is often normal. I know Luxemburg well and a majority of its workers live in an other country. Let me tell you a French who drives into work in Luxembourg is still a Frenchman at heart.

[LimaDelta]

Mrr T said:

This post shows how little the average brexiter understands the EU countries. I call it the Dover effect but it's more than that.

If you look at the working population of Dover many will work in the rest of Kent even in London. Almost no one works in France or Belgium. Partly because of language but also because of cost. The same is true of say Manchester as well, although there the issue is distance.

This is simply not true in most of the EU where the idea of crossing a border to work is often normal. I know Luxemburg well and a majority of its workers live in an other country. Let me tell you a French who drives into work in Luxembourg is still a Frenchman at heart.

I suggest you do some research into how European borders have moved over the last few centuries, and then tell me if they are really crossing borders. A border is just an arbitrary line on a map. Britain is an Island nation and thinks accordingly. The Europeans, particularly France/BENELUX/Germany are fairly homogenous.

Also Luxembourg, etc don't really count as they have to rely on 'foreign' workers due to their size. Many people working in Monaco live in France for financial reasons.

[Talksteer]

5ohmustang said:

Talksteer said:

The EU spends over $200 billion PA on defence, equal to China's spending much more than any other block bar NATO.

If that budget was coordinated into a single force it would be massively powerful. It wouldn't need any US protection to outmatch the Russians either.

It's still pretty big without the UK contribution, most of which is pretty poor for supporting the defence of western Europe anyway.

Edited by Talksteer on Friday 20th January 22:00

In terms of sheer numbers of troops and equipment, the entire EU does not come close to combined U.S. Armed Forces, Active duty, Reserve and National guard.

I never said that, in total number of military personnel and spending the combined militarys of the EU would add up to a very large and capable military. It would have greater capability than any other world military apart from the US and maybe China.

Unless it's objective was to fight the US or China or engage in a nuclear conflict with Russia it would be adequate.