Support NeoGAF

[Mr.Mike]

An EU Army would be good, but to really work well it'd probably require some amount of unification of foreign policy, and also a unified intelligence agency, both of which I do support.

 

[CoolOff]

including an end to energy dependency to Russia.

I wouldn't be surprised if one could make a reasonable argument that the prospect of large scale renewables throughout Europe is (one of the main) reasons for Russias recent aggressiveness. If they lose that chokehold on Eastern Europe, they quickly become largely irrelevant on the global stage.

It's scary that the one resource they will still have as leverage is their military.

 

[norinrad]

As history showed us, the most important issues are solved by blood and iron, as Bizmark once said. EU has 0 sovereignty as long as NATO exists.

This is what i have been trying to say from page one. Its a good call by Merkel, but as long as NATO exists. There will not be a European Military alliance. Sure We can still have the usual, lets give food, shelter and other humanitarian help.

 

[Condom]

Nice. I hope Trump kicks off Europe finally becoming independent. Too good to be true prolly because I'm sure we'll get some pro-Trump leaders of our own.

 

[kame-sennin]

The EU is an extremely democratic system, far moreso than most of its memberstates.

All the best democracies need flowcharts to be understood.

Representative democracies, a term that is something of a misnomer, are inherently anti-democratic because they place barriers between the voting public and the lawmaking process. The EU is literally a representative democracy slapped on top of another representative democracy.

 

[Xiao Hu]

I wouldn't be surprised if one could make a reasonable argument that the prospect of large scale renewables throughout Europe is (one of the main) reasons for Russias recent aggressiveness. If they lose that chokehold on Eastern Europe, they quickly become largely irrelevant on the global stage.

It's scary that the one resource they will still have as leverage is their military.

That's the whole joke about modern Russia: It's nothing more than a scary looking balloon filled with gas from Siberia that tries to intimidate others. Remove the natural resources and you have a country with no significant industry or technological impact. Hell, South Korea, a country with less than half the population of Russia, has a bigger GDP than Putin's personal playground.

 

[anonymous_abc]

All the best democracies need flowcharts to be understood.

Representative democracies, a term that is something of a misnomer, are inherently anti-democratic because they place barriers between the voting public and the lawmaking process. The EU is literally a representative democracy slapped on top of another representative democracy.

Oh the humanity....

 

[Man God]

The number one goal of the EU project was to tie Germany and France together so that they would never even consider another continental war.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Nice. I hope Trump kicks off Europe finally becoming independent. Too good to be true prolly because I'm sure we'll get some pro-Trump leaders of our own.

That would be ok unless Putin goes on and invade a couple east Europe countries and give shit to everyone else in the meantime.

 

[s_mirage]

Hopefully the EU can become more unified and be a real world player. There is a real potential for success here.

Or a colossal failure. The creation of a unified EU military force has some pretty large issues that have the potential to either make the thing useless, or fracture the EU. If using the thing requires the consent of all member governments it's going to be extremely slow at responding to anything. If it doesn't, then who controls it? France? Germany? The other nations wouldn't stand for that. The European Council? The EU commission? EU bodies, one of which is unelected, taking precedence over national governments on military matters isn't going to fly either. Is it going to be purely defensive, or can it be deployed on foreign soil? If it's the former then it could be useless in a global crisis situation, but it could be politically troublesome if the latter (and we're back to the chain of command issue).

There are some pretty big splits in opinion over foreign policy between EU states, and IMO a better counter to Russia would be a general Europe wide increase in military spending and focus on force interoperability within the framework of existing alliances, rather than the creation of what could end up being a potentially divisive boondoggle.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The only reason unified Germany exists was because the Russians wanted an anti - Atlantic core to be formed by Germany and France in Europe. UK was naturally against, but they couldn't do absolutely anything about it.

The reason unified Germany exists is because Mikhail Gorbachev relaxed restrictions inside the Soviet bloc and took the stance that he would not march columns of tanks into the Soviet satellites as his predecessors had. The revolutions of 1989 were a direct precursor to the fall of the Berlin wall, which was in turn the direct precursor to reunification. Reunification was desired by many in both East and West Germany, there was major low-level pressure from the citizenry for unification, and the entire soviet sphere was in a process of rapid disintegration. The USSR was roughly a year away from it's own disintegration. At best, they could have delayed reunification. It wasn't some political masterstroke.

