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

Elmar Brok is a deeply reactionary, conservative idiot who is basically THE lobby for Bertelsmann and oh look he is in Intergroup Sky and Space. Who is in Sky and Space you say? Oh just the who is who of the European Weapons and Military technology industry, but of course not directly in this Intergroup but in the Association hosting it: [url]https://lobbypedia.de/wiki/AeroSpace_and_Defence_Industries_Association_of_Europe[/url] [quote]AAI - Austrian Aeronautics Industries Group ADIG- Austrian Defence Industry Association ADS - Advancing UK Aerospace, Defence & Security Industries AED Portugal (DANOTEC) AFDA - Association of Finnish Defence and Aerospace Industries Agoria Agusta Westland AIAD - Italian Industries Federation for Aerospace Systems & Defence Airbus Airbus Defence & Space Airbus Group Airbus Helicopters ALV CR – Association of Aviation Manufacturers of the Czech Republic AOBP - Defence and Security Industry Association of the Czech Republic APAI - Association of Polish Aviation Industry BAE Systems BDIA - Bulgarian Defence Industry Association BDLI - German Aerospace Industries Association BDSV - Federal Association of the German Security and Defence Industry BSDI - Belgian Security & Defence Industry CIDEF Dassault Aviation FAD - Defence & Aerospace Industries Association in Denmark FSI -Norwegian Defence and Security Industries Association GIFAS - French Aerospace Industries Association HASDIG - Hellenic Aerospace & Defence Industries Group Indra Leonardo MBDA NAI - NAG - Netherlands Aerospace Group + Fokker NIDV - Netherlands Defence Manufacturers Association Rolls-Royce SAAB Safran SAI - Swedish Aerospace Industries SAIG - Swiss Aeronautical Industries Group SASAD - Turkish Defence Industry Manufacturers Association SOFF - Swedish Security and Defence Industry TEDAE - Spanish Association for Defence, Security and Space Technology Companies Thales [/quote]

This is the best argument that I've seen about the EU as a whole. Including the EU Army. [video=youtube;RRPmXbksPgQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRPmXbksPgQ[/video] After that army is formed, then the EU will have sovereign status. If your desire is an United States of Europe then this is the final step in that direction.

As long as it's only used for defending Europe I'm all for it but it needs to be heavily restricted. I don't like the idea of making Europe into one big superpower that's ruled by EU and this is definitely a step in that direction albeit small.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597780][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] Seriously, does anyone still has any doubts that the EU wants to become a federal government?

[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] Current military forces are under control of the council, not the commission. Besides the commissions reports to parlement and parlement can force the commission to resign.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597797]This is the best argument that I've seen about the EU as a whole. Including the EU Army. [video=youtube;RRPmXbksPgQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRPmXbksPgQ[/video] After that army is formed, then the EU will have sovereign status. If your desire is an United States of Europe then this is the final step in that direction.[/QUOTE] It's Sargon they will dismiss all his argument on the base that Sargon call people's names.

Can we maybe discuss the real reasons behind this move: not the debate wether the EU needs the army or not but the weapons industry wanting €€€€ ?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597813]It's Sargon they will dismiss all his argument on the base that Sargon call people's names.[/QUOTE] Sargon points out very important history. Human history is rife with repeating scenarios. If the EU wants to federalize then it should be put to the vote of the people and not via the backdoor. [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/03/eu-superstate-would-have-no-democratic-legitimacy-warns-euro-arc/[/url] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11847968/Father-of-the-euro-fears-EU-superstate-by-the-back-door.html[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/MartinSchulz/status/353060776707235841[/url]

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597813]It's Sargon they will dismiss all his argument on the base that Sargon call people's names.[/QUOTE] or dismiss his arguments on the basis that he fundamentally doesn't understand how the commission works, and happily skips the part where the commission has to be vetted by the parliament which is democratically elected, and the commission is appointed by the democratically elected member states

