EU army

[Husar]

Additionally, the EU cannot agree on foreign policy. What would happen in the event of an issue like the Iraq war, where only some member nations want to commit troops?

A democratic vote of all member states? Do we like democracy now or don´t we?

[Al Khalifah]

A democratic vote of all member states? Do we like democracy now or don´t we?

So British troops could be made to go to war despite the fact that the people of Britain are completely opposed to the war in question?
Would this be a qualified majority vote or would it need to be a unanimous vote? Either way you are going to get problems.
With majority voting, only slightly more than half of the population of Europe would need to be in favour of military action, yet the army of every member state would have to commit. With unanimous voting, the disaproval of, for example, Malta could stall the war machine of all Europe.

There's one place democracy does not belong and that's in the armed forces. Questions, due process, debates, fair play, discussions, votes get people killed.

[Meneldil]

So British troops could be made to go to war despite the fact that the people of Britain are completely opposed to the war in question?
Would this be a qualified majority vote or would it need to be a unanimous vote? Either way you are going to get problems.
With majority voting, only slightly more than half of the population of Europe would need to be in favour of military action, yet the army of every member state would have to commit. With unanimous voting, the disaproval of, for example, Malta could stall the war machine of all Europe.

Yeah, that's right. And that's why it will never work without an european super-state (which wil never exist anyway).
In 1952, when the EDC was proposed, it was supposed to be a step in favor of a super state. Now, a super-state would be a step in favor of an european army.

[Kagemusha]

So British troops could be made to go to war despite the fact that the people of Britain are completely opposed to the war in question?
Would this be a qualified majority vote or would it need to be a unanimous vote? Either way you are going to get problems.
With majority voting, only slightly more than half of the population of Europe would need to be in favour of military action, yet the army of every member state would have to commit. With unanimous voting, the disaproval of, for example, Malta could stall the war machine of all Europe.

There's one place democracy does not belong and that's in the armed forces. Questions, due process, debates, fair play, discussions, votes get people killed.

You are right.It wont work with Democratic decision making.I think every country should decide itself whether or not get involved in certain conflicts.For lets say a local conflict that would need to be adressed European countries wouldnt even need to use that much force.Only operation that would accuire total mobilization ,would be to defend Europe itself.

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

I'm against military in general, but I think EU must acquire it's own army. I'm afraid this is the only way to break of dependance from the warlike US.

[bmolsson]

Sure, if needed. I have a hard time to see any actual threat that require a sizeable European Army.

[Viking]

As long as they don`t pull Norway in, I`m fine.

We`re engaged in enough EU non-member crap as it is thanks to that deal(don`t know it`s english name, sorry).

[Boohugh]

You guys really need to do some research on the EU military:

http://www.eurocorps.org/site/index....n&content=home

The first stage of what Kagemusha is suggesting basically exists. Even the second stage,of cooperating on research projects, etc, also exists (the Eurofighter project is the best example). The only problem is the Eurocorps can't do very much offensively, although it is very useful for reconstruction work (e.g. after the Kosovo conflict).

I voted 'no' for a European army because it would mean having a common foreign and defence policy, which just isn't feasible. It couldn't work on a "join in if you want" basis because if the UK didn't want to take part, the other countries would be unable to mount any sort of successful military operation (the logistical support just doesn't exist in other armies, even if the fighting formations do, and that includes the French and German armies).

The military cooperation on research doesn't necessarily work either. The Eurofighter is, again, a good example of this. It is heavily delayed and massively over-budget because there were disagreements over its specifications, due to differing needs between nations (which caused the French to pull out of the project and develop their own plane, the Rafale) and disagreements over who will build which parts.

Just a few things to think about...

[Al Khalifah]

The only problem is the Eurocorps can't do very much offensively

That is pretty much the only purpose of a combined European armed forces. The suggestion that a foreign power would initiate a conventional arms assault on an EU member state is somewhat farcical. There just isn't a nation in proximity that could execute such an assault and from a logistical perspective, there isn't a nation in the world that could conquer a united Europe.