 

[Snwaters]

It will be important to shore up the EU strength if we don't want to be pointless in thirty years. Start a better integration, start a path for almost full autonomy including an end to energy dependency to Russia and start building up more industrial capabilities in the east.

This is already starting, but the result is not what many Liberals would want. With trying to free themselves from Russian gas, many European nations are having to turn back to coal. Renewables just aren't their yet in raw efficiency with fossil fuels. With recent trends, unless there is a huge breakthrough in renewables, Europe will probably have to trade in Russian gas from for American shale (we're exporting again).

I'm sure you can see why more than a few in Europe may not be all that pleased with this, but there it is.

 

[bonesmccoy]

That's swell and all, but I see Europe moving toward more regional factionalization (again) than toward a deeper union.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

That's swell and all, but I see Europe moving toward more regional factionalization (again) than toward a deeper union.

It's time for two speed EU.

France, Germany, Benelux and maybe a few others like Denmark and Austria go full federal. The rest join at their own pace.

 

[Man God]

It's time for two speed EU.

France, Germany, Benelux and maybe a few others like Denmark and Austria go full federal. The rest join at their own pace.

It's kinda been like that for awhile now if you think about it, just moving at a glacial speed in both directions.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think a joint EU military would be a great idea generally, but the biggest hurdle would be that it would surely require a homogenisation of foreign policy that currently doesn't exist. How would such a force be deployed? All the economies of scale and pooled resources don't mean much if Malta blocks its use because they want to be able to fish more or something.

 

[Joni]

This is already starting, but the result is not what many Liberals would want. With trying to free themselves from Russian gas, many European nations are having to turn back to coal. Renewables just aren't their yet in raw efficiency with fossil fuels. With recent trends, unless there is a huge breakthrough in renewables, Europe will probably have to trade in Russian gas from for American shale (we're exporting again).

I'm sure you can see why more than a few in Europe may not be all that pleased with this, but there it is.

It really depends on the country. Germany is regressing because a cowardly nuclear stance. Europe with nuclear energy would never need Russia. It would be enough for Germany to switch to do enormous damage already.

It's time for two speed EU.

France, Germany, Benelux and maybe a few others like Denmark and Austria go full federal. The rest join at their own pace.

That would be lovely. It would be possible to orchestrate using just three languages for the initial five to six countries if you take Austria and not Denmark. Considering the latter has a bit more optouts including on the euro, it wouldn't make much sense to take them either. It could always do a similar exercise with its Scandinavian neighbors first which should ease tensions against more integration. Aside from Finland the other Scandinavian countries all have their specific doubts. Having them try it amongst themselves but following the same general guidelines would be more optimal.

 

[hidys]

Merkel is too conservative for my taste but the idea of a standing European army is an excellent one. It would have been a good idea before but in a Post-Trump world it has become a necessity.

It seems like it would be difficult to pull this off politically but I really hope the powers that be in Europe can come together on this important reform.

 

[RulkezX]

It'll never happen. A centralised EU army means 1 country essentially controlling the foreign policy and standing armies of 27 countries. We all know that's Germany.

All it'd achieve would be end of the EU and see the slide to the right accelerate.

Americans really don't understand Europe , you people just see us as a collection of hillbillies to stupid to just copy the glorious US and unite.

 

[Snwaters]

It really depends on the country. Germany is regressing because a cowardly nuclear stance. Europe with nuclear energy would never need Russia. It would be enough for Germany to switch to do enormous damage already.

Depends. I'm American, so I can only speak for how it is stateside, but people here have a NIMBY attitude towards nuclear power plants. Fukushima didn't help out nuclear power's image. Maybe NIMBY isn't so prevalent in Europe (I'm actually curious if it is a problem in Europe), but I wouldn't underestimate it.

And even so, building them takes time, and a massive investment, especially in terms of loans and insurance. I can see a lot of the 'smaller' nations not having the capital (either financial or political) to get it time any time soon. Easier to just import oil and gas from the US and Canada instead of Russia. Kick the can down the road so to speak.

