Joint eu military

[ZIKAN 0]

I think the EU army is a good idea, if all the countries involved have common goals in what they want it to achieve, and show due respect to the UN. But I dont consider it a substitute for NATO, even though NATO is probably past its sell by date by now. NATO should be modernised if anything.

What I would be worried about is all the red tape and politics each country would bring to mount joint operations in a hurry, especially peace keeping. Europe I consider is famous for it, so lets hope it would be kept to a minimum

[denoir 0]

My thinking is this: Yes to EU military and yes to NATO.

Saying no to a unified military force is no way the same thing as telling NATO and USA to piss off. On the contrary IMO USA can benefit from a strong Europe. We may have our disagreements, but we are still friends and we share most beliefs and principles. So how exactly is it bad that your allies get stronger?

I think that another important thing is to have more than just one superpower. Having one lacks chekcs and safety guards. As shown by Bush, it's not att all sure that USA will always do the "right" thing. And sadly today military power equals political power. If the EU wants to have a serious say in world matters, we must have a military to back it up.

We already put down a lot of money on defense as individual countries. Why not work together?

[denoir 0]

If smaller nations complain they are bullied in to changing the rules so they fit the big countries better. That doesnt sound all to democratic to me.

That is actually the definition of democracy. They have more people, they get more votes. Get over it and don't be so conservative. The ultimate idea is that it should not matter as our goals should be the same - not for the good of the individual countries, but for the good of Europe.

We're far from being there today, but that is the ultimate goal, and undermining it at this stage won't help anybody.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have nothing against the french or germans as a people but their government makes and breaks promisses when they desire. If smaller nations complain they are bullied in to changing the rules so they fit the big countries better. That doesnt sound all to democratic to me. We decided on a set of ground rules, the french and german governments of the time signed those and promised to keep them. They are not honoring their promises. That is not a basis for the EU.

Yes i do not disagree ,i'm just saying that the base of that problem is nationalism or with other words protectionism wich is an extension in a sense.Not sure though if i'm actually using that word right.

Ah well ,i just wanted to point out that these are indeed problem's ,however we just have to try to resolve those problem's.In this sense ,their is indeed growing resentment among the smaller country's and in the short term that may result in an increase of their power.The E.U may not be that effective yet bureaucraticly ,but it's democraticly flexible enough and allows for problem's to be solved in the long run politicly.Just see how far we have come from to achieve the Euro.It takes a very long time yes ,but the further we go the more we are feeling that we are becoming European's.That is what i mean with evolution ,there are enough strong fundamental issue's that push Europe to unification whatever problem's it must overcome.

Poll's show that over 90% of all european's are happy with the Euro.This has few to do with the fact that the Euro is doing good.It has everything to do with european nationalism ,it makes European's feel European.And belive me ,there are million's of good bases for genuine European nationalism ,from the fact alone that it is so rich in history.

[Supah 0]

That is actually the definition of democracy. They have more people, they get more votes. Get over it and don't be so conservative. The ultimate idea is that it should not matter as our goals should be the same - not for the good of the individual countries, but for the good of Europe.

We're far from being there today, but that is the ultimate goal, and undermining it at this stage won't help anybody.

Ah so basically the smaller countries in the end wont get a say in anything. That boils down to the smaller countries surrendering their souvernty to Germany and France and have them dictate the rules to us. Wow. Great. Yeah that will sure win people over.

[denoir 0]

Ah so basically the smaller countries in the end wont get a say in anything. That boils down to the smaller countries surrendering their souvernty to Germany and France and have them dictate the rules to us. Wow. Great. Yeah that will sure win people over.  

You still don't get it. They are us. They are Europeans.

IMO the biggest problem is that people look at the EU as it is today and not what it could become. And frankly today it's not much to look at. We are all pulling in our own directions trying to individually capitalize on the different agreements.

In today's world of global communication the cultural gap between the European countries is almost non-existent. Our nationalism isn't really justified as we differ only in details. We need to build a common vision of what we can become rather than what we have now. And that goes for everything from common currency to defense. As Apollo said: It's evolution.