[Boohugh]

That is pretty much the only purpose of a combined European armed forces. The suggestion that a foreign power would initiate a conventional arms assault on an EU member state is somewhat farcical. There just isn't a nation in proximity that could execute such an assault and from a logistical perspective, there isn't a nation in the world that could conquer a united Europe.

Yes, it is a farcical idea that someone would attack Europe, but the reconstruction work carried out in Kosovo shows that there are other roles for the military other than offensive and defensive operations.

The Europcorps is good for this kind of reconstruction work, but i wouldn't want its role to extend to offensive operations for the reasons stated in my first post (that of common foreign policy, etc).

[PanzerJaeger]

Im against the EU so of course im against the idea of an EU army... not to mention it would cause more problems than solutions.

[Kagemusha]

Im against the EU so of course im against the idea of an EU army... not to mention it would cause more problems than solutions.

Good old Panzer.Explain why it would create more problems?

[PanzerJaeger]

I think others have already spelled that out but off the top of my head there would be conflict with training, language, equipment, manpower, money, command, and a host of other issues.

As someone else stated, the EU does not speak with one voice even - What would that EU army do in the case of Iraq where Britain and Italy went in but France and Germany did not?

Europe is not as united as you think...

[Kagemusha]

If you read my posts carefully,You can see i adressed that thing earlier EU army wouldnt mean that parts of EU couldnt make independent decisions.If Italy and Britain would like to be in Iraq,other EU countries couldnt say nothing about it.

[bmolsson]

As someone else stated, the EU does not speak with one voice even - What would that EU army do in the case of Iraq where Britain and Italy went in but France and Germany did not?

I guess it would have been rather lonely for the GI Joes .....

[PanzerJaeger]

If you read my posts carefully,You can see i adressed that thing earlier EU army wouldnt mean that parts of EU couldnt make independent decisions.If Italy and Britain would like to be in Iraq,other EU countries couldnt say nothing about it.

You dont see any problem in having different parts of the army following differnet foreign policies?

Whats the point in making a EU army if the member states have autonomy over their armies anyway?

[Franconicus]

Quote:
And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.
I'm sure you mean Britain.
No, England is right. I guess the Scots, Irish and Welsh will join

This is why we need an European army:

1. This will boost the integration. A common army will force the EU to a common policy
2. It will keep the balance. To secure peace you have to integrate Germany as much as possible. Today everything is fine. But only if we get our European identity the balance in Europe will be there for a long time. I know that some nations think they will loose influence in a European State. Completely wrong. If you have a European democracy every single individual has the same influence. If you have not, the big nations rule.
3. The US only respects military strengh. So if we want to get influence on the international politic we must increase our military strenght. We must have our own CIA, our own spy satelites, our own GPS.
4. If we want to reform the UN to a real powerful organisation we can only do this from a position of strength, military strenght, not only moral.

To the standards: Most European nations are member of the NATO and so have common standards. I know that Poland spend a lot of money to introduce them. There is already a command structure. There is no need that every unit uses the same trucks. France has to be integrated. There is even a kind of European army, the Western European Union.

GB:
I guess the strength of the British army is overestimated. They reduced their military spendings as much as any other European nation after the cold war. I do not believe that the British will join the army. I think it is more likely that they quit Europe (maybe try to become 51st state of the US). That is o.k.. It is their decition. Europe will be stronger without them being half in half out. I think the other big ones will join: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, also some of the smaller ones. Maybe the northern and eastern states will join too.

[JAG]

I am a huge advocate of an EU army, I believe it solves so many problems.

An EU army will allow each country in the EU to specialise their military expertise, which will allow not only less money to be wasted on individual states armed forces, but a better level of defence in the EU. With less money spent on the military by each nation they can focus more on their domestic priorities, it is win, win.

[King of Atlantis]

A unified army would probably be better for you guys, but you aren't nearly united enough for it to work.

[Al Khalifah]

I guess the strength of the British army is overestimated.

