So what's wrong with an EU army?

So what's wrong with an EU army?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/kmu0D_pca1Q
theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/opinion/ted-malloch-us-view-european-integration
qz.com/909088/for-the-first-time-in-a-long-time-every-eu-economy-is-growing-at-the-same-time/
faz.net/aktuell/politik/zerfaellt-europa/zerfaellt-europa-11-mit-herzblut-und-leidenschaft-14322032.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

we don't need it, he just have to send our US lackey to die for us.

Absolutely nothing. Hopefully it'll happen now that you have an extremely unpredictable and volatile president that could screw over NATO any moment

>this guy

Nothing in the grand scheme of things if Nato wouldn't have such a strong grip on many EU countries since they have taken the easy way out and become extremely dependent of Nato.

because we already have documented historical evidence of such a thing being a catastrophic, dysfunctional mess during real conflicts.

also fuck globalists

why?

isn't the EU and economic union?
an army to defend economic interests seems pretty evil.

That they will mobilise it against countries or people that want to get out of the EU

Nobody will pay for it

EU isn't only economic, it's a political, economical and social union of european states. An EU army would be a massive step towards federalization, but that's just a pipe dream. Defending economic interests is also pretty much the only reason armies get deployed nowadays.

That belgian is my favorite euro.
That sort of idealism is hard to find these days.

>An EU army would be a massive step towards federalization, but that's just a pipe dream.
>dream
>Romanians dream of being annexed by Germans

French Army with German generals.

>Austria has conscription
>get drafted into the EU army led by some incompetent belgian
>France wants cheaper Uranium so some central african shithole needs to be invaded
>spend a few months in a hole in the sand and defend yourself against daily attacks from child soliders and giant mosquitos carrying a dozen exotic diseases
>get home afflicted with ebola
>"here are your 300 Euro damage compensation, thank you for your service to europe!"

Hell no.
If that ever happens I'll move to NZ.

No thank ou

yeah, but the EU is de jure an economic union.
de jure economic unions don't need de facto armies.

deploying armies to defend economic interests might be what's being done nowadays, it doesn't make it good.

if you want a separate alliance of European countries, a sort of NATO but just ETO, it's debatable, but a "EU army" is a bad idea.

Nothing

wouldn't the EU becoming a military alliance mean Austria would constitutionally have to leave it?

>Brits don't know how the limits of power projection
With federalization the German influence would decrease. Formal, constitutionalized power would mean that Germany has around 20% of the votes. Not really a dominating influence as Prussia had in Germany or England in the UK.

>implying there isn't already an EU army

youtu.be/kmu0D_pca1Q

Inherently nothing, but autistic people don't like the idea of the future being different so they outright oppose an EU superstate and would rather be a small irrelevant country in the future

It's not. You are talking about the EC, not the EU.

It was already against the constitution to even join the EU. So take a wild guess how much politicians care about our neutrality.

>EU will manage to agree on which country to invade
you know by the time they pass it the African country in question would have changed it's name due to a coup and the vote would be invalid

nein

that would be very true if the EU was a democratic institution

Nothing

>Brits saying the EU is undemocratic while being the main opponents of democracy in the form of an EU government elected and controlled by the EU parliament
It's good you will be gone if that's how you argue

enlighten me - what's so undemocratic about the eu?

I wouldn't be opposed to a federalized army if the people in parlement like Verhofstadt weren't evil maniacs.

let me guess, if it weren't for nationalism we'd all already be living on Mars as well, right?

I can already see it:
Francois, Hans and Sven guarding Mohammad and M'Otumbu while they impregnate their wives and sisters.

Elect other people if you don't like your current representatives

There are other way to be antidemocratic. For exemple, our government went against the results of the referendum on the european constitution in 2005 to which the French voted "no". In that sense, constitionally speaking, France to be part of the E.U and we should leave.

For starters brexit would not happen if there was eu army.

I don't consider representatives elected by foreign voters determining British laws to be democratic. The only way this hypothetical system becomes anything other than different countries imposing alien laws on each other would be if European countries were provinces and not nations with thousands of years of history. I know that's your endgame anyway, but don't be surprised if people aren't thrilled with it.

How? The EU oligarchy and their cronies are rich, unelected moguls who keep eachother in power indefinitely.

I like the subject as a discussion piece online, just because the Euro far-right and far-left can't decide whether they value an alternative power structure to US-dominated-NATO as being worth further centralization of the EU Either way, the "globalists" win. Pick your poison, RT comment section.

