Europe needs united army, EU parliament committee head urges after Brexit - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The idea of a common European military headquarters has been revived by the head of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, shortly after the UK’s citizens voted in favor of Brexit. “We need more cooperation in the European defense policy,” Elmar Brok told Die Welt. ... A united EU armed force would “strengthen the role of Europeans in [global] security and defense policy, make Europe fulfill better its responsibilities in the world and would also achieve more synergies in defense spending,” the MEP said. Next week, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and vice-president of the European Commission, Federica Mogherini, is expected to present a new “global strategy” of European foreign and security policy. ... European leaders regularly speak in favor of boosting military spending, citing looming “Russian aggression” against the NATO member states in Eastern Europe. ... The EU cannot rely on the transatlantic partnership with the US to deal with “external threats,” the chancellor said. [/QUOTE] [url]https://www.rt.com/news/348429-europe-united-army-brexit/[/url] [url]http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article156566476/Brok-fordert-mehr-militaerische-Zusammenarbeit.html[/url]

Then change NATO...

So are they trying to replace NATO with this or will it fill a different role? edit - fuckin ninja.

"The EU cannot rely on the transatlantic partnership with the US to deal with “external threats,” the chancellor said."

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;50597599]What the hell is NATO then?[/QUOTE] Essentially a promise to offer up military aide in pretty much any circumstance. This is more like a straight up member funded European Army

what's wrong with NATO?

The chancellor is of course Merkel. I kinda edited that part out.

EU Army sounds dumb because honestly NATO fills the shoes for any retaliation this just sounds like the EU trying to bully up in retaliation

bring it on you bastards we'll die fighting

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50597610]EU Army sounds dumb because honestly NATO fills the shoes for any retaliation this just sounds like the EU trying to bully up in retaliation[/QUOTE] eh the EU battlegroups have been a longtime project and it makes sense for this to be parallel to nato actually.

Combined battlegroups made from NATO states in the EU makes sense, a combined army in the sense of a separate entity to NATO doesn't.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50597607]what's wrong with NATO?[/QUOTE] Turkey and the US are in. It's not a European army. It IS a pretty redundant thing to have, I'll give you that.

the armies of some of the different member states have already merged some units together, like the French-German division or the various Dutch units that are now integrated into German divisions, so why not

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50597607]what's wrong with NATO?[/QUOTE] A lot of very stupid people have convinced themselves that Nato and the US are the cause of Russian dick-waving recently, never mind that Russia's neighbours are desperately trying to join because of Russia and it has little to do with the existence of Nato. You can see it in Russian appeasement comments made by many people and some of Merkel's staff.

Let's hope the EURO doesn't decide to take the UK back by force.

So, this is exactly what the Brexit supporters I was watching were saying as to the main reason they voted to leave. Because you have to question, who will this army be accountable to?

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597716]So, this is exactly what the Brexit supporters I was watching were saying as to the main reason they voted to leave. Because you have to question, who will this army be accountable to?[/QUOTE] The people of Europe obviously?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50597727]The people of Europe obviously?[/QUOTE] That isn't how the EU is setup. Last I checked the European Commission isn't voted in. Only MEPs. Edit: Meant Commission instead of Council.

[QUOTE=Sims_doc;50597711]Let's hope the EURO doesn't decide to take the UK back by force.[/QUOTE] Although Brexit sucks for the UK, this is actually a pretty good outcome for the EU, isn't it? If they end up taking a similar deal similar to Norway, the UK will be paying more than they did before, they'll have to abide by the same trade regulations as before, the trade deal will probably benefit the EU more, the banks seem to be getting ready to move to France, it shows other countries that leaving the EU is a bad idea, and lastly, the UK no longer has any representation in the EU. Really the only downside for the EU is short-term instability. This could actually be beneficial in the long-term.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597734]That isn't how the EU is setup. Last I checked the European Council isn't voted in. Only MEPs.[/QUOTE] The European Council is made up of heads of state who have all been voted in by the masses in local elections in their respective states

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597734]That isn't how the EU is setup. Last I checked the European Council isn't voted in. Only MEPs.[/QUOTE] Yes they are? They're the heads of government among the EU member states, and generally they have to be voted in by their constituents. Only two of the members are non-voting positions, and even then there's the potential to have this reformed so that our president is elected in a direct election.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597734]That isn't how the EU is setup. Last I checked the European Council isn't voted in. Only MEPs.[/QUOTE] So are ministers and their comissions in most Republics. Do you actually endorse every single person of a government being voted directly?