This is not an easy process, but it is an inevitable one and if we do it right we can reach any height. There are no limits to what we can do together and how we can do it. All you have to have is a bit of faith and a bit of vision. We are desynchronized in some areas (military,economics..) and it will take some hard work and some sacrefices to sync us. The overall benefit of working together is so much greater that it justifies the initial work that is required to get there.

You should not ask yourself "How will my country benefit from this deal?" You should ask yourself "How will my Europe benefit from this deal?" And if we have a vision, your country will also benefit from this deal, becuase your country is part of a great European community which treats its citizens not as Swedes, not as Germans, not as Belgians, not as Estonians but as Europeans.

[Supah 0]

You still don't get it. They are us. They are Europeans.

IMO the biggest problem is that people look at the EU as it is today and not what it could become. And frankly today it's not much to look at. We are all pulling in our own directions trying to individually capitalize on the different agreements.

In today's world of global communication the cultural gap between the European countries is almost non-existent. Our nationalism isn't really justified as we differ only in details. We need to build a common vision of what we can become rather than what we have now. And that goes for everything from common currency to defense. As Apollo said: It's evolution.

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. A dutch proverb "We are all equal but some of us are a bit more equal then others" comes to mind. Its kinda like the veto system in the UN. That has practically neutered the UN to the point where any big decisions are going to be vetoed by one country or another and a country with a veto can just basically do as it pleases. That sort of a system is not democratic, that sort of system is not fair and that sort of a system is not going to last.

[kegetys 2]

You still don't get it. They are us. They are Europeans...

I'd still prefer to be a Finnish person rather than an European person. I'm from a different country than the most of the people in EU, and thus my way of life, culture, etc. are also different from theirs. I dont want my country to turn into what their country is. I dont really like the idea of an joint EU military either, mostly because of the same reasons; If germany/france/whatever would get involved in some conflict, what would it have to do with Finland? nothing... yet with a joint EU military we might have to need to get involved in some way.

[Apollo 0]

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

As belgian i must agree though.I would rather like to see a European ellection system above a state vote system.And i think we are actually steady moving towards it ,as it is brought forward these days as an important issue that needs resolvement.the sentiment's of the small country's are strong enough to resolve that ,and inclusion of more country's helps to.In other words ,it's being discussed thus by 5 or ten years it may exist. (given european bureacracy and decission making ,sigh ,why did they have to split bureacracy with Brussels and Strassbourg ,really uneffective)

But just as a sidenote ,i noticed that Holland is changing so fast ,in a bad way.

Holland used to be such an openminded and mondial people.Heck it was even Holland who was at the bases of the Benelux and the E.U. .But after the murder on Pim and the emmediate aftermath the country has changed so much it seems ,socially.

It's becoming more conservative fast it seems to me ,and i visit Holland reguraly.

[denoir 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 0]

You still don't get it. They are us. They are Europeans...

I'd still prefer to be a Finnish person rather than an European person. I'm from a different country than the most of the people in EU, and thus my way of life, culture, etc. are also different from theirs. I dont want my country to turn into what their country is. I dont really like the idea of an joint EU military either, mostly because of the same reasons; If germany/france/whatever would get involved in some conflict, what would it have to do with Finland? nothing... yet with a joint EU military we might have to need to get involved in some way.

You mean if Russia went and invaded you for like the 50th time in history, you would not like to be protected by German troops?

You didn't mind joining the Nazis in ww2 for that purpose and I hope that you arn't suggesting that the Nazis were a better choice than EU is today?

If anybody would benefit from a EU defence it would be Finland. You would have protection by French and British nuclear weapons. It would guarantee your safety.

Apollo:

Quote[/b] ]

But just as a sidenote ,i noticed that Holland is changing so fast ,in a bad way.

Holland used to be such an openminded and mondial people.

Yeah, I agree. Holland used to be my model for a good country and I agreed very much with it's liberal policies. Not anymore, they've closed up and it's not what it used to be.