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597797]This is the best argument that I've seen about the EU as a whole. Including the EU Army. [video=youtube;RRPmXbksPgQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRPmXbksPgQ[/video] After that army is formed, then the EU will have sovereign status. If your desire is an United States of Europe then this is the final step in that direction.[/QUOTE] You elect the parliament and the parliament elects the commission president and parliament has the power to force the commission to resign. While it does not have legislative initiative, it does indirectly holds the power through a a motion of censure. The reason why the commission has control over the legislative initiative is so it can to some degree control the agenda of the parlement. That's important in a body that's very limited in executive powers and mainly based on legislation to for example act on environment or health hazards. The parliament/council, or a 1 million signature petition can draft legislation and the commission decides priorities. Also his historic comparisons are pretty cheesy when you consider relative time distance changes between then and now.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50597819]or dismiss his arguments on the basis that he fundamentally doesn't understand how the commission works, and happily skips the part where the commission has to be vetted by the parliament which is democratically elected, and the commission is appointed by the democratically elected member states[/QUOTE] But it's so nice to do these "I bet people will do xxx" posts don't destroy that with your ....arguments! [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;50597814]Can we maybe discuss the real reasons behind this move: not the debate wether the EU needs the army or not but the weapons industry wanting €€€€ ?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kigen;50597817]Sargon points out very important history. Human history is rife with repeating scenarios. If the EU wants to federalize then it should be put to the vote of the people and not via the backdoor. [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/03/eu-superstate-would-have-no-democratic-legitimacy-warns-euro-arc/[/url] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11847968/Father-of-the-euro-fears-EU-superstate-by-the-back-door.html[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/MartinSchulz/status/353060776707235841[/url][/QUOTE] Just basic understanding of relative time distance changes of goods/people and information is all you need to completely understand why his historical events aren't relevant. People don't want to live as mercenaries, they have a longer life expediencies then "hopefully survive winter", and they have places to go home to, they have communication with their home their family and everything. Joining the military is no longer an act of desperation, they don't travel to the end of the world for years without ever seeing home or anything like home. Also you're not surprising anyone by the realization that we're working towards an ever closer union except yourself. Its what we've been doing for more then 40 years. [quote]"The Heads of State or Government, on the basis of an awareness of a common destiny and the wish to affirm the European identity, confirm their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community."[/quote] - 1983 Solemn Declaration

Kigen is just ignoring all points to just continue to try and argue. He doesn't really give a damn, based on all the posts he has done and the replies he has had. No point in talking to a brink wall.

[QUOTE=Cold;50597825]You elect the parliament and the parliament elects the commission president and parliament has the power to force the commission to resign. While it does not have legislative initiative, it does indirectly holds the power through a a motion of censure.[/QUOTE] And he addressed that. [QUOTE=Cold;50597825]The reason why the commission has control over the legislative initiative is so it can to some degree control the agenda of the parlement. That's important in a body that's very limited in executive powers and mainly based on legislation to for example act on environment or health hazards.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant. [QUOTE=Cold;50597825]The parliament/council, or a 1 million signature petition can draft legislation and the commission decides priorities. [/QUOTE] They can draft something and show it to the commission who has to initiate it. The commission has monopoly on initiating legislation. [QUOTE=Killuah;50597831]But it's so nice to do these "I bet people will do xxx" posts don't destroy that with your ....arguments![/QUOTE] Maybe you could do that as well? No, of course not. Shitposting ,adhominem, strawmen and goalpost shifting are the way to debate. [QUOTE=Cold;50597825]Also his historic comparisons are pretty cheesy when you consider relative time distance changes between then and now.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cold;50597856]Just basic understanding of relative time distance changes of good/people and information is all you need to completely understand why his historical events aren't relevant. People don't want to live as mercenaries, they have a longer life expediencies then "hopefully survive winter", and they have places to go home to, they have communication with their home their family and everything. Joining the military is no longer an act of desperation, they don't travel to the end of the world for years without ever seeing home or anything like home.[/QUOTE] I think he brought up the historical comparisons to show how these common armies are made and why. I don't think he would disagree with what you said here. That wasn't his point. [QUOTE=Cold;50597825]Also you're not surprising anyone by the realization that we're working towards an ever closer union except yourself. Its what we've been doing for more then 40 years.[/QUOTE] Really, then why do people are still trying to deny that EU wants to be United States of Europe?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50597819]or dismiss his arguments on the basis that he fundamentally doesn't understand how the commission works, and happily skips the part where the commission has to be vetted by the parliament which is democratically elected, and the commission is appointed by the democratically elected member states[/QUOTE] I love Sargon but I agree with you here. He willfully deceives his audience on this point. He knows that the Commission is vetted by elected members of parliament but he purposely leaves this point out all the time.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597904]And he addressed that. Irrelevant. They can draft something and show it to the commission who has to initiate it. The commission has monopoly on initiating legislation. Maybe you could do that as well? No, of course not. Shitposting ,adhominem, strawmen and goalpost shifting are the way to debate. I think he brought up the historical comparisons to show how these common armies are made and why. I don't think he would disagree with what you said here. That wasn't his point. Really, then why do people are still trying to deny that EU wants to be United States of Europe?[/QUOTE] nobody is, the fucking EU commission president said he wanted a federal europe also, how did he address it, because at no point did I see him say "but the commission is vetted by the parliament before it takes power, so actually it has democratic legitimacy" when does he say that please

