I do too. Part of the problems we have with the EU project is this half arsed partial union we have. It should be fully in or fully out...and I'm pro going for the whole federal hog.
Juncker calls for the creation of an EU army.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
I do too. Part of the problems we have with the EU project is this half arsed partial union we have. It should be fully in or fully out...and I'm pro going for the whole federal hog.
Soldato
Not total sense. The disparate aims of the respective states within a unified EU army could easily result in a heightened level of inertia. Dealing with the Russian threat, specifically, might be somewhat easier - but it depends on how the leadership of the EU army was structured, and how countries' ability to veto was laid out.
Nato has shown itself to be fairly impotent throughout its history. The EU army would need to learn from that.
What utter rubbish. EU forces work together all the time, it makes absolute sense fir them to work together permanently, they would be far mire integrated and effective. It also doesn't mean countries have to give up independent forces. Witch a lot of smaller countries it makes far more sense to combine wealth and buy/train what you need, than everyone doing there own thing. To start with could say every country has to give 0.5% of their 2% to the EU to create an EU force.
All treaties have shown themselfs to be impotent. Which is a shame. Nothings going to change there.
People aren't against it because it doesn't make sense, they are against it because of nationalism, which causes huge issues around the world. Sooner we get rid of nationalism the better.
Last edited:
We have the opportunity to get those now
The illusion of choice is no choice at all! The people that should count don't get that choice is what I should have said.
Soldato
Interesting that a German is calling for this as the last German to fire a shot in anger was a DDR border guard. Even the French have been more warry in recent years...
Soldato
Don't misunderstand me - I'm actually in favour of further EU integration and breaking down of borders. This would include a unified army.
However, in isolation an EU army simply doesn't make "total sense". It does make some sense, I was simply laying out difficulties.
There have been plenty of issues with EU states pooling their military assets - countries (mostly Germany) abstaining from conflicts.
It's much like the Euro - it makes little sense in its current form, but would be sensible as part of wider integration.
They can't side line an EU army, if they have no control over it, other than part if EU parliament, eu forces not just army, should nit be owned by individual countries.
Money should go to the EU, and the EU buys equipment and trains the forces. So it has little to do with individual countries.
Money should go to the EU, and the EU buys equipment and trains the forces. So it has little to do with individual countries.
Soldato
For it to be at all effective under its own steam, an EU army would need to be a sizeable force with some serious military assets, simply to reach a critical mass. UK and France spend around £40billion per year on military - Germany spends around £30 billion and is pretty darn ineffective. It's unrealistic to raise that sort of military capital without giving some level of veto control over to individual governments.
Of course you can, even starting at just 0.5% of EU gdp, gives you roughly $100billion to spend. More than enough to start a sizable force. Especially as it would be integrated and wouldn't overlap as every country does what it wants.
That For size would be the third biggest force in the world, after USA and china. And $10bn more than Russia spends.
That's what collectively doing things does. So much more efficient and so much more money. Over the years raise that to 1% and you would dwarf even Chinas spending.
That For size would be the third biggest force in the world, after USA and china. And $10bn more than Russia spends.
That's what collectively doing things does. So much more efficient and so much more money. Over the years raise that to 1% and you would dwarf even Chinas spending.
Last edited:
It scares me that people think this would actually work, and that it is a brilliant idea.
Europe tried grouping a few countries together, look where that has got them... and that's only with monetary policy...
We both no full well that £100billion would come from additional funding, not out of any existing budget.
No EU military has that critical mass yet though on its own. The only way we can reach it is by acting together. How we do that is the question but my personal opinion, and that I can garner from history, is that logistics are what win battles and logistics are only efficient when fully tested and bedded in over time.
Realistically if the Russians decided to come pouring through the Fulda Gap in some strange throwback the 80's the everyone would have to be coordinated centrally and with the actual systems in place that likely person would be German. Of course that in itself would cause problems for the commander because his elected officials would want to defend their land at all costs whereas he would likely want to trade space for time. However, such a farcical and unlikely example does highlight the need that control from individual governments would be very very problematic.
I personally think we need to forming more NATO orientated actions without adding in former Eastern bloc members and presuming no US help. Let's face it the USA does not have a stellar reputation for assisting Europe.
Realistically if the Russians decided to come pouring through the Fulda Gap in some strange throwback the 80's the everyone would have to be coordinated centrally and with the actual systems in place that likely person would be German. Of course that in itself would cause problems for the commander because his elected officials would want to defend their land at all costs whereas he would likely want to trade space for time. However, such a farcical and unlikely example does highlight the need that control from individual governments would be very very problematic.
I personally think we need to forming more NATO orientated actions without adding in former Eastern bloc members and presuming no US help. Let's face it the USA does not have a stellar reputation for assisting Europe.
Of course it would be additional funding for the EU, it would be up to the individual countries how they raise it.
I would expect most countries would reduce their own military.
Man of Honour
He's a Luxembourger who knows all about German aggression.
And we all know where the majority of that funding would come from.
Would Greece be asked to put more into the pot?
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
US spend in 2103 was $640B, Russia $87B
Soldato
Raising 0.5% of GDP in the UK would be a 1% increase in income tax. That's not peanuts.
YEs every country would pay 0.5%, they've agreed to. Although most don't spend 2% on defence.
Greece is actual one of the few countries that has actually kept to that commitment and spend just over 2% on defence, so it wouldn't be an issue for them.
Have you actually paid any attention as to what is happening in Greece lately?
Or drop something, like cut defence from 2.4% down to 1.9% and give the 0.5% to EU, if which we would get a much better defence out if that 0.5% than the 1.9% of internal spending.