Joint eu military

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I want all Europeans to carefully think about it. Are you prepared to discard your national identity in order to be regarded as European and only European? What else is the EU planning to do in order to unify Europeans? Have a blanket govenment, language and/or religion?

Yes i would discard my Belgian nationality.Why? Because a Belgian etnicity doesn't exist.We are simply a melting pot of so many country's and people that lived here or ruled the country.Heck i am probebly more Spannish ,French German and Anglosaxon than i am an original Belgae.  

And if any of our neighbour's have a Eu president eelected from their soil ,then i would led my country be ruled by a 40% corrupt EU goverment rather than a 40% corrupt Belgium goverment.Really makes no difference ,eventually few politician's are working for the needs of their ellector's.I figure it's about the same in coruption level as almost everywhere ,albeit having another 100 country's where corruption is higher than 80%.   (viva South America)

Quote[/b] ]Personally, I view a unified armed force for Europe has the potential to splinter the EU. Take Iraq. Most European mainland nations disagreed with Britains involvement in Iraq. Under a new system where the military is unified who could dictate how the force is used? One nations interest in the EU may oppose another, equalling a path for confrontation.

You must know that 1: Not all E.U member's must be part of this alliance ,it's more or less on own choice for a member state ,and and that it is a  gruadual process where there arn't many string's attached to it yet.Memeber's go as far as they wont in making agreement's with eachother ,for know i think this force would only be used fo peace keeping.

Quote[/b] ]Tick, tock, tick, tock, goes the clock for yet another major conflict within Europe.

Impossible ,Europe can never come in conflict again.We are to much economicly and socially intermingled with eachother.Thing's like WWI and II are thing's of the past here between E.U member's.

Quote[/b] ]Crap as it maybe in your view, but from an outsiders view, for this new military to not be simply a rebranded  'National/Divisional' army would mean units where Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish and potentially  Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian and Slovene, speaking soldiers all in the same unit without interpreters is the norm, not the exception.

I'm sorry but I don't know of anyone who knows all nineteen languages. Currency is an easily understandable language. It's numeric with two symbols. Simple math. What is your view of a united armed force Denoir? Multi-lingual CO's and thats it? Thats still divides soldiers from their counterparts from other regions of Europe doesn't it. To rectify the problem, an official language of the EU Armed forced would need to be established wouldn't it?

Lol ,afcourse about all communication within the E.U army happen's in English unless agreed to use other languaghe that everyone understand's.

By norm ,all officer's and soldiers in the Europese army's these days know English as they basicly as they have to learn it as requirement to function in such an army.Nobody has to know all languaghe's of the E.U ,how stupid would that be.

I don't say we Europeans are all genius ,but then making the conclusion that one languaghe should be know by all E.U troops to make it function wasn't to hard for us neither.

Quote[/b] ]Of course, but the democratic process will always allow for opposition to involvement in any armed conflict wouldn't it. The attitude of one nations leading party towards a military conflict might be completely different to another nations attitude. This potentially leads to division in the union and isolisation of that nation, and the United EU Army is no longer really united. It almost needs imaginative thinking to come up with potential scenarios for which division would be there.

But then ,in such a millitary alliance no country is forced to engage on an offensive war ,at most it is a defensive alliance ,thus only applicable should one of the E.U country's be attacked on it's home soil.

Quote[/b] ]And as far as my interest goes I don't want to see EU money being put in to military efforts. Since that is part of the money taken from our schools and our healthcare. The same way I don't want to see my savings being given away to corporate bigshots with the hots for green bills. And how on gods blue earth will having a common EU military benefit me? And what are the threats to me as a EUian if this apparent wet dream for KFOR soldiers doesn't come true?

Fair ,i tend to pacifism somewhat so i agree that essentially millitary budget's shouldnt have a priority over social budget's.

But then i must point out though that ,wasn't it for the fact that the E.U exists as a powerfull bloc on the continent ,that Sweden would be forced to put more in millitary to secure it's interrest.If noone in europe would be in alliance with eachother ,or should there be multiple alliance's on the continent ,then the millitary budget would have to rise.wich you point out yourself inthe next post:

Quote[/b] ]Doesn't that further the point that Europe is getting safer as more countries take the step into the warm embraces of the EU?

But then withought the E.U or NATO or other bilateral European agreement's Sweden woudn't have the security that would allow for a good buget spending on social project's.