[Supah 0]

I dont mind a german making the decisions or a frenchmen for that matter, as long as i have had a chance to vote for or against him. If The Netherlands would cease to excist as a country (or become a province/state of the EU) i wouldnt mind one bit. As long as it is done in a fair and transparant way. Not through some shady backroom deals between germany and france. We arent out to harm the german  economy, we are fully dependent on trade with germany . What harms germany harms us. It would be like shooting ourselves in the foot. I would vote for a german politician for lets say european president if that sorta system would be implemented. As long as his issues and views are what i can agree with. This is not a matter of nationalisme for me. I feel, and many with me, that the current system of decision making excludes voters from the smaller member states from the decision making proces. Either we do away with states all together or we should have a sort of senate. Where every member state gets to send a representative and each member state gets one vote. No veto's no nothing. Equality.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, I agree. Holland used to be my model for a good country and I agreed very much with it's liberal policies. Not anymore, they've closed up and it's not what it used to be.

Amen to that, and its a bloody shame. People are becomming far to extreme right wing.

[denoir 0]

I dont mind a german making the decisions or a frenchmen for that matter, as long as i have had a chance to vote for or against him. If The Netherlands would cease to excist as a country (or become a province/state of the EU) i wouldnt mind one bit. As long as it is done in a fair and transparant way. Not through some shady backroom deals between germany and france. We arent out to harm the german  economy, we are fully dependent on trade with germany . What harms germany harms us. It would be like shooting ourselves in the foot. I would vote for a german politician for lets say european president if that sorta system would be implemented. As long as his issues and views are what i can agree with. This is not a matter of nationalisme for me. I feel, and many with me, that the current system of decision making excludes voters from the smaller member states from the decision making proces. Either we do away with states all together or we should have a sort of senate. Where every member state gets to send a representative and each member state gets one vote. No veto's no nothing. Equality.

I agree with you. I'm only saying that the EU right now is work in progress and you can't take it at face value. Right now is the time to have visions of what it could become rather than seeing problems today.

A big point of uniting Europe is about resolving exactly those problems that get in the way of free trade, communication and interaction.

And the leaders of the EU countries realize that too. That's why they are debating a constitution right now. There are many difficult issues and it's possible that they will crash and burn this time, but they're working towards a common vision. And it's not a big Franco-German union. It's a European union.

What we should have is a representative two-chamber parliament. One chamber where each country gets one vote. And one chamber where the members don't represent the countries  but represent the EU. And that one should be proportional to the population of the EU. And you could also have a president as well on top of it all.

So basically it would work like this:

1) You vote for the government in your country. They choose and send one representative to the upper chamber of the EU parliament.

2) You vote directly for a European candidate or party that goes to the lower chamber of parliament.

3) You vote directly for a European president.

For a law to be passed first the lower chamber votes about it, then the upper and finally the president either approves it or vetoes it.

[The Frenchman 0]

Would you want a French general leading you? I know I wouldn't.

Whats wrong with that?!

*Cracks knuckles *

[Apollo 0]

Well geopoliticly Finland these days indeed has nothing to fear millitary.Russia is a not a threat anymore ,especially since it is as hard for Russia as it is for now to secure their Asian possesion's from an power growing China.Russia just couldn't afford it these days ,also because it needs good ties with other European country's.

Even in the short term economic sense ,non of the Scandinavian country's have SHORT term benifit's from it ,rather it would decrease their economic position a bit in the short term.that's one of the reason's why up to this date the U.K and some scandinavian E.U country's havn't joined the Euro yet.

But the tought of the E.U is that the more wealthier country's invest some of their BNP in the poorer part's of the E.U to develop these more and as thus to strenthen the overall economy of the E.U wich can only benifit all in much increased trade.The Euro country's undoubtly benifit most of this increase of trade since it all happens in the same currency.

Thus in the long run ,it would benifit the U.K and Scandinavian country's to ,and they know that to.At this moment ,the U.K and scandinavian's have a stronger currency than our's relativly.IF they would join now ,they would have to invest a lot.However ,in 5 or ten years the Euro country's will have reaped the beinifit of increased trade and will have come to the same economical strenth of U.K and scandinavia ,and then they will join the euro to.Eventually ,these country's know they can't stay out of the Euro and E.U forever.

Afcourse ,should U.K and scandinavia join the Euro now ,the development of Europe economicly would go even faster.