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597904] Really, then why do people are still trying to deny that EU wants to be United States of Europe?[/QUOTE] Because they are not. The member nations of the EU and the commision itself have lived and learned from failed attempts at a unified europe on a smaller scale. If for whatever reason the EU was attempting this, then all members would unilaterally respond, and not by appealing to the public for their right of 'sovreignity' If you ask how I am so sure such an action would alert the world, to convert europe into its own country would be a horrible compromise of the representation each europe government currently has, which would strain the EU's relationship with the public far quicker and on a much larger scale than this scare campaign achieved in Britain. It will not be done in secret because A: governments are notoriously awful at keeping secrets, B: sneaking behind the people's back is the BEST way to earn their immediate condemnation, C: the infrastructure and economic changes that need to be made are too large and apparent to be hidden.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50597947]I love Sargon but I agree with you here. He willfully deceives his audience on this point. He knows that the Commission is vetted by elected members of parliament but he purposely leaves this point out all the time.[/QUOTE] What? He said that multiple times.

also saying irrelevant sadly doesn't make the point irrelevant [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597959]What? He said that multiple times.[/QUOTE] times please?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597904]And he addressed that. Irrelevant. They can draft something and show it to the commission who has to initiate it. The commission has monopoly on initiating legislation. [/QUOTE] He din't address that in the video at all, i even went back and checked. He called Europe undemocratic on the basis that the parliament doesn't directly hold legislative initiative, i explained that it does indirectly because it holds absolute control of the commission in assigning the president, accepting the members and being able to force them to resign. Besides its good to know why its constructed like this else it just seems like we're keeping the cyanide next to the sugar for no apparent reason.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597904] Maybe you could do that as well? No, of course not. Shitposting ,adhominem, strawmen and goalpost shifting are the way to debate. [/QUOTE] Rofl. Lecturing people about debate manners, same post: [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597904] Irrelevant.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50597965]also saying irrelevant sadly doesn't make the point irrelevant[/QUOTE] The argument we're having is whether it's democratic or not. Justification why it works the way it works and what are it's benefits are not part of that argument, are they? [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50597965]times please?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50597956]also, how did he address it, because at no point did I see him say "but the commission is vetted by the parliament before it takes power, so actually it has democratic legitimacy" when does he say that please[/QUOTE] He didn't say in this very video that the commission is vetted by the parliament, he does go on a length about it in a different one. He's aware of that. Here's a vid where he mentions it [url]https://youtu.be/5vpo9qzsfL4?t=293[/url] And it doesn't matter really. He said the commission isn't elected by the popular vote. He said the legislation is proposed by commission. He said that people who you do get to vote on have no power to initiate the legislation. You elect people who elect the commission. You can't elect the people who propose the legislation. And once that legislation passes there is no way to change it back as the people you can elect can't propose anything themselves. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50597956]nobody is, the fucking EU commission president said he wanted a federal europe[/QUOTE] Nobody is denying it? Well just just look one post below yours. [QUOTE=Aircraft;50597957]Because they are not. The member nations of the EU and the commision itself have lived and learned from failed attempts at a unified europe on a smaller scale. If for whatever reason the EU was attempting this, then all members would unilaterally respond, and not by appealing to the public for their right of 'sovreignity'[/QUOTE] You guys figure it out with each other. Then. I also had someone yesterday telling me that I'm living in a fantasy world because I think the EU wants to become USE. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;50598027]Rofl. Lecturing people about debate manners, same post:[/QUOTE] How is explaining benefits of something a counter argument to whether it's democratic or not?

federal refers to economic, not government organization as a whole. It is the definition of the word, despite it being misused for general government organization by people and politicians addressing the public all the time. The EU commisioner president's goal doesn't conflict with EU's current role, and the EU is not expanding their role past fiscal and monetary policy. The reason commission members are not directly voted for is to make it more difficult for a Farage [or multiple of them] to enter the commission. A united states of europe would require much more than control of fiscal and monetary policy. It would also need to either absorb or bypass NATO, as well as consolidate its members under the United Nations. All which are impossible to hide actions, all which have not been occurring and have no professed plans to in immediate future. [QUOTE]"(who is still correct by the way, they desire a federal europe but they know they're not going to get it at the moment)"[/QUOTE] They already have federal europe, they do not nor are pushing for nationalized europe.