With other words ,actually the Scandinavian country's are having benifit's from the E.U while they actually don't contribute really ,but then noone has the right to tell the Swedes have to do otherwise.But then the way some Scandinavian country's are moving towards the E.U albeit on a very limited pace as such to make optimal use of alll benifit's it can get from it while minimizing it contribution in it speak's a bit of political opportunism wich is though somewhat forced on them since the Scandinavian's never really asked to be in the E.U or albeit form it.We asked them and they will only join when they think they are ready for ,wich is their good right.But then they have good political and economic advantage's from it in the meantime for wich they have done nothing.In the end one must note that those damn Swede's always win.    

Ah well ,princes Madeleine get's my vote for European president.  

[denoir 0]

Hehe, what a load of crap

Crap as it maybe in your view, but from an outsiders view, for this new military to not be simply a rebranded  'National/Divisional' army would mean units where Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish and potentially  Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian and Slovene, speaking soldiers all in the same unit without interpreters is the norm, not the exception.

I'm sorry but I don't know of anyone who knows all nineteen languages. Currency is an easily understandable language. It's numeric with two symbols. Simple math. What is your view of a united armed force Denoir? Multi-lingual CO's and thats it? Thats still divides soldiers from their counterparts from other regions of Europe doesn't it. To rectify the problem, an official language of the EU Armed forced would need to be established wouldn't it?

The individual units would of course be national as a rule. Just like it works in NATO. This is nothing new. Napoleon had the same thing. For mixed units you have English, just like today in NATO.

So the argument is very nonsensical. We have it already working in NATO and UN without problem. Joint EU forces is a question of command and control.

Quote[/b] ]I read somewhere that 33% of all Europeans know English as a

second language to their native tounge, suprising actually. But would this go down well with all Europeans joining the United Army? I don't know. But a common language is a necessity for a smooth running Armed Force.

Hehe, more like 99,9% of those that are within the age group that does military service. All EU countries have English as a mandadory language in elementary and high-school. You have to speak English to even be accepted into the armed forces.

Quote[/b] ]Of course, but the democratic process will always allow for opposition to involvement in any armed conflict wouldn't it. The attitude of one nations leading party towards a military conflict might be completely different to another nations attitude. This potentially leads to division in the union and isolisation of that nation, and the United EU Army is no longer really united. It almost needs imaginative thinking to come up with potential scenarios for which division would be there.

You just need a common foregin policy and that's it. You'll have a variety of opinions, just like in any other country, but you make a common democratic decision. Nothing odd about it.

Quote[/b] ]A nations willingness to risk it's soldiers is variable across the world and for Europe, it would be just the same. Variable. From Nation to Nation......... EU politcian to EU politician.

Again, it's a question of concensus. A simple majority rule just like everywhere else.

Quote[/b] ]To complete a common military would take a lot longer than 10 years. When someone says unified army, I think: everyone has the same vehicles, technology and weaponry, upgrades equiptment at the same rate as each other and has a proportion of militay contracts depending on their expendeture.

Yes, I'd say 20 years. Weapons have to be upgraded on a regular basis and we can make a transition to a common system fairly painlessly if we first agree on all of it. There is bound to be a fierce debate about it, but once we agree on it, it should work. Interestingly enough a common military is what the EU countries agree best on. Britain, France, Germany and Italy are taking the lead on this and it's one of the few issues that they actually completely agree. So it's going to happen.

[denoir 0]

Oh, so now you have to have combat experience to vote?

No, you may vote on if we should have a military or not, since it's your tax money. You may not vote however on how it is implemented since you're not qualified to do it. That's why we have a representative democracy: we choose people that have that qualification.

Quote[/b] ]And as far as my interest goes I don't want to see EU money being put in to military efforts. Since that is part of the money taken from our schools and our healthcare.

No, the money is taken from our military and given to a common military.

Quote[/b] ]

And how on gods blue earth will having a common EU military benefit me?

From an economical point of view: a lot. A common military is much cheaper than national militaries as we get rid of all the redundancies. Sweden's military costs are vey high because we do it all ourselves. This will drop significantly.

From a security point of view, as I said earlier, you'll get a guarantee that Russia won't be coming down on us. For the first time we would actually have a chance of not getting invaded as we would be protected by French and British nuclear weapons.

Quote[/b] ]

And what are the threats to me as a EUian if this apparent wet dream for KFOR soldiers doesn't come true?

It's more expensive for you and you get less security.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ] Slovenia is joining the EU now and Croatia will follow within a couple of years.

Doesn't that further the point that Europe is getting safer as more countries take the step into the warm embraces of the EU?