As for the idea itself, trying to move money around in creative ways won't address the lack of EU defense expenditure. There's only so much shuffling you can do in the ORBAT when there's nothing to work with. And trying to end the trend of European "bonsai" militaries will put all of your eggs completely in the collective basket. It's do or die at that point.

tl;dr Europe needs to spend more money on defense.

If we had a European army, we should use it only for inner defense.
For outside missions (middle east, africa, etc.), there is too many political differences in Europe. France and UK might be eager to attack, but Germany and Austria might say no, and then you have to argue for weeks whether you should attack, and nothing gets done.
For inner defense though, it could totally work.

Your parliament was democratically elected and made a democratic decision. There was apparently no need for a popular vote on the issue in the French constitution. That flaw in democracy therefore derives from your own decisions before and not from the EU itself.

>As for the idea itself, trying to move money around in creative ways won't address the lack of EU defense expenditure.
This is also one of the things that bothers me about it, it's just so fucking lazy. Instead of possibly curtailing the social state even just a little bit to have respectable militaries, they'd rather just haphazardly duct tape all of their shitty, underfunded, laughable current militaries together and pretend it gives them more leverage in the world.

>a democratic decision
For a totalitarian maybe, they went against the decision of the people.

>That flaw in democracy therefore derives from your own decisions before and not from the EU itself.
I never blamed it on the E.U. I was just trying to show you how there are several ways to be anticonstitutionally in the E.U. Which is the case of France, and shouldn't be.

But the Scots have to accept the Britsh vote?
You can obviously be a nation and still have a higher ranking government. Lots of countries work that way al over the world.

If we get an EU army we obviously need an EU government that answers to the parliament and can represent the EUs interests and not national interests.
How are they unelected? Can you make an example of a certain position or person? General accusations aren't very helpful

If the vote wasn't binding it's nothing more than an opinion poll. Governments make decisions against the national consensus all the time. Sometimes for greater good, sometimes for personal benefits or special interest. That doesn't mean they are unconstitutional.

It was a nation-wide referedum, not an opinion poll, to which they are bound obey.
And this decision was only for the great good of their bank accounts.

uh, yes? They voted to remain a part of the UK and therefore be subject to the results of any future national referendums. They've been promised a referendum on independence once in a generation, not whenever they're mildly displeased about something.

>You can obviously be a nation and still have a higher ranking government. Lots of countries work that way al over the world.
no, because those aren't nations, those are states, provinces, and federal subjects, none of which any sane person wants their country to be.

You just said that representatives elected by others countries that make decisions over yours in undemocratic. But that is not different from Scotland, who have to accept English representatives. Countries weren't forced to join the EU, so they are as freely a part of it as is Scotland part of the UK.

Scotland is a country. There are obviously different levels of federal integration. A state is not the highest possible level of freedom within a federation.
If there was a law that made the vote binding you should have gone to court. If there was none, you held an opinion poll.

>But that is not different from Scotland, who have to accept English representatives. Countries weren't forced to join the EU, so they are as freely a part of it as is Scotland part of the UK.
Actually, Scots have their own parliament, which England does not. English representatives are not allowed to vote on most Scottish issues, whereas MPs from Scotland are able to freely vote on English issues.
>countries weren't forced to join the EU
most were forced into the Lisbon Treaty and UK voters never had a single say in our membership until the referendum last year.

Don't bother. We all know the instant you feel like it you'll sign a bill and our "inner defense army" is now in Laos.

Sweden raised an army solely for defense once. It ended with 10,000 of us dying in Poltava.

Again, you don't need to ask voters directly for it being a free choice. And how exactly were the countries forced? Saying that they have to join or leave is not pressuring to join, just to make a decision.

Does Scotland have a separate vote on foreign policy, the use of your military or any other grand issue?

>Thread discussing the inside politics of EU
>Brits flood the thread pretending they're still a part of it
What did they mean by this?

why are americans so scared of an eu army?

We need one European federation ! I mean look at some multi-ethnic countries like Yugoslavia, the Soviet union, Austria-Hungary, South Africa... They all looks fine don't they ?

;-)

Or USA

This.
Realistically Europa is currently surrounded by 4 blocks for potential invasion:
Turkey/Arabia
Africa into Spain
Russia
And USA via sea.

We need a plan.

>ITT people who haven't been in army discussing about fates of people who have.

I didn't even mention nationalism

is this bait?

Where did you get that impression?

Why do European federalists continue to portray themselves as somehow sticking it to the USA by being cancerous globalist traitors to their own nations? You realise that until Trump's inauguration support for EU expansion/federalism has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy in Europe for like 25 years, right? You realize that Obama personally flew here to threaten us to remain in the EU during the independence referendum campaign? God you people are so delusional.

t. American fuccboy

the USA no, the Trump supporters that infest Sup Forums, yes

t: I like it in the ass from US though Eu was more beneficial.


