More false equivalences! NATO is a military alliance. The EU is not!
But the hypothetical EU army WOULD be a military alliance...
What exactly are we talking about here?
More false equivalences! NATO is a military alliance. The EU is not!
Carl was asking whether the European people will get to vote on this, and you're all pointing to the lack of a vote for national armies as justification for the lack of a vote on this one. It's not an equivalent situation.
Countries need armies. Trading blocks don't - it's not a foregone conclusion, and I don't find the false equivalence very persuasive.
But the hypothetical EU army WOULD be a military alliance...
What exactly are we talking about here?
What makes you think that? There is broad support for the EU army. Question is just if it's broad enough and if it makes political sense.
But they can make the EU a military alliance, which is what this is mostly about. And then all members will contribute to that alliance like they do now with NATO. I think that is a good thing.More false equivalences! NATO is a military alliance. The EU is not!
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/mutual_defence.htmlThe Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between EU countries in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
This obligation of mutual defence is binding on all EU countries. However, it does not affect the neutrality of certain EU countries and is consistent with the commitments of EU countries which are NATO members.
Which would threaten NATO (The US military industrial complex). Its a good call by Merkel but its not happening.
But they can make the EU a military alliance, which is what this is mostly about. And then all members will contribute to that alliance like they do now with NATO. I think that is a good thing.
You are assuming that people will willingly combine these things. Do the French really want to die for the Italians and do Spaniards want to die for Germans. It is why even with NATO, a lot of the countries part of the alliance rarely did more than logisitics support.
Power projection is actual force, with numbers and forward operating bases, clear chain of command, rapid mobilization of military. I just do not see any kind of main integration like that ANY time soon from Europeans. Some nations can barely handle austerity measures now. How will they handle having to start spending 2-4% of GDP on military per country again? Will Germany pick up the slack and make itself the dominant power? It already is the economic power.
NATO right now is pretty much the US response with France and the UK following.
See my edit, we are already obligated to defend each other if an EU nation is attacked. As it should be in a union.And this is the whole point. The European people should get a yes / no vote on that. It's a fundamental change, so it's really not unreasonable.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/12/cyprus-peace-talks-geneva-greece-turkey-boris-johnson
Basically they are meeting in Geneva to talk about uniting the country. The fact that those three powers joined the talk is a good sign.
And this is the whole point. The European people should get a yes / no vote on that. It's a fundamental change, so it's really not unreasonable.
See my edit, we are already obligated to defend each other if an EU nation is attacked. As it should be in a union.
More integration and cooperation between our armed forces should be a priority and is very useful so the EU doesn't always have to come knocking to the US when Russia acts up.
Some would probably get a referendum, some wouldn't. So what?
Yes, but the EU should be able to take care of its own without the US also. And that would strengthen NATO also since we would have a more effective army.Isn't that what NATO is?
And this is the whole point. The European people should get a yes / no vote on that. It's a fundamental change, so it's really not unreasonable.
Not all EU members are part of NATOSo this would be a military alliance (EU) within a military alliance (NATO) ?
See my edit, we are already obligated to defend each other if an EU nation is attacked. As it should be in a union.
Yes, but the EU should be able to take care of its own without the US also. And that would strengthen NATO also since we would have a more effective army.
For over 50 years we have relied on the US to have our backs. And they do. But there is no 100% guarantee they want to foot the bill for another 50 years to this extend.
I get what you are saying, but i think Quiche also has a point, don't dismiss him just like that.
We can change it to that. Wouldn't be a bad thing.Article 42(7) does not require member states to take military action. It's limited to aid and assistance, and each member state is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary. It's not Art. 5 of NATO.
I don't see the direct threat to NATO. If the EU wants to strengthen it's military, it would mean they spent more on it, which benefits NATO also. These resources will not be taken out of NATO, since there is so much overlap. If NATO calls on its members, those resources will be used.I agree, though what you suggesting would be dismantling NATO, its a threat to NATO and the US interests which they usually do all they can to defend. Another approach maybe just strengthening NATO by investing more into it from the EU, allowing the US not to carry the whole weight.
Some would probably get a referendum, some wouldn't. So what?
We can change it to that. Wouldn't be a bad thing.
That is what elections are for. These things take years to do. Political parties run on a platform for or against it. That is how we collect opinions from a country in most situations.In your opinion! I'm also interested in the opinions of everyone else in the EU, and I suggest that the leaders of the EU should be too.
We can change it to that. Wouldn't be a bad thing.
I don't see the direct threat to NATO. If the EU wants to strengthen it's military, it would mean they spent more on it, which benefits NATO also. These resources will not be taken out of NATO, since there is so much overlap. If NATO calls on its members, those resources will be used.
You trusted the US in any way before Trump?Either we stand together and unite or we will picked apart one by one. I don't trust neither the Trumpist US nor the Putinist Russia.
"So what?", sums up the EU approach quite well(!).
Look, a poster said asked if the European people should get a vote on the formation of an EU army. He was dismissed on the grounds that people generally don't get a say in whether or not their country has an army.
I'm responding to that. I think it's a fundamental change to the EU and yes the people should get to vote on it. You are of course free to disagree with that.
Some EU countries are not NATO members. NATO is a defensive alliance of course, so it is only used when attacked. An EU army could maybe do more, depending on what the nations want it to be (this will take years to define), for example peacekeeping missions and interventions.But what you are suggesting is a military alliance inside a military alliance no? They can propose laws to expand NATO's operations. What is the future purpose of NATO when the EU has created his own Military alliance? There would be calls to stop any little funding NATO gets from member countries, rendering NATO ultimately useless. Something the US would not like at all.
How should such an alliance be defined?