No it furthers the point that we had a war in Europe recently and that bad things can happen. You can't be so naive that you think that there is no need for a military. Sweden needs a military, EU needs a military, NATO needs a military and the UN needs a military. Europe could be as easily attacked as USA was. While we should hope that there will be no more wars for Europe, it's not at all likely.

[Schoeler 0]

I dont know who isnt getting it. Decisions are made still by governments of the individual nations. How it is now gives france and german more "votes" then the netherlands. Basically 16 million people have lost their democratic right to have a say and decisions concerning them are going to be taken by germans and the french because they have a larger amount of citizens. You see we dont actually HAVE a common government in europe. Either we go for it fully and do away with national governments and elect a true european government (in which we then ALL will have had a say) or we make a system where it is one member state one vote. The current system is unfair to smaller nations.

You have to separate decisions on a European level and on the individual country level. The EU constitution (that is being worked out right now) is based on the delegation of decisions on EU level that are only common to all EU countries. The rest of the decisions are handled on a local level without EU interference. And when it comes to such things as defence that are of general European concern then it's only fair that the country that has more citizens (more Europeans) has a bigger number of votes. It's a standard two-chamber parliament system.

And it is fair since

1) there are more people in France and Germany

2) it will be mostly French, British and German troops that will defend your country and these countries will make the biggest economic contributions.

I personally support a political system similar to the one in USA: a federal European governenment and individual state/country government. The federal government should deal with federal issues only that are common for all the countries while the countries decide on everything that's specific to them.

Quote[/b] ]A dutch proverb "We are all equal but some of us are a bit more equal then others" comes to mind.

I think it's actually a quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm ( ?All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others ")

Denoir's right, federalism works in the U.S., albeit with some problems of its own, but still it works.

Look at the division of power between the smaller States and larger States in the U.S. You need a bicameral legislature to smooth out the wrinkles in that power. The lower house will have a lopsided power arrangment and the upper house and equal power arrangement between the States, much like the U.S. Senate. This would go a long way towards reducing tensions between States of varying size and population.

Remember, under federalism, each State retains its sovereignty. The powers not deligated to the federal government are retained by the States and the people. Thus the idea being that the federal government has a limited power (just enough to properly adminster to all the States and provide a common defense, as well as act as referee between States) and the States and people retain a considerable proportion of the overall power.

[Schoeler 0]

Yeah, that's what you said the first 49 times before you were invaded. Better safe than sorry.

and how many times of those were done by Swedish?

If Russia invaded Finland 49 times then Sweden liberated it 48

No but seriously, Finland was a province in Sweden for something like 800 years. It's not like Norway that we got by conquest. Finland was an integral part of Sweden and the ties are very close today too. For instance Finnish and Swedish are the official languages in Finland. Some of the best Swedish soldiers were from Finland.

Quote[/b] ]Let's get serious. Europe has been fragmented since c.a. 800AD. and went their own way for last 1200 years. how long would it take something for them to put together 12 centuries of difference?

It depends on who is buying the coffee for the meetings. If they can agree on that, they can agree on anything

No, but seriously, there has been a very rapid development in Europe. The suggestion for the common currency came in 1992. By 2002 it was reality and all the Francs,D-Marks and lires etc were history. Usually these things take a century or so to set up - we did it in 10 years. Looking at it that way, it's going very well.

On the other hand we do still have a lot of issues. Next week the serious constitution talks are to begin and it has already been dubbed as "Europe's week of hell". This is not without a reason. There are some considerable differences in opinion. Another issue is that many Europeans are EU-sceptics. That's to be expected since people tend to be conservative in these matters. Unfortunately we don't have charismatic politicians that could bridge that gap of suspicion. We need some form of common cause, a common vision and a common faith in the EU and that is lacking. I was hoping that the Iraq war could unite the EU, but it has actually only caused problems.

Simply put: We need good leaders and we don't have 'em.

As I said earlier, I'm saddened by the lack of imagination and vision that people display. People see EU as some beaurocratic elitist boy's club for the politicians. They see all the flaws of the system and the petty disputes between the countries when they instead should imagine what the EU could become. This is a very exciting moment in history. EU can become what we make it to be and the worst thing to do is to back away in fear, suspicion and disbelief. We need visionaries, not critics. It's not about how it looks today but about how it will look tomorrow.