 

[CoolOff]

Germany is regressing because a cowardly nuclear stance.

Citation needed.

 

[Kathian]

As German power continues to rise the US could struggle to maintain the same size of military in Europe. This would be an issue for American power in Europe and MENA.

It's why acting like America is the only player with agency in European relations with Russia is rather silly. Hell I think the British Government had more to do with the passing about of the dossier on Trump than they will ever publically let on.

 

[Joni]

Depends. I'm American, so I can only speak for how it is stateside, but people here have a NIMBY attitude towards nuclear power plants. Fukushima didn't help out nuclear power's image. Maybe NIMBY isn't so prevalent in Europe (I'm actually curious if it is a problem in Europe), but I wouldn't underestimate it.

It is indeed partially a NIMBY attitude. But people also don't want global warming and they don't want to reduce their electricity usage so it is up to politicians to be brave. Too bad that seems to be missing often.

And even so, building them takes time, and a massive investment, especially in terms of loans and insurance. I can see a lot of the 'smaller' nations not having the capital (either financial or political) to get it time any time soon. Easier to just import oil and gas from the US and Canada instead of Russia. Kick the can down the road so to speak.

Germany has nuclear powerplants, they are just rushing them shutting down.

Citation needed.

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out

 

[michaelius]

Hopefully the EU can become more unified and be a real world player. There is a real potential for success here.

With the current EU commission it would be total disaster and farming ground for multinational corporations.

 

[CoolOff]

0
Germany Nuclear Phase-Out

I meant the "regressing" part. I'm fully aware of the plans, I live in a neighboring country.

 

[Phantast2k]

A plausible stance in light of the fact that the Trump administration appears to actively seek to destroy the EU: Donald Trump 'wants EU to break up in wake of Brexit vote', outgoing US ambassador in Brussels suggests

“To think that by supporting fragmentation of Europe we would be advancing our interests would be sheer folly,” he said. “It’s lunacy.”

He added: “For us to be the cheerleaders of Brexit and to be encouraging Brexit Mark 2, Mark 3, is the height of folly.”

Describing calls to EU institutions from Mr Trump’s aides in recent weeks, Mr Gardner said: “That was the one question that was asked – basically, ‘What’s the next country to leave?’. Which is kind of suggesting that the place is about to fall apart.

 

[dumbo]

Or a colossal failure. The creation of a unified EU military force has some pretty large issues that have the potential to either make the thing useless, or fracture the EU. If using the thing requires the consent of all member governments it's going to be extremely slow at responding to anything. If it doesn't, then who controls it? France? Germany? The other nations wouldn't stand for that. The European Council?

I think the idea would be something more akin to NATO than a physical 'unified EU military force'. The focus would very much be on a 'defensive pact for Europe' rather than an external military force.

As with NATO, the 'C&C' parts of such an organization could be used externally, without a requirement on countries to take part in those operations.

So, basically NATO without the US (and, shortly, the UK). It would be somewhat embarassing for the US and somewhat catastrophic for the UK.

 

[Orniletter]

A unified European army could very easily rise into the strongest military force on this planet. The picture of two nationalists like Putin and Trump who might have accidentally awaken a sleeping giant is kind of amusing.

The US is and always will be number one for the forseeable future.

A european army, with all of Europe's funding behind, could end up in a strong second place though.

 

[chrislowe]

Then again, when USA spied on Angela Merkel I belive this could be a part of the problem aswell.

"Merkel has compared the NSA to the Stasi when it became known that her mobile phone was tapped by that agency. In response Susan Rice pledged that the USA will desist from spying on her personally, but said there would not be a no-espionage agreement between the two countries.[154]


Merkel with Petro Poroshenko and Joe Biden, 7 February 2015
On 18 July 2014 Merkel said trust between Germany and the United States could only be restored by talks between the two, and she would seek to have talks. She reiterated the U.S. remained Germany's most important ally.[155]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel

 

[deadlast]

The US is and always will be number one for the forseeable future.

A european army, with all of Europe's funding behind, could end up in a strong second place though.

The force just needs to be a larger than Russia's. Or be able to hold them off till we get through the next 4 years.