[Supah 0]

I agree with you. I'm only saying that the EU right now is work in progress and you can't take it at face value. Right now is the time to have visions of what it could become rather than seeing problems today.

What we should have is a representative two-chamber parliament. One chamber where each country gets one vote. And one chamber where the members don't represent the countries  but represent the EU. And that one should be proportional to the population of the EU.

That is exactly why the violation of the stabilitypact seems so worrying to me. Is this how its going to be in the future? Are promisses and agreements going to be broken so easily? For non EU countries this doesnt make us look all to stable.

Quote[/b] ]A big point of uniting Europe is about resolving exactly those problems that get in the way of free trade, communication and interaction.

Well trade we got covered, communication too. Interaction could be allot better though. Berlusconi insulting the germans every opportunity he gets and such ... not good.

Quote[/b] ]And the leaders of the EU countries realize that too. That's why they are debating a constitution right now. There are many difficult issues and it's possible that they will crash and burn this time, but they're working towards a common vision. And it's not a big Franco-German union. It's a European union.

The way the entire stab. pact thing was handled doesnt exactly bring across that point. in my opinion it was REALLY bad PR for the EU's cause. It doesnt make people in nations that we would like to join with us in this merry EU marraige trust the system either.

Quote[/b] ]What we should have is a representative two-chamber parliament. One chamber where each country gets one vote. And one chamber where the members don't represent the countries but represent the EU. And that one should be proportional to the population of the EU.

Sounds like a stellar improvement over the current system.

[Grizzlie 0]

I can say - yes, we CAN be europeans, but not yet. Still there is too much "history" in our relations.

If i remember well, France is not in military structures of NATO, only in political ones.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ] Interaction could be allot better though. Berlusconi insulting the germans every opportunity he gets and such ... not good.

Heh i agree ,i can't stand him neither.Makes Filip the Winter look like a swell guy.And the current chairman of the European convention wich is constructing the E.U constitution ,oelalaa ,Monsieur Giscard D'estain is not very fond of Turkish and poles.

indeed ,the E.U goverment is for 40% of useless opportunistic politician's ,but then there are 60% wich try to make a good job.I figure compare that to the rest of the world and you get normaly about the same level of useless politician's ,and we had thos in the past to.So in the end ,they don't make the difference.

I have much trust in belgian ex-premier Dehaene ,he has an important seat in the Conventian and he's a real sollution pusher.I think this new constitution will see an imporvement ,although it probably won't be perfect yet neither.

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ] Interaction could be allot better though. Berlusconi insulting the germans every opportunity he gets and such ... not good.

Heh i agree ,i can't stand him neither.Makes Filip the Winter look like a swell guy.And the current chairman of the European convention wich is constructing the E.U constitution ,oelalaa ,Monsieur Giscard D'estain is not very fond of Turkish and poles.

indeed ,the E.U goverment is for 40% of useless opportunistic politician's ,but then there are 60% wich try to make a good job.I figure compare that to the rest of the world and you get normaly about the same level of useless politician's ,and we had thos in the past to.So in the end ,they don't make the difference.

I have much trust in belgian ex-premier Dehaene ,he has an important seat in the Conventian and he's a real sollution pusher.I think this new constitution will see an imporvement ,although it probably won't be perfect yet neither.

I remember a saying that went something like "We elect peope to run our country who we wouldnt trust to babysit our children" I think it was on some tv show I thought it was very fitting.

[kegetys 2]

You mean if Russia went and invaded you for like the 50th time in history, you would not like to be protected by German troops?

I dont really see russia as any kind of threat to us, they dont really have any reason to come here, neither propably does anyone else.

Quote[/b] ]You didn't mind joining the Nazis in ww2 for that purpose and I hope that you arn't suggesting that the Nazis were a better choice than EU is today?

Don't say "you", I wasn't there.

Quote[/b] ]If anybody would benefit from a EU defence it would be Finland. You would have protection by French and British nuclear weapons. It would guarantee your safety.

Nah. What if the French or British would get into conflict with Russia for example? Then russia would say, hey, look, that little Finland there is right next to us, and they are allies of our enemies so lets attack them.

