Should the EU create it's own army and leave NATO

[bigfatron]

The EU is insufficiently developed (democratically or politically) to manage, support and maintain an EU army. Too much time would be wasted on squalid nationalistic manoeuverings over the purchase of kit, etc.

However, there is ample scope for the main EU countries' forces to work closer together, train together, establish kit-sharing arrangements and procurement specialisation that would pave the way eventually for an EU-wide force.

None of this precludes membership of NATO, in fact I think it would be better all round if there was a more unified European voice in NATO - it is inappropriate to leave the US carrying a burden for the protection of Europe now that the Cold War is over since it will only breed bitterness and resentment on both sides of the Atlantic.

Personally I would like to see NATO continue but acknowledge the expansion of its interests beyond the North Atlantic - essentially to bceome a police arm of the democratic nations of the world.

 

[neviden]

EU will have it's own army.. 40.000, 15 battlegropus strong by 2007.

NATO has no purpose for Europe (err.. who is going to atack it?) any more. It is dominated by USA and can only be used by US agrement. And since EU is not US, it does not need something that it can't use without someone elses permision (US). And since US is behaving as it is..

 

[Scuffer]

But an EU army would have to involve the decison-making of an ever expanding number of nations with completely different cultures and agendas.

It is very hard to get any kind of agreement on anything very much, and a number are going to cheat on it anyway. It is a good idea, but to discard NATO as a viable option, especially before an EU force has had 20-odd years to bed down and prove itself is just not sensible.

 

[neviden]

battlegroups are 1.500 strong units. They are professional soldiers, well trained and equiped (think NATO standards). They are NO ragtag conscript army. There will be few (4 i think) that are from only one country but the rest will be composed from 2,3 countries..

15 is lot's to choose from.. if english will not want to go on a peackeeping mision in ruanda, then french will..

 

[Bugfatty300]

battlegroups are 1.500 strong units. They are professional soldiers, well trained and equiped (think NATO standards). They are NO ragtag conscript army. There will be few (4 i think) that are from only one country but the rest will be composed from 2,3 countries..

15 is lot's to choose from.. if english will not want to go on a peackeeping mision in ruanda, then french will..

The EU will preform peacekeeping missions outside of Europe?

 

[Scuffer]

15 is lot's to choose from.. if english will not want to go on a peackeeping mision in ruanda, then french will..

Yes, but the French and English, and Slovenia for that matter, can do that now anyway.

The EU will preform peacekeeping missions outside of Europe?

yep, even if they don't have mineral wealth. Probably.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's always funny to hear those who don't want of a democratic Europe complaining about the lack of democracy in Europe.

Stormbind or Scuffer, I guess you would vote against the EU Constitution ? Despite the fact it would bring a further step to a more democratic and transparent Union... Well, the point is made.

In other words, it's called hypocrisy.

 

[Hakim]

I support both NATO and a strong EU force. The war on terror will not be fought forever so I don't think it's wise to tailor armies and organizations (scrapping NATO) for that specific purpose.

 

[CurtSibling]

It's always funny to hear those who don't want of a democratic Europe complaining about the lack of democracy in Europe.

Stormbind or Scuffer, I guess you would vote against the EU Constitution ? Despite the fact it would bring a further step to a more democratic and transparent Union... Well, the point is made.

In other words, it's called hypocrisy.

It's just some of my countrymen dream the UK still commands some kind of power over states like Russia or China.

The age of imperial pride is long over...Since 1945.

The reality is, without the current US sponsorship of the UK;
Mega-nations would swat us aside and laugh.

 

[Winner]

The EU is far worse, however. It's democratic house has been overuled by it's non-elected house: A lot like the House of Lords dictating to the House of Commons, except it's allowed! This makes me angry and sad.

Oh god, i am getting tired of this complaints (nothing personal)

You want more democracy in EU - OK, so do I. But to do this, we must hand over more competences to European parliament and Comission and to reduce power of national governments - something what expecially Britain is unwilling of.

 

[Winner]

It's always funny to hear those who don't want of a democratic Europe complaining about the lack of democracy in Europe.

Stormbind or Scuffer, I guess you would vote against the EU Constitution ? Despite the fact it would bring a further step to a more democratic and transparent Union... Well, the point is made.