 

[CalamityPixel]

UK and US make a new union then. The United Union.

 

[Frankfurter]

It really depends on the country. Germany is regressing because a cowardly nuclear stance. Europe with nuclear energy would never need Russia. It would be enough for Germany to switch to do enormous damage already.

If Germany is regressing (is it?) it's certainly not because of its stance on nuclear energy. + Germany is switching to renewables, which will ultimately do that damage.

The force just needs to be a larger than Russia's. Or be able to hold them off till we get through the next 4 years.

I'm pretty sure all EU forces combined are WAY larger than Russias. And like 10+ years more advanced on average.

 

[PdotMichael]

It really depends on the country. Germany is regressing because a cowardly nuclear stance. Europe with nuclear energy would never need Russia. It would be enough for Germany to switch to do enormous damage already.

What kind of pro nuclear energy lobby nonsense is that?

Renewable energy renders such large base load power plants plain obsolete.

 

[Joni]

Renewable energy renders such large base load power plants plain obsolete.

If Germany is regressing (is it?) it's certainly not because of its stance on nuclear energy. + Germany is switching to renewables, which will ultimately do that damage.

Renewable energy is not stable. Home energy usage is at peaks when renewable wouldn't be.

I meant the "regressing" part. I'm fully aware of the plans, I live in a neighboring country.

Germany failed to reduce coal usage and raised greenhouse gas emmissions last year because they phased out nuclear instead of coal plants. They have even opened up new coal plants last year. If a country has to open up more coal plants, then theirr nuclear stance is hurting the world.
http://energypost.eu/german-conundrum-renewables-break-records-coal-refuses-go-away/

 

[norinrad]

It's time for two speed EU.

France, Germany, Benelux and maybe a few others like Denmark and Austria go full federal. The rest join at their own pace.

That would work and allow the rest to work on their economies without austerity measures destroying them. Give them the flexibility to do so, though that won't work since they don't have their own currencies anymore to be able to do that.

 

[PdotMichael]

Renewable energy is not stable. Home energy usage is at peaks when renewable wouldn't be.

Nuclear energy doesn't help you a little bit for your medium and peak load needs. In fact that's the time when France imports quite a lot of energy from Germany.

 

[petran79]

Regarding Europe's defence, it is France that spends the most in military. They accused Germany of not doing the same.

 

[Frankfurter]

Renewable energy is not stable. Home energy usage is at peaks when renewable wouldn't be.

Yes, it's not stable. It grows nevertheless. There are still other sources of energy that can help mitigate that issue, especially gas.

Germany failed to reduce coal usage and raised greenhouse gas emmissions last year because they phased out nuclear instead of coal plants. They have even opened up new coal plants last year. If a country has to open up more coal plants, then theirr nuclear stance is hurting the world.
http://energypost.eu/german-conundrum-renewables-break-records-coal-refuses-go-away/

Read your own link: "This undisputed success was, however, muted by the fact that production from lignite and bituminous coal hardly declined (a decrease of a mere half-percent or 1.4 TWh)."

Coal usage DID decline.

And new coal plants are opened up all the time - not because coal usage increases (it actually did increase temporarily due to the shutdown of half of the nuclear sector), but because old ones are shut down.

Germany is in a kind of transition period right now. Nuclear will soon have no significant part of the energy generation anymore, resulting in all the gains of renewables directly cutting into the production of all the fossil fuels.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think the idea would be something more akin to NATO than a physical 'unified EU military force'. The focus would very much be on a 'defensive pact for Europe' rather than an external military force.

As with NATO, the 'C&C' parts of such an organization could be used externally, without a requirement on countries to take part in those operations.

So, basically NATO without the US (and, shortly, the UK). It would be somewhat embarassing for the US and somewhat catastrophic for the UK.

I don't think this IS what people are suggesting. Given that almost all the EU countries are already in something like NATO, when people call for a unified EU military they actually mean a unified, integrated one as if it were one country - a single command structure with common weapons etc.

Also, I don't see how that situation would be catestrophic for the UK?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Also, I don't see how that situation would be catestrophic for the UK?

The only thing I can think of is that arms exports are a large sector in the UK economy and the EU could try to lock them out.

