Is an EU army really necessary like what would it be used for?

Is an EU army really necessary like what would it be used for?

Its another step towards Germany's project to take over Europe.

It must never happen.

It would be used for surrendering LMAO

>what would it be used for?
To invade Australia obviously.

Oppressing the populace and keeping the tyrannical regime in power.

ostensibly muh russia, but really

You think other Europeans would do that to their fellow man not the elite but people would be soldiers to do that?

well I don't think anyone would want to fight for an anti-european foreign bureaucracy to begin with but what do I know

Against regimes in MENA, keep peace in Africa and counterweight against russians

They will, after you label any dissidents dangerous and racist and say you do it to secure peace of all European people and their children.

Being poorly organized and buy gear/pave way for federal europe and possibly keep down dissidents.

merkel wants to revoke the privilegia

To Federalize the union, of course.

>keep peace in Africa

Preventing socialist movements in ex-colonial Africa? Alternatively occupying Greece when they decide to stop obeying german banks.

I wouldn't mind it, but there would also have to be guaranteed that member countries should also be able to mobilize their own armies from which to exert whatever it is they want (for example, this lets France pursue its Françafrique objectives undeterred).

For example, a European army could be achieved by a European military service of a year for the youth, which brings each from every country closer, and therefore forbids that the European army could ever be exploited for tyrannically means (as Europeans would now be friendly with about every other European country), and meanwhile countries in themselves are free to mobilize armies for themselves as they wish.

Anyone feeling me?

It would ensure countries enforce their mutual defense obligation (which NATO can't).
It would ensure independence from American influence.
It would ensure more efficient usage of resources as you don't have to do everything 28 times.
It would ensure the EU can project it's powers on shitty countries that annoy us, such as the ones that dont accept refugees back.

Only to stop countries from leaving, crushing dissent, and facilitating the migration of wogs

Wouldn't it just be the french army under german command though?

>forbids that the European army could ever be exploited for tyrannically means
What about the tyranny of the capital?

The EU has 510 million people. 446 million without the UK.

France has 65 million people. The pooled resources of another 381 million people would be quite a bit bigger than France it's contribution.

Actually it must happen.

We're sick of fucking paying for NATO, especially when only 5 of the member states (out of 28) pay their 2% GDP dues.

The USA currently pays 3.7% or so, and that number realistically should be zero. That money should instead be applied to universal healthcare.

Let the euros defend themselves. They'll understand how easy they've had it the past 70 years as soon as they have to cut their social programs to pay for their military.

What's that mean?

Even if we left Germany, France and the UK out and only the smaller countries would join in we'd still end up with a colossal military.

user there is just pointing out a flaw in your logic: a centralised EU army can be used in a tyrannical fashion just as a national army could. It's even more dangerous since the EU is not a democratic institution.

Modern wars are more hardware oriented than zerg rushing your opponent. It's money that you need, there'll never be a real shortage of personnel. Most EU members don't have the money or do only at the cost of literally everything else. An EU army would rely almost entirely on France, Germany, Benelux and to a lesser extent Spain and Italy who as we all know are full of lazy mediterraneans on mafia payroll.

>mfw they invade us

>gun
I think you need a knife, little man

Kek no. Germany has no army yet, the dominant force inside an EU army as it stands now would be the french.

nah you guys aint that fat.

Only a really small portion of the European citizens live in East Europe. I think it's not even 20%.

>EU is not a democratic institution
I'm tired of this meme

pretty sure we're the fattest in europe quite comfortably

Fight those russians if they try anything funny. Same with turks

Well how many EU officials are voted into power?

Ah, true, but I should specify that I'm articulating my beliefs around the European army on the basis that revolutions have their success usually be determined by whether the army sides with the protesters. For example, in the French revolution, the army initially rallied to the protesters under Lafayette, and so did they in the July Revolution.
Basically, an army with enough empathy for the population will usually hinder Federal oppression. And in the logic I'm abiding by, that the European youth gets together in their shared army service, and comes to see Spain, Finland, Germany, etc... as much as their own country. Which means that oppression can't occur as much anymore.

Or am I completely off?

EU is dictated by the comission and the comission is not selected in democratic manner.

America-tier post

I imagine the right half of this chart would be a lot safer if they had the power of the UK, France and Germany combined.

yanks can fuck off and stop saying they pay for our defence with their bases n sheit (despite us paying for them)

Everyone at the European parliament. You know, the guys who vote the laws ?

Sure

The European parliament doesn't even have the right of initiative.

No, see, the military personnel will have guaranteed financial security and they will fight to protect THAT (more specifically the people who provide for them), not naive ideals like european unity. If the military was a cruel place that only poor or drafted people entered, they might have more ambivalent loyalties.

You forget that the national ties will be too strong for any kind of "tyranical" supranational european organization to make people fight their own country

And what about the rest?