In other words, it's called hypocrisy.

Exactly. "We want democratic Europe, but we don't want to cooperate on this."

Maybe they think the new, more democratic EU will miraculously appear some day and than they will join it without making any painful compromises...

 

[AVN]

Oh god, i am getting tired of this complaints (nothing personal)

You want more democracy in EU - OK, so do I. But to do this, we must hand over more competences to European parliament and Comission and to reduce power of national governments - something what expecially Britain is unwilling of.

I agree competely

(and please note I use the smiley, not the smiley )

LOL

 

[BassDude726]

I voted no, but it does lead to some interesting implications. I only skimmed the other posts, so if someone else posted about this I apologize.
The EU is clearly taking steps towards become a single dimplomatically recognized nation IMO. Maybe not soon, but I think it's a definate possibility in the next 10-15 years. The formation of a single unified army would be the next logical step in the process. The manner in which EU citizens can travel freely from one country to another and work in other countries regardless of citizenship is one of the positive benefits of this globalization process.

 

[neviden]

Yes, but the French and English, and Slovenia for that matter, can do that now anyway.
yep, even if they don't have mineral wealth. Probably.

Not right now.. but by 2007 they are suposed to be operational. Yes, even slovenian one (with italian and hungairan soldiers).

And yes, i supose they will be sent outside of EU (why would they use them in EU? Where?).. even if there will be no oil or minerals.. i supose this will be EU's stick (small, but it can get bigger).. it's carot will be trade and €.. but i hardly think they will go on stupid rampage like some other country..

edit: yes they can now. most of the EU countries have plans to create professional nacional armies. You can't send conscript to die for some vague cause, but you can send well paid professional.. they are paid to be there and if they die, that's the risk. Everybody will know that to be in such battlegroup will mean they will go "to war".. kind of like foreign legion.. under EU flag or something..

 

[Smidgey]

Oh god, i am getting tired of this complaints (nothing personal)

You want more democracy in EU - OK, so do I. But to do this, we must hand over more competences to European parliament and Comission and to reduce power of national governments - something what expecially Britain is unwilling of.

That is something that deeply angers me, as a Scotsman i live in a country that is pro EU and pro democracy in Europe. However because one of the reserved powers of the UK parliament is foreign policy, we cannot decide this on our own and we must conform to the general consensus of the rest of the UK. I would much prefer to be able to make these decisions for ourselves, something with is not feasible at the moment and cannot be feasible whilst our countries are united. I would prefer to remain a member of the UK and for Scotland to be a member of the UK aswell, but because of issues like this (and the disbandment of Scottish regiments after they have been sent into the front lines in iraq, as defence is another reserved power) i have forced myself to vote for the Scottish National Party in the next Scottish Parliament elections (they wish for Scotland to seperate from the UK).

 

[CurtSibling]

As a Scotsman myself, I think the UK should stand alone, until such times as we would be better off as part of Europe.

I have no desire for my nation (and the UK) to be the plaything of those mafia bosses in Bejing, Washington DC or Moscow...

If there is a Euro pig pen, the UK should be wiggling in it with everyone else.

While we all love the US alliance, etc;
I don't have any plans to bow and scrape before people who cannot say 'lieutenant' properly.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

No, let's stay in NATO.

Many small EU-countries are happy to have a big brother who can counterbalance UK, Germany and France. That increases their maneuverability.

 

[neviden]

Maneuverability would be inportatnt if you were about to be atacked by UK, Germany or France..

And the problem with "big brother" is, that it prefers divided europe.. like 'new vs. old europe' debate.. old tactic - divide and rule..

 

[stormbind]

You want more democracy in EU - OK, so do I. But to do this, we must hand over more competences to European parliament and Comission and to reduce power of national governments .

I disagree. We must scrap or severely weaken the Comission. We must scrap or severely weaken the Presidency. Nothing more is needed.

As for the UK, I wish it to stick together. The English aren't too thrilled about proposalls to merge Scottish regiments either.

 

[Winner]

No, let's stay in NATO.

Many small EU-countries are happy to have a big brother who can counterbalance UK, Germany and France. That increases their maneuverability.

Word "big brother" is very accurate in this case