 

[bengraven]

Seriously saw this as "Marvel warns The Eternals ties to MCU not certain..."

 

[Angel_DvA]

Aren't the French and the German already working together at creating weapons and stuff like that ?. "le Tigre" is a Franco-German helicopter and I read somewhere that the HK416 will replaced the FAMAS in French army, they're also a special unit, the Franco-German Brigade (French: Brigade Franco-Allemande; German: Deutsch-Französische Brigade) which is a special military brigade of the Eurocorps of the European Union, founded in 1989, jointly consisting of units from both the French Army and the German Army, it has a cool logo:

 

[Joni]

Nuclear energy doesn't help you a little bit for your medium and peak load needs. In fact that's the time when France imports quite a lot of energy from Germany.

And most of the time it also exports a lot of energy. It is the world largest net exporter keeping Belgium, Switzerland and Spain afloat.

Yes, it's not stable. It grows nevertheless. There are still other sources of energy that can help mitigate that issue, especially gas.

And that is why it is a cowardly backwards stance. It not only forces us to keep using unrenewable energy, it also forces us to keep supporting a warmongering nation. We impose sanctions on Russia, except for their gas because we are dependent on them. We are killing people in the Crimea by doing this. That is our contribution.

Read your own link: "This undisputed success was, however, muted by the fact that production from lignite and bituminous coal hardly declined (a decrease of a mere half-percent or 1.4 TWh)."

So it was more or less stable while emissions increased. I don't find a 0,5% decline convincing if you keep shutting down nuclear power plants first.

Germany is in a kind of transition period right now. Nuclear will soon have no significant part of the energy generation anymore, resulting in all the gains of renewables directly cutting into the production of all the fossil fuels.

I'd be a lot more enthused if we invested in better and cleaner nuclear energy. I'd be a lot more happy if my own country didn't have to think of a plan for rolling blackouts in the middle of the winter because it doesn't want to maintain nuclear plants. Or if the power grid didn't almost shut down because of an overcharge of renewable energy, where we had to pay France to import it... That is the impact of an energy policy that simply thinks going green solves everything.

 

[PdotMichael]

It's absurd to use France as argument when France suffers quite massive energy problems with the result that France right now imports massive energy and is forced to reactivate fossil fuel energy power plants.

 

[Liha]

The idea of an EU army is completely ridiculous and will never happen, the various intelligence agencies in Europe don't even share their information about radical islamists in their countries.

 

[Shadynasty]

How many US military bases are in Germany? Ties aren't going to be easy to break.

 

[Frankfurter]

And that is why it is a cowardly backwards stance. It not only forces us to keep using unrenewable energy, it also forces us to keep supporting a warmongering nation. We impose sanctions on Russia, except for their gas because we are dependent on them. We are killing people in the Crimea by doing this. That is our contribution.

Yeah, hyperbole much. Fossil fuels will be used for quite some time anyway, with or without nuclear energy. Nuclear is also a terrible, terrible complement for renewables. Staying with nuclear makes it harder for renewables.

So it was more or less stable while emissions increased. I don't find a 0,5% decline convincing if you keep shutting down nuclear power plants first.

Please. You said coal usage didn't decrease and provided a link that said the exact opposite. Coal usage did decrease. You were wrong, plain and simple. Don't start moving goalposts.

I'd be a lot more enthused if we invested in better and cleaner nuclear energy. I'd be a lot more happy if my own country didn't have to think of a plan for rolling blackouts in the middle of the winter because it doesn't want to maintain nuclear plants. Or if the power grid didn't almost shut down because of an overcharge of renewable energy, where we had to pay France to import it... That is the impact of an energy policy that simply thinks going green solves everything.

The German energy grid is among the best in the world. Grid operators claim it's stable (see 50 Hertz etc.) and it IS stable. Zero major blackouts since ~half of the nuclear power plants were shut down in 2011.
Nuclear fission is done in Germany. Considering how costly it is, that's good news as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Pizza con salsiccia]

The idea of an EU army is completely ridiculous and will never happen, the various intelligence agencies in Europe don't even share their information about radical islamists in their countries.

Actually, yes they do. Not enough, but they do.

Don't talk about stuff you do not know about.