That is what elections are for. These things take years to do. Political parties run on a platform for or against it. That is how we collect opinions from a country in most situations.
Referendums recently have shown that they are far from perfect. Small amounts of people show up and hold the country hostage with the result.
But what you are suggesting is a military alliance inside a military alliance no? They can propose laws to expand NATO's operations. What is the future purpose of NATO when the EU has created his own Military alliance? There would be calls to stop any little funding NATO gets from member countries, rendering NATO ultimately useless. Something the US would not like at all.
How should such an alliance be defined?
Because it is not an issue at the moment? You can bet that once actual proposals for an EU army appear that need to be approved by the nations, political parties will make their stance clear on it. These are not issues that will be suddenly be taken care of within a year.They do? I've voted in every election I've been able to, and I don't think I've heard any party running on a platform either for or against an EU army.
Referendums may not be perfect, but you can use them to get an answer on a very specific question relating to a fundamental change.
Good, now let's help loosening the tie from our side as well.
You trusted the US in any way before Trump?
...
They do? I've voted in every election I've been able to, and I don't think I've heard any party running on a platform either for or against an EU army.
Referendums may not be perfect, but you can use them to get an answer on a very specific question relating to a fundamental change.
Nearly all armies in the Union follow NATO standards already and their officers speak a common language (usually English, but also French and German depending on the region). Further, many countries even operate the same weapons systems (IE: Spain, Germany and Poland use Leopard tanks). They routinely collaborate and participate in training exercises without major issues.How do you even begin something like this?
In the United States there is one language. It's easy to translate the same protocols across everything. Soldiers stationed in Texas can effectively operate vehicles, procedures, take orders and do any task no matter where they are.
In Europe you have many different languages, and decentralized systems not to mention varying degrees of tactics, and procedures. Could you even imagine French troops being deployed in Poland and serving a Polish commander? Or Portuguese peace keeping forces in Greece?
A joint EU army would be a monumental task. It's not if it should or shouldn't be done. I think the manner of the ways think has gone in the last 7 years, it has to. I wouldn't have been for a EU army 7 years ago, but I am now.
Not when their self-interests harm you directly.LOL, self interests and spying shenanigans aside. I think they are a good partner for the EU.
In Europe you have many different languages, and decentralized systems not to mention varying degrees of tactics, and procedures. Could you even imagine French troops being deployed in Poland and serving a Polish commander? Or Portuguese peace keeping forces in Greece?
Again, this is already a thing. Working language is English. Combined military exercises happen regularly. In Afghanistan, Mali and many other countries we are already working together directly, but also in Europe:How do you even begin something like this?
In the United States there is one language. It's easy to translate the same protocols across everything. Soldiers stationed in Texas can effectively operate vehicles, procedures, take orders and do any task no matter where they are.
In Europe you have many different languages, and decentralized systems not to mention varying degrees of tactics, and procedures. Could you even imagine French troops being deployed in Poland and serving a Polish commander? Or Portuguese peace keeping forces in Greece?
A joint EU army would be a monumental task. It's not if it should or shouldn't be done. I think the manner of the ways think has gone in the last 7 years, it has to. I wouldn't have been for a EU army 7 years ago, but I am now.
LOL, self interests and spying shenanigans aside. I think they are a good partner for the EU.
Because it is not an issue at the moment? You can bet that once actual proposals for an EU army appear that need to be approved by the nations, political parties will make their stance clear on it. These are not issues that will be suddenly be taken care of within a year.
Some do, some don't. The thing is, this wasn't an issue until very recently, so it stands for reason that many parties in the Union didn't think too much about this. Only now this is starting to become something resembling a topic of conversation.
For what is worth, last time I voted in a general election I did so for a party that explicitally called for more integration among European armies. So it is not like this is something that doesn't happen.
They were. But if the german assessment of Trump is correct there is a chance they won't be forever.
I mean a member (Bannon) of the upcoming US goverment is actively trying to create divisions and hate by creating fake news to influence germanys(and other EU countries) elections. That's not that much different from how the russian goverment is operating only that the US is supposed to be our allies.
How do you even begin something like this?
In the United States there is one language. It's easy to translate the same protocols across everything. Soldiers stationed in Texas can effectively operate vehicles, procedures, take orders and do any task no matter where they are.
In Europe you have many different languages, and decentralized systems not to mention varying degrees of tactics, and procedures. Could you even imagine French troops being deployed in Poland and serving a Polish commander? Or Portuguese peace keeping forces in Greece?
A joint EU army would be a monumental task. It's not if it should or shouldn't be done. I think the manner of the ways think has gone in the last 7 years, it has to. I wouldn't have been for a EU army 7 years ago, but I am now.
Either we stand together and unite or we will picked apart one by one. I don't trust neither the Trumpist US nor the Putinist Russia.
if the german assessment of Trump is correct there is a chance they won't be forever.
are you referring to something other than the article, because the article doesn't mention Trump outside the headline.
It's Merkel's belief that Trump is only impressed by strength. She found it appalling to watch former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney beg Trump for the secretary of state as though he were a candidate on some TV talent show even though, during the campaign, he had described Trump as a "phony" and "fraud" whose "promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University." In the end, Romney lost more than just the casting show -- he also lost his dignity.
This. People don't get it, Russia will go as far as you let them.
I think everyone agrees that the nations involved need to approve it. How they approve it is up to them. I am not a fan of making everything in a referendum, since it gets hijacked by unrelated issues and anti-EU propaganda.Hmm, I suppose so. But do you at least agree with the principle that the people should have a say? That's what I was responding to initially.
Germany has basically conquered conquered Europe with finance and industry in a way they couldn't with war.