Well atleast you britons are starting to resemble your friends from US when ti comes to general intelligence.

none of these posts even remotely make sense in the context of what I actually wrote in that post. Your lack of English skills isn't exactly making a great case for why you should all be in a trench fighting together.

No, this is ignoring the current geopolitical situation.
I.E 100 years from now.

That said, if USA leaves NATO, NATO is most likely going to remain, because deep down we know its better to have a cool defence cooperation than to risk getting invaded by a Bydlo Russian Putin successor.

I remember doing some homework on Britain and suddenly realizing they were fat idiots instead of european. Big shock tbqh

It's not a question of risk, but time

That being said NATO only serves America's interests and those stupid enough to actually trust Americans should eave that cancer as soon as possible

I was two years in the Germany Air Force and am still a reserve officer, currently in the rank of Leutnant d.R. (OF-1)

The US wants a loose assembly that follows their leadership, not a united force that challenges their leadership.

With brits leaving, we're the only decent force Europe has. EU army would mean a french one dying for euroniggers. Fuck that, build your own nukes and your own planes that are not shitty eurofighters you fucking cucks

Because under the rule of current EU leadership it would be an army made solely for the purpose of helping importing africans and rapefugees. No guns, no armoured vehicles, just welcome packages.

And if the army fell under polish command, there would be immediately a WW3 against Russia.

no, they openly support every form of European integration, they are extremely open about this. Every President I can remember back to Bill Clinton has been an ardent EU supporter. You are lying if you say otherwise. A bunch of countries artificially attaching themselves to each other doesn't make a superpower.

It is completely fucking laughable that you think you are opposing the global corporate elite that controls the US by handing more power to that same global corporate elite here and doing their job of killing your nation for them in the process. Get a clue.

>French backing down from a fight

Could you at least wait until the war's started before you surrender?

>no, they openly support every form of European integration

Outright lie. Many many regulations are left to each nation to decide, following the principle of proportionality which is, you know, the EU's cornerstone.

You are an idiot and you left the union based on false information. But thanks for serving as an example of what not to do, I guess.

I'm talking about US foreign policy, not EU internal laws. read the fucking thread, Sven.

>20%
>Many
We want all of it back. cuck.

the Eurofighter Typhoon is better than a Rafale

American Attitudes on European Political Integration
The Nixon-Kissinger Legacy
2 / 2007
Youri Devuyst
Abstract

This paper concentrates on the Nixon-Kissinger view of European political integration. In contrast with the mainstream position of the American Administrations during the 1950s and 1960s, Kissinger was convinced that by encouraging European unity, the United States was in fact creating its own rival. The start of a new system of European foreign policy cooperation in 1970 was seen by Kissinger as a particularly important example of Europe’s attempt to challenge the American hegemony. Kissinger emphasized the need to maintain Western Europe in a subordinate role. Three main lines of action were pursued to keep the development of the European Community under control: maintaining bilateral contacts with key European allies, requesting a seat at the Community's decision-making table, and linking "obedient" European behavior to American military presence in Europe. The legacy of this policy still seems to influence the current American policy on the European Union. The Nixon-Kissinger term was, however, detrimental to rather than conducive of harmonious transatlantic relations. Tendencies to emulate it should therefore be discouraged.

Funny post coming from an irrelevant country soon to be third world

You can't, they're decided by global policies. You'll just be America's cuck instead of ours and let's face it, America doesn't give a shit about you.

Funny post coming from an irrelevant country currently third world

Sweden will be fine, France is fucked.

The US supports the EU for three main reasons

1) it's easier to deal with a single institution rather than dozens of countries.
2) it guarantees stability on the continent, which is better for trade and makes life harder for Russia
3) by virtue of its structure the EU cannot act decisively on any important issue and everyone knows this. The main reason why is...

... what this poster mentions:
>the principle of proportionality which is, you know, the EU's cornerstone.

It should be obvious to understand

>You are an idiot and you left the union based on false information. But thanks for serving as an example of what not to do, I guess.

I wonder what people like you will be saying if the UK prospers outside the EU.

portugese don't need one
spaniards don't need one as long as they can make deals with morroco
french would only want to use it to babysit niggers in africa
italians would only want to use it to abduct niggers of the coast of africa
belgians and dutch it would only serve as a way to get rid of the 2% gpd nato requitement
germans would start their jewy talk 'durr hurr we pay the most so we should dictate what the army does and everyone else should just listen to us'

that's what's wrong with an eu army

I'd have sex with Marylin Monroe before I wake up

Also something new:
theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/opinion/ted-malloch-us-view-european-integration

That's why the EU needs further integration as I've written countless times in this thread now. A unified government that acts in the interests of the EU as a whole.