The European Parliament does fuck all in the whole bureaucratic machine.

The noble ideals of the french revolution were short-lived.

>If the military was a cruel place that only poor or drafted people entered
Well in how I'd imagined for the European army to be materialized, they'd be restricted to drafted youngsters, ensuring that the EU could never draw to it the loyalty of a mercernary-minded population (eg: like what Finland has now?). Basically that the population is the army is what might ensure that the population doesn't come to be oppressed.

But maybe too idealistic as you say.

EU army is a good thing they can protect their borders, stop Muslim immigrants and forcibly remove them and if Turkey threatens them with more they can threaten them back.

Right, because civil wars never happen.

And ? They still have the end word

They vote the law. Are you stupid ? Also the members of the commissions are approved by the parliament. Take a look at the UK if you wanna see how undemocratic a regime truly is

Not really. But seeing how America is getting cold feet about NATO, some people think that it might be a good idea.

And I don't get why people think Germany would dominate the forces, they replaced their machine guns with broomsticks.

It can always happen, but it would take a lot of people swearing obedience towards a machinery that a lot of people are now sceptic towards.
I mean it could happen in an hypothetical future where we became federalized, and become united states and get our own civil war, but it's far from now

I think the EU would aim for a small but well equipped military.
And with small I mean relative to the size of the EU.
A small European army could still be twice the size of the French army for example with double the budget.

Also the EU council is made up of elected ministers of the member states.

>EU parliament: less than 800 people
>EU comission: nearly 24 000 employees
The parliament is a token gesture that means nothing. And it's compromised by the corporate lobby anyway, just like the comission.

This. It would be a mean for self defense of the members states, and a shared budget, meaning it could be well efficient and less costly for the participants

At least in Finland the way parties appoint ministers from their ranks is too far removed for the intent of representative democracy.

Commission has 28 commissars, you retard. Of course if you count the bureaucracy of any institution you'll get a lot more, but those 24 000 are administrators

The European Parliament is ineffectual. Every bill that is approved by the Parliament can be edited by the Commission, which is an unelected body.

Most of the important decisions of the EU are made behind closed doors on the Council and Commission. And that's not okay.

If you wanted to truly give power to the Parliament, you would give it full control over the budget as well as power to veto anything the Council does.

Reduce price for everyone. Especially for us since we will be the only one in charge of defending EU once UK leave.

>they can protect their borders, stop Muslim immigrants and forcibly remove them and if Turkey threatens them with more they can threaten them back
Yeah that's totally what a EU army will be used for. Surely it wouldn't be used for the complete opposite of that.

>The legislative branch officially holds the Union's budgetary authority with powers gained through the Budgetary Treaties of the 1970s and the Lisbon Treaty. The EU budget is subject to a form of the ordinary legislative procedure with a single reading giving Parliament power over the entire budget (before 2009, its influence was limited to certain areas) on an equal footing to the Council. If there is a disagreement between them, it is taken to a conciliation committee as it is for legislative proposals. If the joint conciliation text is not approved, the Parliament may adopt the budget definitively.
Yeah right

So the EU is only as democratic as its members.

Fuck off NATO shill

>NATO shill

Since when is this an EU vs US thing?

Well, if you consider this like that, you should also wonder how many people you voted for in your own government. And count every non-elected member of the bureaucracy while you are at it. You should get the same numbers.

I agree that EU would be better with more democracy, but telling it's not democratic is non-sense.

>

>he Parliament also has the power to censure the Commission if they have a two-thirds majority which will force the resignation of the entire Commission from office. As with approval, this power has never been used but it was threatened to the Santer Commission, who subsequently resigned of their own accord.
>hurr durr muh commission

When the US primarily pays for NATO, and the EU leeches off it. We pay 3.7% of our GDP on it. 23 of 28 European countries pay b-b-b-b-but the Baltic states are most at risk!
Then convince Western European cucks to pay their NATO dues. I know Poland, Estonia, and the UK do. France, Italy, Germany, and Spain have no excuse.

Can't wait

The Dutch government can be send away with 51% of the votes.

I get that argument and think it's legitimate, but then why does Trump want to increase the army budget ? Shit is already through the roof and is one of the reason your economy is strained so much.
You don't need all that shit to fight China or defend yourselves

And the french president can dissolve our assembly as much as he wants. Point being, every system works differently and is imperfect. The EU infrastructure could and should be improved, but the whole "its not democratic" is just far right bullshit

>If you think Russia is a threat, pay for it, you fucking faggots.
I think that's what an EU army would result in.
The Australian guy was calling you a nato shill, but it doesn't sound like you or many other Americans view nato very favorably right now, which is why I was confused.

He said there will be more military parades, IIRC.

>but then why does Trump want to increase the army budget ?

