Juncker calls for the creation of an EU army.

Xordium · 12 Mar 2015 at 12:23

Captain Planet said:
I believe that the issue is the US would drop us at a hat if the world situation turned completely for the worse. Our reliance on them for protection is a weakness in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, they are our closest ally and working with them regularly has been great for us. The benefits I have seen through my work place for example have been ten fold. However, I wouldn't trust them not to drop everything and look after themselves at the most dire of situations, as I would expect any nation, and unfortunately the US hold the power chords. Look at WWII, they were deliberating not stepping in and were considering the ramifications of post war corroboration with the nazis (there are no good vs bad guys).

One huge nation here would be much better. Collectively we would have the strongest economy and the greatest military. I'm all for it.

Yep, that's exactly what I think. I note a lot of people though saying how can we get a wide variety of peoples all fighting coherently - well the French have managed that just fine for quite some time now and very effectively too.

And I also feel the same way, as I said earlier about US reliance, their eyes are on Asia now not Europe and there is no way they could effectively help us like they would have before because they simply don't have the carrier battlegroups to do so and their pre-positioned supplies have been moved to other theatres.

dowie · 12 Mar 2015 at 12:32

Glaucus said:
I don't know, I can't think if any current situation where EU and UK contradicts each other. Oh wait it happens daily and EU always wins.

Yeah the good reason is natolism, utterly pointless and not a good reason at all.

nationalism is a good enough reason to need a military presence in say Gibraltar, the EU army wouldn't remove the issue

Supposing Spanish fishermen escorted by Spanish police boats cause problems in Gibraltar's waters - would EU military vessels crewed by Spanish personnel be trusted to intervene?

Andy90 · 12 Mar 2015 at 12:37

I think Queen Elizabeth might, as Commander in Chief of the British Armed Forces, be displeased with this suggestion. There is no way on Earth we are going to an Armed Force that swears allegiance to a Foreign power on British soil.

Zethor · 12 Mar 2015 at 14:19

Castiel said:
I'm sure the United States is forced to obey EU foreign policy.

The UK doesn't compare with the US, the EU does, which is why the sanctions against Russia were milder than what the US initially wanted. Economic strength provides leverage and, frankly, despite its glory, the UK does not currently have enough of it.

There are currently two options. Move away from the EU and go forward with a pseudo independence (which will, in effect, consist of being the United State's lap dog) or be one of the biggest heads of the EU hydra. I believe the second option is in the best long term interest of the UK.

Castiel · 12 Mar 2015 at 14:27

Zethor said:
The UK doesn't compare with the US, the EU does, which is why the sanctions against Russia were milder than what the US initially wanted. Economic strength provides leverage and, frankly, despite its glory, the UK does not currently have enough of it.

There are currently two options. Move away from the EU and go forward with a pseudo independence (which will, in effect, consist of being the United State's lap dog) or be one of the biggest heads of the EU hydra. I believe the second option is in the best long term interest of the UK.

It doesn't alter the fact the the UK is not beholden to EU foreign policy. In fact, we are often out of sync with EU foreign policy.

And there isn't two defined options at all...I'm quite happy with being in the EU, but that doesn't mean we have to a federal superstate or totally outside of it...that's just nonsense.

arknor · 12 Mar 2015 at 15:02

Your either with the EU or against them attitude is ridiculous

Zethor · 12 Mar 2015 at 15:55

Castiel said:
It doesn't alter the fact the the UK is not beholden to EU foreign policy. In fact, we are often out of sync with EU foreign policy.

And there isn't two defined options at all...I'm quite happy with being in the EU, but that doesn't mean we have to a federal superstate or totally outside of it...that's just nonsense.

Nationalism is past its expiry date, many people (particularly educated young ones connected through the internet, games or social networks) are now seeing they have a lot in common with their peers from other developed democracies and few differences. What exactly then, is the point of having a border? Are there honestly many differences between the interests of the UK and those of the Czech Republic? The pride of being part of an entity which strongly stands for freedom, human rights and progress will surpass the pride of being part of a certain state.

A superstate is the next natural step in the evolution of society.

Castiel · 12 Mar 2015 at 15:58

For you perhaps. But for now, it's not something that the majority of people want. Young or old. In fact nationalism is a growth industry amongst the young.

balky12 · 12 Mar 2015 at 16:01

It all sounds good on paper (sort of), but the practicality of it?