First, corrected my original post. Second, anyone with power over the army should be heavily scrutinized. As on their word that army will move, regardless if its internal or external.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597734]That isn't how the EU is setup. Last I checked the European Commission isn't voted in. Only MEPs. Edit: Meant Commission instead of Council.[/QUOTE] commissioners are appointed by the democratically elected governments of member states

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50597761]commissioners are appointed by the democratically elected governments of member states[/QUOTE] A political appointee is only loyal to the person who puts him/her into office. Generally in the US the police chief of a city are appointed. And they love to toe the line with the mayor, regardless of the will of the people. That is why you can see county sheriffs butting heads with police chiefs. The county sheriffs are directly elected, and thus directly accountable to, the people. The police chiefs are not.

Is this supposed to be military alliance made of armies from member countries or is this supposed to be one unified EU army while the member counties don't have their own individual armies anymore?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597777]Is this supposed to be military alliance made of armies from member countries or is this supposed to be one unified EU army while the member counties don't have their own individual armies anymore?[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary[/url] The latter, a unified army that only has loyalty to the EU government.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50597610]EU Army sounds dumb because honestly NATO fills the shoes for any retaliation this just sounds like the EU trying to bully up in retaliation[/QUOTE] This has actually been a long time coming. The Europeans are not pulling their weight with NATO. We, the United States, are keeping it alive and well as it is with our funding and with our material/manpower contributions. Our defense secretary complained to them about this a couple of years ago. The Germans, Belgians, Spanish, Slovakians, and the Slovenians have all cut their defense spending; there's only been a handful of nations that have bothered increasing it and have pledged to raise further troops, and they're all in Eastern Europe (because they're threatened by Russia): Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania. Overall, the majority of members aren't even meeting their minimal budgetary commitments. It's been this way since at least the 1970s. We're the ones who have to keep spending money and expanding our presence, when it shouldn't work that way. Moreover, we [i]can't[/i] keep doing all this shit for them. They've got to have a leg of their own to stand on eventually. There's no better way to do that than by having them assemble a grand pan-European force which they will mostly fund, maintain and organize, etc. themselves. Plus if done correctly, it'll be great for strengthening diplomatic relations. And beyond that, the whole point of NATO is that it's an [i]alliance[/i]. That means it's supposed to be a team effort-- not what it currently is where we do almost all the work and everybody else sits back enjoying the benefits of us providing security for them. Everybody must pitch in and be prepared as fully as they can be, even the smallest countries that are a part of it. And they must be held accountable for their promises and be forced to commit to what they've pledged to. [editline]26 June 2016[/editline] Probably the closest thing we've ever had to something like this in recent history was when the Germans were taking Spanish, Dutch, French, Belgian, Scandinavian, Czech, Bosnian/Croatian, Hungarian, etc. volunteers and conscripts into the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS during World War II.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597777]Is this supposed to be military alliance made of armies from member countries or is this supposed to be one unified EU army while the member counties don't have their own individual armies anymore?[/QUOTE] Probably much like the combined battlegroups, a unified army would be a huge money sink in terms of buying equipment and training so everything is standardised.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597772]A political appointee is only loyal to the person who puts him/her into office. Generally in the US the police chief of a city are appointed. And they love to toe the line with the mayor, regardless of the will of the people. That is why you can see county sheriffs butting heads with police chiefs. The county sheriffs are directly elected, and thus directly accountable to, the people. The police chiefs are not.[/QUOTE] OK the EU commission is vetted by the EU parliament, which is democratically elected so if they were "against the people", then the EU parliament would not allow them to form a commission this is obviously to ignore your first point which is questionable as hell