The US was interested in the EU as it was until recently. An indecisive tool for their own power projection. A EU that can act alone is not and never was in the US interests.

Desilusion. But I appreciate their sacrifice, they're showing the world the real deal.

t. Sven wifesson

Why are you so sure the UK cannot be successful outside the EU? I'll be interested to hear your reasoning

>That's why the EU needs further integration
Easy to say, not so easy to do. Further integration means German savers agreeing to underwrite the liabilities of Greeks and Italians, in some sort of direct transfer Eurobond scheme. How likely do you think that is?

>Why are you so sure the UK cannot be successful outside the EU? I'll be interested to hear your reasoning

Why do you think the UK wasn't successful inside the EU? Every single nation in the EU has been getting richer in the past 10 years.

qz.com/909088/for-the-first-time-in-a-long-time-every-eu-economy-is-growing-at-the-same-time/

>How likely do you think that is?
That's just what mister MEGA, Schulz, is advocating for. So it's not as unlikely as you might think. Voting Schulz means voting to pay for the United States of Europe and buy yourself security in an ever more unstable world. It seems a majority of people are willing to do this.

Wow, Henry Kissinger? You mean the guy who was Secretary of State nearly 20 years before the EU was even created? This is your evidence that you are fighting the big bad Yank boogeyman by voting for pro-EU parties that are usually wholeheartedly supported by American administrations?

I don't give a fuck about Kissinger, I care about Obama being sent here by his masters and telling us that if we're not good boys and decide that in the future we don't want to just be generic "Europeans" living in some corporate pawn superstate we'll go to the back of Madame President's "queue" in the future.

>the US supports the EU so the EU needs to integrate more
stop making stupid arguments then. It's plainly obvious that you just want your country to be in the position that the US is in now, because the US is basically what Germany could have been if its people weren't the most easily baited toward extreme political ideologies in the entire world.

go back to /r/the_schulz and stop trying to raid here

>having an army at all
fucking barbarians

>Why do you think the UK wasn't successful inside the EU?

I never said it wasn't. The UK was relatively successful in the EU, with the exception of the huge trade deficit with the EU (the UK has a surplus with non-EU countries). But the UK has also been successful before the EU existed.

So, forget your strawman. The UK has been successful with and without the EU. Tell me what makes you think the UK can't be successful without the EU now?

>That's just what mister MEGA, Schulz, is advocating for.

Is it an explicit policy position? Could you link me to the party's website where it says this? I'll translate the page.

The second link is 40 minutes old. It's from the future EU ambassador and is clearly anti EU.

How am I advocating German hegemony when I'm saying we should cut back our vote to the 20% we have due to population numbers?
Your logical fallacy in the green text only comes from your over-simplification

Never been there, that's just what I got from the newspapers here.

Because hopefully EU will not live long enough.

Cant wait to vote on swexit

USANZACANUK army when

I already didn't respond because you blatantly shifted the argument in your favor. My point was always that you gain nothing by leaving the EU, you can still be successful but you will acquire none of the things you set out to get, such as a say in global politics and a reduction in 3rd world immigration which, may I remind you, you were flooding your nation with long before you joined the EU.

Yeah, like I said, Trump is the first American President to be anti-EU and pro independent, free, nationalist Europe. You're losing, and plagiarising Sup Forums memes for your generic cardboard-cutout champagne socialist Eurocrat candidates isn't going to do anything to remedy that.

>My point was always that you gain nothing by leaving the EU

But this is obviously not true. We gain certain things, and we lose certain other things, by leaving the EU. Losing access to the single market is worse for trade, but there are positives such as state aid not being illegal and much reduced payments to the EU (I assume we'll still pay for staying in a few of the schemes).

You seem to have a very simplistic view of this. If you actually believe we gain nothing at all then you're a fool. The truth is we gain some, and lose some. What is debatable is whether more is gained than lost, or vice versa. Not that we gain nothing.

>you will acquire none of the things you set out to get, such as a say in global politics

Why do you say this?

faz.net/aktuell/politik/zerfaellt-europa/zerfaellt-europa-11-mit-herzblut-und-leidenschaft-14322032.html
This is a guest comment of Schulz in the FAZ

>plagiarising memes
That's not how memes work.
And the polls say that it works for him and his party. That's why the CDU is already starting the campaigning and immediately went to personal attacks on the candidate

Friendly reminder that Schultz said Germany exists solely to protect Israel