How hard is it to just look at the current EU? It's a mess. People honestly think the answer to it is to throw more countries into the mix??!?!?

Ryan-3 · 12 Mar 2015 at 16:03

rare said:
Of course the Germans warm to the idea, they will be the ones in charge of it all. The final phase in the creation of a unified European state.

That sounds familiar. :eek:

Zethor · 12 Mar 2015 at 16:33

Castiel said:
For you perhaps. But for now, it's not something that the majority of people want. Young or old. In fact nationalism is a growth industry amongst the young.

Yes they don't want it yet but they're talking about it.

As for nationalism, considering the severity of the financial crisis, its growth has been suprisingly weak in democracies but strong in disfunctional states such as Russia. I think democracies have developed enough antibodies to keep nationalism in check and I don't see how it can gain more ground (we'll see if this prediction is confirmed at the next elections, the trend in the polls seems to point in that direction).

Castiel · 12 Mar 2015 at 16:48

Zethor said:
Yes they don't want it yet but they're talking about it.

As for nationalism, considering the severity of the financial crisis, its growth has been suprisingly weak in democracies but strong in disfunctional states such as Russia. I think democracies have developed enough antibodies to keep nationalism in check and I don't see how it can gain more ground (we'll see if this prediction is confirmed at the next elections, the trend in the polls seems to point in that direction).

The truth is however that there are more and more separatist movements within the advanced democracies of Europe, not fewer.

Don't confuse nationalism with jingoism.

I think you are being very optimistic if you think we are heading toward a unified federal superstate where each country relinquishes its sovereignty and borders to a European Superstate.

People have been talking about it since the fall of the Roman Empire, the Germans, French and Italians have tried to enforce it numerous occasions one way or another through imperialism or feudalism.

eatcustard · 12 Mar 2015 at 17:00

Would a euro army retake the Falkland Islands if the Argies invaded again?

I think not

Christmas themed thank · 12 Mar 2015 at 17:01

Ridiculous idea. Sounds like a Green Party policy.

Xordium · 13 Mar 2015 at 11:57

eatcustard said:
Would a euro army retake the Falkland Islands if the Argies invaded again?

I think not

Well considering the French actually have a carrier they'd be more likely to actually do the job than us in the impossible event the islands got took.

Castiel · 13 Mar 2015 at 12:22

Xordium said:
Well considering the French actually have a carrier they'd be more likely to actually do the job than us in the impossible event the islands got took.

We are currently in close joint co-operation with the French and their Aircraft Carrier Battlegroup creating a bilateral battle-group (we also share the same CJFC with a US Battle Group).

This is two fold, one is it gives the Royal Navy commanders and Frigates/destroyers the necessary experience when our own Carriers come online in 2018/19 respectively and two, it is a prelude to the Anglo-French Combined Joint Expeditionary Force which should come online next year.

Anglo-French military cooperation and integration is at an all time high and will continue to be so.

Another reason why we don't need an external Euro Armed Forces. The two major military players already have or are working toward an integrated defence agreement and interoperable strategic response to threats and integrated procurement and development.

Nelson and Napoleon would be spinning in their respective e graves....

Terminal_Boy · 13 Mar 2015 at 12:23

What are the Fleet Air Arm pilots and support crews doing at the moment?

Castiel · 13 Mar 2015 at 12:31

Terminal_Boy said:
What are the Fleet Air Arm pilots and support crews doing at the moment?

Officers are currently or have been deployed on the Charles De Gaulle and USS Carl Vincent Battle Groups....we have UK Pilots and support crews operating jointly across a number of US Carrier Battle Groups including the Harry S Truman on Joint Task Force Operations. USS Eisenhower for example has a UK RN Aircraft Director.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=74220

NickK · 13 Mar 2015 at 12:36

Why does he EU actually need an army?

Each of the states has their own.. protecting each state.. seems a little odd unless you don't have any states..

arknor · 13 Mar 2015 at 12:54

NickK said:
Why does he EU actually need an army?

Each of the states has their own.. protecting each state.. seems a little odd unless you don't have any states..

because more countries will join the EU for their military protection.

your either with us or we'll leave you to putin most likely

Juncker calls for the creation of an EU army.

Mobster