Denoir, perhaps what you need is the impetus the U.S. founding fathers had. They disagreed quite badly on a multitude of issues, but they knew that if they couldn't reach a compromise, they would all swing from the gallows, as the British would easily be able to put down the rebellion. It will be interesting to see if the EU can accomplish such a momentous goal with far less at stake.

[denoir 0]

Denoir, perhaps what you need is the impetus the U.S. founding fathers had.  They disagreed quite badly on a multitude of issues, but they knew that if they couldn't reach a compromise, they would all swing from the gallows, as the British would easily be able to put down the rebellion.  It will be interesting to see if the EU can accomplish such a momentous goal with far less at stake.

Yeah, if only Russia would invade us

Anyhow the constitution negotiations this coming week will be very interesting. I'll bet 5 euros that they'll collapse by thursday afternoon. This is however just the beginning of the journey and it's pretty cool building a new system top-down.

Quote[/b] ]Look at the division of power between the smaller States and larger States in the U.S.  You need a bicameral legislature to smooth out the wrinkles in that power.  The lower house will have a lopsided power arrangment and the upper house and equal power arrangement between the States, much like the U.S. Senate.  This would go a long way towards reducing tensions between States of varying size and population.

Remember, under federalism, each State retains its sovereignty.  The powers not deligated to the federal government are retained by the States and the people.  Thus the idea being that the federal government has a limited power (just enough to properly adminster to all the States and provide a common defense, as well as act as referee between States) and the States and people retain a considerable proportion of the overall power.

Yeah, I agree. US style federalism is the way to go - with some modifications. The lower chamber parliament (i.e Congress) should not be by district, but should be federal. Also there should not be personal elections for the parliament at all, but a party system. The presidential elections should be personal on the other hand. Also the participating countries should have, at least at first, considerably more independance than US states have. But, apart from that, I think that the American federal model is a good solid work horse that has been tested and proven.

There is of course a very serious question to if it will work at all. USA has basically a two-party system. There are a shitload of European parties and you can count on at least 5-10 of them sitting in parliament. That gives quite a few possible odd combinations and in combination with a presidency that isn't directly related to the parliamentary representation, there is a risk of the system getting jammed.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Hmm, anyone think Denoir is for the unified army?

**"So the argument is very nonsensical. We have it already working in NATO and UN without problem. Joint EU forces is a question of command and control."**

Maybee I am confused, but isn't this just recreating NATO, with half the letters? Sure, Turkey isn't in the EU, etc, but in essence, it is NATO, with fewer members. NATO command is already multinational, with each member prepared to contribute forces to an aggresive action against any other member. If anything, NATO offers MORE security, as it has backing from non EU member nations as WELL as EU members. If it is stricty an issue of WHO is in charge, why not just push to get different people in the command seat? Just seems like an awfull lot of effort and resources spent trying to reinvent an already quite round wheel, that could otherwise be put to better use.

Also from the descriptions being given: Units still belong to parent nation, choice whether to participate in operations, etc... sounds like it will be of little use than an empty sense of security. Any nation still can choose where, when, and if to participate, than how is that different from mutual defence treaties? (AKA, NATO) Not much use if all but one can still opt to sit on the sideline. Unless the EU IS one nation, than the simple reality would seem to be that there will continue to be X number of armed forces for X number of nations. As for the EU becoming one nation, I truly don't see that becoming a reality. at least not in our lifetimes.

If I am missing some key element on the CoC issue, please say so. (I am not saying "I am right"... just basing this off of what I do know, and not saying it is the "correct" way to do things)

[Grizzlie 0]

denoir - u r dreamer

[Chill 0]

A EU army would be a good thing. It will keep the USA in check. With the fall of the USSR it gave the USA a free reign to do what it likes.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]If it is stricty an issue of WHO is in charge, why not just push to get different people in the command seat? Just seems like an awfull lot of effort and resources spent trying to reinvent an already quite round wheel, that could otherwise be put to better use.

In this point lies the answer.European country's have relativly low power in the Nato ,and this while it has tried to to have a more equal command system.More or less the U.S doesn't take the European army very seriously ,and by this European seperate nation's loose leverage in diplomacy.If the E.U shows the U.S that it's willing to make such changes independantly but as a E.U alliance and combine that with a united diplomatic stance ,wich is a key element and very questionable in the short term. (U.K)

But then I.M.O in my point of view ,atleast they try ,lets see what they can achieve.Heck it took a failed ECU attempt before the EURO existed.

[Harnu 0]

A EU army would be a good thing. It will keep the USA in check.

Bring it on...