Compared to ? It's still the world's 4th most powerful armed force.

I do not believe that the British will join the army. I think it is more likely that they quit Europe (maybe try to become 51st state of the US).

Britain is now so integrated into Europe, I think they would struggle to leave. It would be a messy disassembly process and would involve a lot of politicians having to admit that they were wrong (which politicians do not like doing). As for becoming the 51st state of the US - that just will not happen. The people of Britain wouldn't want it and it would not be practical. Plus I doubt the people of America would want Britain to be their 51st state - just consider the effect it would have on the election system having a state with over 100 electoral college votes.

Most European nations are member of the NATO and so have common standards.

The difference in standards between the British military and for example the Polish military is too large. The shear superiority in logistics, technology, systems, equipment, training is unbelieveable. When the British Army goes into a combat situation, the battle is already won and that is not an exageration.

[Franconicus]

Compared to ? It's still the world's 4th most powerful armed force.

Do you have a source for that?

[Al Khalifah]

There's no scientific index for the measurement of such an attribute, but realistically given Britain's level of military development compared to other world nations the only true argument could be over whether it is infact still superior to the French armed forces.
So 4th or 5th.
Given the superior quality of Britain's non-combat sector and logistical network, as well as the quality of the equipment they use, I personally would rate Britain above France although the gap is narrowing.

[Meneldil]

I do not believe that the British will join the army. I think it is more likely that they quit Europe (maybe try to become 51st state of the US).

Believe it or not, but UK is actually one of the best 'european student'. It almost always adopts EU laws, spends a lot of money for the EU institutions, etc.
The only thing they could be blamed for about EU is rejecting the Euro (although a whole lot of shops accepted the european currency last time I went to Scotland) and being basicaly anti-EU

[Franconicus]

They are welcome!

[Ja'chyra]

[QUOTE=Franconicus]Quote:
And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.
I'm sure you mean Britain.
No, England is right. I guess the Scots, Irish and Welsh will join

[QUOTE]

Was that a joke? If so I don't get it.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

considering what rabid Europhiles many Scots, Welsh and Irish are I think there is a great deal of truth to that suggestion (assuming that U.K. citizens could sign up for the Euro army even if the U.K. were not involved).

[Don Corleone]

Sorry Capo.EU army has nothing to do Europe trying to create somekind of superstate from herself.It would be about Europe taking responsibility of its own self defence.It suprises me that American patrons doesnt like this idea.It would release more American resources to deploy to the Pacific theatre and for War against Terror.

I think it's a terrific idea and pay no attention to Kaiser. He's young and shoots from the hip without thinking about his positions at times. Yes, please, by all means, create a common EU army to defend the continent and let us pull our troops out of Germany & Italy. They're needed elsewhere and this taxpayer is sick & tired of paying for Europe's defense. Have fun boys.

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

[CBR]

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

We got the E but we're still looking for damn elusive U


CBR

[Redleg]

I think it's a terrific idea and pay no attention to Kaiser. He's young and shoots from the hip without thinking about his positions at times. Yes, please, by all means, create a common EU army to defend the continent and let us pull our troops out of Germany & Italy. They're needed elsewhere and this taxpayer is sick & tired of paying for Europe's defense. Have fun boys.

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

I think this discussion is funny - especially given the lastest round of base closings that went around. The European Nations that have United States Military Bases were lobbying and playing politics as strong as any of the states that have military bases.

Yes by all means let Europe defend itself - it will interesting to watch, and they might even get it right this time, after how many years of trying and failing in the accomplishment of defending themselves as a contientent?

[CBR]

I think this discussion is funny - especially given the lastest round of base closings that went around. The European Nations that have United States Military Bases were lobbying and playing politics as strong as any of the states that have military bases.

Well what are US troops doing in Europe anyway. I dont even see much use of them anymore now that the good old Cold War is history. I thought it would be easy for you guys to close the bases. Perhaps some airbases would be nice but that would be it?


CBR