first of all, you lied, it was never in that video - why the hell am i not surprised you attempted to spin it ("well when I said he addressed it, what i meant was he addressed it in a completely different video!!") second of all, he's actually wrong and STILL doesn't talk about the vetting, he's talking about parliament voting no on proposals, not about parliament refusing a commission. It's p.clear that he doesn't actually know that parliament vets the commission before the commission takes office. so no, you're still wrong and on the federal europe front, i thought you were talking about people of import politically, rather than a poster on an internet forum (who is still correct by the way, they desire a federal europe but they know they're not going to get it at the moment) [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] also, he says "they only have to get lucky once" what the fuck is this logic, by that logic parliaments everywhere only need to get lucky once before it's irreversible (except practically, that never happens)

[QUOTE=Cold;50598015]He din't address that in the video at all, i even went back and checked. He called Europe undemocratic on the basis that the parliament doesn't directly hold legislative initiative, i explained that it does indirectly because it holds absolute control of the commission in assigning the president, accepting the members and being able to force them to resign.[/QUOTE] So then we agree that you do not have any direct control over the people who can initiate legislation and you can't elect anyone who can propose legislation themselves? And I guess Issing has no idea what he's talking about then too.

Considering that Trump has said he'd "certainly look at" leaving NATO if he's elected, taking away 73% of their funding and ruining European defense, an EU military union seems like a smart pre-emptive move. Ending reliance on US funding for defense is a smart move - and making a military alliance between states that already have an economic alliance makes loads of sense.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50598199]Considering that Trump has said he'd "certainly look at" leaving NATO if he's elected, taking away 73% of their funding and ruining European defense, an EU military union seems like a smart pre-emptive move. Ending reliance on US funding for defense is a smart move - and making a military alliance between states that already have an economic alliance makes loads of sense.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it be better resolved in a seperate treaty?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50598199]Considering that Trump has said he'd "certainly look at" leaving NATO if he's elected, taking away 73% of their funding and ruining European defense, an EU military union seems like a smart pre-emptive move. Ending reliance on US funding for defense is a smart move - and making a military alliance between states that already have an economic alliance makes loads of sense.[/QUOTE] But that European army wouldn't have US funding either so what difference would it make?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50598135]first of all, you lied, it was never in that video - why the hell am i not surprised you attempted to spin it ("well when I said he addressed it, what i meant was he addressed it in a completely different video!!") second of all, he's actually wrong and STILL doesn't talk about the vetting, he's talking about parliament voting no on proposals, not about parliament refusing a commission. It's p.clear that he doesn't actually know that parliament vets the commission before the commission takes office. so no, you're still wrong[/QUOTE] You're right I was wrong he didn't say that in that video. I didn't double check it. He still knows the commission is elected by the parliament. His problem is that there's no direct control over the commission. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50598135][QUOTE=Silly Sil;50597904][QUOTE=Cold;50597825]Also you're not surprising anyone by the realization that we're working towards an ever closer union except yourself. Its what we've been doing for more then 40 years.[/QUOTE] Really, then why do people are still trying to deny that EU wants to be United States of Europe?[/QUOTE] and on the federal europe front, i thought you were talking about people of import politically, rather than a poster on an internet forum[/QUOTE] I meant people as mentioned as "not surprising anyone". [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50598135]also, he says "they only have to get lucky once" what the fuck is this logic, by that logic parliaments everywhere only need to get lucky once before it's irreversible (except practically, that never happens)[/QUOTE] Say the EU passes a law that you don't like. What can you do to change it back? Because normally when you want to reverse a law that was passed by your own government during the next election you elect someone who says he will reverse it. How do you do it here? You elect someone for the EU parliament who then has some sway on who's going to be in the commission but he can't propose the new law himself. It might never get to the parliament to vote on it. The commission has no obligation to you.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;50597884]Kigen is just ignoring all points to just continue to try and argue. He doesn't really give a damn, based on all the posts he has done and the replies he has had. No point in talking to a brink wall.[/QUOTE] I already covered it pretty well. The system is designed to be a bureaucratic nightmare. That way its very difficult to have legislative initiative with the European Parliament. Basically, if the current Commission doesn't want to table legislation that, for instance, takes away a EU power, then they can refuse to do so. The European Parliament must then make a 2/3rd vote of censure. At which point the entire Commission has to be replaced. However, the current Commission can continue with business as usual until such replacements are made. And the replacements are not guaranteed to follow the will of the European Parliament.