[The Frenchman 0]

With the fall of the USSR it gave the USA a free reign to do what it likes.

True true.

[Milkman 1]

A EU army would be a good thing. It will keep the USA in check. With the fall of the USSR it gave the USA a free reign to do what it likes.

So, what are you going to do about it?

Oh wait, create a giant EU army, that will work of course...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]A EU army would be a good thing. It will keep the USA in check.

The U.S.S.R. held the U.S. in check because both were ready to nuke each other. I hope that you don't want us to go into another Cold War.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh wait, create a giant EU army, that will work of course...

Then the E.U. had better have one standardized language for the military, otherwise chaos will ensue. Imagine what would happen if most of your infantrymen spoke English, your tankers mostly spoke German, your artillerymen mostly spoke French, and meanwhile most of your scouts spoke Spanish.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh wait, create a giant EU army, that will work of course...

Then the E.U. had better have one standardized language for the military, otherwise chaos will ensue. Imagine what would happen if most of your infantrymen spoke English, your tankers mostly spoke German, your artillerymen mostly spoke French, and meanwhile most of your scouts spoke Spanish.

Discussed one page ago.  

Edit: Actually two.

[crewcutkid reincarnated! 0]

Ok, my point is this. During a Civil war, the military typically does faction, and by saying that a military works in peacetime, you don't show me shit. The only way a military is proven is in battle, not by what kind of parade they can put on. Calling what I say a "load of crap" also clearly demonstrates why one is not able to be a moderator, as they are biased. Logistics would be a huge nightmare, and finding a common ground on some issure would be a serious problem.

-Crew

[VerySolidSnake 0]

there's only enough room for one superpower... this would just cause problems.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]and by saying that a military works in peacetime, you don't show me shit. The only way a military is proven is in battle, not by what kind of parade they can put on.

I know that for example German army logistics are much more cabable than Albanias armys. Dont ask me how, I just know ;)

The best reason to prevent conflicts, is a strong and willing army.

Quote[/b] ]there's only enough room for one superpower... this would just cause problems.

Funny, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?

type=politicsNews&storyID=3912132" target="_blank">Rumsfeld</a>

is saying the same, and both of you fail to give any details about "problems". Both are saying that NATO is enough. One must bear in mind that NATO is driving the cause of USA, and without USA NATO would be nothing. I see it is better to have a european military union that backing up Europe, not USA.

[EiZei 0]

So, why do you think EU becoming one big military superpower would be wrong, while the US being one is not?

[Baron von Beer 0]

about "problems". Both are saying that NATO is enough. One must bear in mind that NATO is driving the cause of USA, and without USA NATO would be nothing. I see it is better to have a european military union that backing up Europe, not USA.

Um, isn't that contradicting your own desire? If NATO is nothing without the USA, and you want a unified EU military. Unified EU military would be NATO, minus the USA, and a few other nations. So would this then be less than nothing? I don't quite get that. As most EU nations are a part of NATO, I don't see how removing some will make it a stronger force? Less is more doesn't work in war, unless you're comparing Cromwells to Challengers.

As far as the leadership concerns go, I sort of agree. IMO, USA forces should be autonomous of NATO command. USA initially DID have more active troops than any single member, at NATO's creation. However, as time went on, the numbers have changed drastically. I don't see the US surrendering control of what is deployed though... if something DID happen, and a war broke out in Europe, the US would be sending in much more. And in doing so, would not be willing to simply hand over command of large portions of their army. (which I understand is a big part of wanting an EU army.) So if the US was not part of NATO anymore, would that solve the main issue? (Or rather remain a treaty member, but under a seperate command structure... US commands their own, European forces can divvy up command amongst themselves. )

[turms 0]

I am saying that NATO is so integrated to USA,and dependend on it, it would be better if european defence would not be depending on a outside europe factor, for example middle-east situation.

Now this could be achieved by building and integrating the defence and politics in Europe.

[EiZei 0]

Unified EU military would be NATO, minus the USA, and a few other nations.

NATO has 14 EU members and the total amount of EU members will be 25 by May 2004 if I remember correctly. It may be the majority but its certainly not "few".

[Baron von Beer 0]

25 + 3 applicants from the list I just looked up. Quite right, not "Few".. I hadn't seen an up to date list for some time. (also forget that many of the former Warsaw Pact nations are now EU members. (And some in NATO. )

[MLF 0]

a big fat NO, it would never work, there is so much corruption and personnel agendas, tbh id wish britain further itself from a common currency and getting more involved in the eu as is.