The military is, unironically, the biggest form of socialism in the USA. Their healthcare, livelihood, education, etc. is all paid for by the US taxpayer.

I don't agree with Trump's bloated approach to the military on domestic terms, but it is much easier for our Congress to oppose him on that front. With NATO, the locus of control is primarily on the executive/government level, not the local level, so I'd prefer a situation in which Trump blows fire up NATO's ass and American citizens blow fire up Trump's ass.

I'm not the person the Australian was responding to. I'm fully in support of an EU army if only for the fact that Europeans can pay for it and we can fuck right off and save our money to spend on domestic programs. The US infrastructure is in shambles, we are behind on universal healthcare, university education should be free, etc. etc. Shaving our 3.7% down to 2.0% would save quite a lot of money, and 0.0% would be a godsend.

If Russia is truly the threat that "justifies" NATO, let's test the waters.

Haha, what ?

estonia paid eh, so that's why those brit troops landed yesterday.

>Europe
>working together
LEL remember how everyone wanted to ditch Greece? And look at the refugee situation right now. Everyone blames everyone. And people seriously expect the EU to work together in times of LIFE-THREATENING WAR?

Oh I get what you mean, and I completely agree with you. Imagine all the shit you could build in your country instead of missiles

And yet we stand united for the moment. European laws and infrastructures have kept getting stronger during the crisis, and even the brexit doesn't break the cohesion yet. As it stands, countries still realize they have more interest staying inside than outside.
That's why we should destroy UK's knees as much as we can and let NATO go to scrambles so we finally move our asses

Why would they need an army?

Russia is not going to invade them and annex territories. They already have many empty lands.

Turkey is not a threat.

>Russia is not going to invade them and annex territories
>was occupying eastern Europe not 30 years ago
>Meanwhile Turkey is going full we wuz sultans and shit retard

>necessary
not really, although better cooperation between eu armies would be a boon
>what would it be used for
probably same shit USA uses theirs, making people feel safe from the red/brown/gray menace and occasionally overthrowing exceptionally uncooperative foreign governments, or helping the cooperative ones deal with bothersome militants.

>Turkey is not a threat.
For someone that doesn't have it in his ambitions to chide Europe, he sure is doing a lot to antagonize the West, and delude the average Turk that the West is wholeheartedly conspiring against them.

Otherwise, Russia is a bit of a non-threat though, or at least should they not be too serious about their de facto alliance with China.

Eh, Russian army doctrine is pretty defensive as it stands, though they do have it in them to undermine the EU though.
>stage a revolution when Ukraine starts to want to be in the EU
>try to get Le Pen and Wilders elected

i'm on the rusbro's side. but i would be lying if i said they wouldn't

all they need is just another window, to chew another balkans or whole ukraine.

Oops, "he" being Erdogan here.

>he needs a gun to feel like a big man

Don'the worry, you americans are big enough without them

For the same thing we use armies now.

>For someone that doesn't have it in his ambitions to chide Europe, he sure is doing a lot to antagonize the West,
It's almost like he didn't really care whether he's in NATO.

But as long as he's in, he'll try to milk his strategic value for what it's worth. I'm looking forward to seeing Erdogan's interaction with Trump, it has potential for amusement.

We would fight IS

Seriously though, we need more efficiency between the security of EU countries

>every country's armed forces have their own pro and cons, are good at different things and have different equipments
>putting them all together so to obtain a big army that is specialized at everything
>BAD

The main problem with russians is that they have a lot of potential to create problems for Europe.
They regularly attack our cyberspace, and the ties between populist european parties and Moscow becomes more apparent as of lately, as you've said.
Also their army did simulate attacks in european airspace, like in Sweden or baltics.
I don't want to use the Hitler argument, but back in the 30s everybody was convinced he wouldn't do shit either, and Putin is rearming Russia

Will EU become 'Greater Germany'?

Why not just try to improve the relationship with Russia, like Trump wants? Most Russians are Europeans anyways. Let them keep Ukraine in their sphere influence, it's an Africa-tier shithole anyways.

Trump is sad for that too, because ironically, Iran is now the most stable country in middle east and could have become new NATO's ally in the area, as well as a good commercial partner. Now we're stuck with the roaches

Chhh don't say that
You shouldn't be proud if you're french

>Let them keep Ukraine in their sphere influence, it's an Africa-tier shithole anyways.
Dude the EU did almost nothing to help Ukraine, and take a look at what the media in Russia have to say about the EU and the west in general. It's literally communist propaganda tier.

I'm all in for a good relationship with Russians, but they have to show they're willing to be too, neither those last years, nor their recent history has showed that

I'm tired of that. I want France to stop groveling in its own shit and self pity and gets a hold of itself. We're not that bad, and have potential for a lot of improvement. It just doesn't happen yet unfortunately

>Appeasement
Neville Pls