I prefer being as much individual as I possible instead of being part of some superpower where individuals have much less chance to make a difference, yet still a bigger chance to get affected by the actions of some other. ie. the politicans of the superpower thinking that since they are so great they can do whatever they wish and then the people have to pay the price.

[bn880 5]

Well, one of the problems is you do not always know when a conflict will arise, against what power. Better be prepared for a good defense than be taken over as every other section of EU looks by with fear...

[GoOB 0]

This is just another one of those anti US things lead by Europeans who arn't greatful of the sacrifices the US made and before you say that i'm sympathatic towards America i'm not an American.

I invite you to list all the sacrifices the USians did for my country. Even during WW2.

Yes, the US didn't give much support to the Finns during WW2 at all. They even sold you aircraft wich were said to have guns mounted on them at delivery but where empty. And did someone mention the Finns teaming up with the Germans and how that was a bad thing? Finland was at first neutral but didn't Germany offer their help against the Russians since it did benefact both sides? It was a valid soloution from a national security point of view. I would have done the same since no other country offered their help in the matter.

And personally I am against this thing, as Kegetys said I too prefer to look upon my country as a country wich chooses it's own way to deal with things, and a country wich holds a neutral stance on war. Not to mention that I dislike the fact that we would have little control of where out forces go, and I also dislike the fact that the EU seems to be turning in to "The united states of Europa"

EDIT: Oh, and the chance of Sweden or any other European country for that matter to get involved in any war wich would require defending Europe in the next few hundred years is fairly unlikely.

[denoir 0]

You mean if Russia went and invaded you for like the 50th time in history, you would not like to be protected by German troops?

I dont really see russia as any kind of threat to us, they dont really have any reason to come here, neither propably does anyone else.

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

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]You didn't mind joining the Nazis in ww2 for that purpose and I hope that you arn't suggesting that the Nazis were a better choice than EU is today?

Don't say "you", I wasn't there.

"You" as in your country. As in Finland who you just said you'd rather associate with than the EU.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If anybody would benefit from a EU defence it would be Finland. You would have protection by French and British nuclear weapons. It would guarantee your safety.

Nah. What if the French or British would get into conflict with Russia for example? Then russia would say, hey, look, that little Finland there is right next to us, and they are allies of our enemies so lets attack them.

Not when there are nuclear weapons involved. It's an absolute. France can't invade Russia, Russia can't invade France. Both have enough nuclear weapons to turn each other into a wasteland.

Quote[/b] ]I prefer being as much individual as I possible instead of being part of some superpower where individuals have much less chance to make a difference, yet still a bigger chance to get affected by the actions of some other. ie. the politicans of the superpower thinking that since they are so great they can do whatever they wish and then the people have to pay the price.

And how much influence exactly do you think Finland has today? About as much as Sweden: none. None whatsoever. As an EU member it has much more to say than when standing alone.

[denoir 0]

EDIT: Oh, and the chance of Sweden or any other European country  for that matter to get involved in any war wich would require defending Europe in the next few hundred years is fairly unlikely.

Peace in Our Time

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]And personally I am against this thing, as Kegetys said I too prefer to look upon my country as a country wich chooses it's own way to deal with things, and a country wich holds a neutral stance on war. Not to mention that I dislike the fact that we would have little control of where out forces go, and I also dislike the fact that the EU seems to be turning in to "The united states of Europa"

Such sentiment's can be found plentifull around the baltic.It has much to do with the demise of the USSR.Country's like Estland ,Letland and Lithuania have just finnaly aquired their independance again ,so they are not fond to directly join another Political block again.But then that doesn't mean that their can't be treaty's ,like defensive alliances ,wich NATO actually is.In principal ,no NATO member is forced to folow an other country in an offensive war ,it is only required in a defensive war ,that is when a member is attacked.And even then support doesn't have to mean nessecarily millitary ,some NATo member's ,smaller country's tend to support such war's financlialy as doing their part of NATO.

Besides ,in a sense joining the E.U and EURO diesn't mean you join NATO or this joined EU army.It's only in effect for those country's that signed it really.