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

[Hotpoint]

In the UK and US, the Executive do not write policy - they execute it.

In the EU, the Executive writes policy. This is the difference.

Actually most Bills in the UK are written by government departments at the behest of Ministers and are merely voted on in Parliament which during a period of high majorities isn't much more than a rubber stamp. Very few private members bills which the government opposes are ever passed the Parliamentary Whips are very effective in preventing it.

In the USA much policy does come from unelected Cabinet members hence for example Foreign Policy initiatives from the Secretary of State. Congress holds the purse strings but the Cabinet has a great deal of power and influence, think about Rumsfeld and the planning of the Iraq War for another example.

 

[AVN]

I agree with Hotpoint and Winner on this issue (if I interprete their posts correctly).
In general the Executives write the rules/laws and also in general the Parliaments are only voting sheep. The power of Parliaments/Congress are IMHO in general overestimated. The Executives have the real power.

 

[stormbind]

Actually most Bills in the UK are written by government departments at the behest of Ministers and are merely voted on in Parliament which during a period of high majorities isn't much more than a rubber stamp.

In the EU, bills can be voted on by Parliament for a rubber stamp... but the Comission can (and does) peel that stamp off and chuck it in the bin.

"If the EU applied for membership to the EU, we would have to reject it for lack of democratic character!" -- famous EU politician who's name I have forgotten.

 

[bigfatron]

I think both parties have good points here:

Talk to a UK backbench MP and you quickly find that they are relatively impotent to achieve more than ensuring attention is given to specific constituents' issues; it is almost impossible for any but the most senior MPs to influence government policy in any significant way.

It is true that most legislation is drafted by the Civil Service, however that body has done a reasonably good job (despite Thatcher and Blair's best efforts) to remain politically neutral and offer impartial advice - a good model IMHO for the Executive arm of government, but not necessarily the one that all countries use or want to use.

So the fact that legislation is sourced from the unelected Commission is something I am uncomfortable with.

It is equally true that many anti-Europeans in the UK are happy to ***** about the lack of democratic accountability in the EU whilst strenuously opposing means to enhance that accountability. This is not entirely hypocritical though, the message (which I disagree with personally) is that to be democratically acceptable the EU must become a federal state, which these individuals adamantly oppose.

Finally it is also true that those pushing hardest for a more democratic, federalist approach also suffer from a strong element of hypocrisy, as they are the countries which most routinely ignore Commission rulings with which they disagree - France and Italy are particularly blatant about this.

One necessary part of a genuinely democratic EU will be the means to enforce democratic decisions regardless of national sentiment. I suspect this will be most unpalatable in those countries that have become used to simply ignoring the rulings that they dislike.

So, IMHO we are all hypocrites here, which is the reason I believe the EU is not politically ready to achieve any meaningful coallescence of political power.

 

[AceChilla]

To create our own army we first need a real political union with an unified foreign policy and that's far from reality, and will be even farther away when we let Turkey join our union.

You can't send an European army into battle when halve of the army doesn't come's with you because those countries don't agree with the reasons to go to war.

A real political union is decades away.

And I still agree with the basic thought of NATO which is "an attack on one of us, is an attack on all of us".

It isn't just about the Warschau pact, it's about that principle that I still agree with.

 

[Marla_Singer]

To create our own army we first need a real political union with an unified foreign policy and that's far from reality, and will be even farther away when we let Turkey join our union.

This is wrong. We are going in the right track. The EU Constitution will even guarantee us a European foreign minister (or "secretary of state" for our US fellows) for 2009. And that guy is already known, his name is Javier Solana.

On the other side, it's already 100% sure that Turkey won't join before 2015... and it's not even sure it would finally join (Maybe around 2020).

You can't send a European army into battle when halve of the army doesn't come's with you because those countries don't agree with the reasons to go to war.

I can bet you that with time, we will see less and less that kind of disagreements. It's simply not in our interests to weaken ourselves as we did in 2003.

A real political union is decades away.

It's 5 years away. The Constitution will be in use as soon as in 2009. The division of Europe makes us impotent. If you're against it, then it means you support impotence.

And I still agree with the basic thought of NATO which is "an attack on one of us, is an attack on all of us".

There's no opposition between building a common European army and staying part of NATO. If there's an opposition somewhere, it would be simply in the case the United States decide to drop NATO once Europe would build a common defence.

It isn't just about the Warschau pact, it's about that principle that I still agree with.

Do you really believe the US are less powerful in NATO than was the USSR in the Warsaw Pact ? Then you're a dreamer.

 

[Damnyankee]

The EU militaries are anything but a joke.

Ask any number of 3rd world countries.

The USA considers France and the UK's nuclear weapons to be such a 'joke' that they
spend unholy amounts of cash to plan hypothetical war situations to fight Europe.

can you post them, not because i wouldn't believe you, because it would be interesting how long it would take to take europe

 

[AceChilla]

This is wrong. We are going in the right track. The EU Constitution will even guarantee us a European foreign minister (or "secretary of state" for our US fellows) for 2009. And that guy is already known, his name is Javier Solana.

On the other side, it's already 100% sure that Turkey won't join before 2015... and it's not even sure it would finally join (Maybe around 2020).

A minister won't change the fact that many countries still disagree what our foreign policy should be and the war in Iraq made that painfully obvious. The minister will be nothing more than a lame duck without any autority to speak for the EU. Unless it's about trivial things like foreign aid, or congratulating Bush with his birthday.

I hope you are right about Turkey, but we have already said to them we welcome them to join in principle and they just have to develop a little bit more and they are there. Saying NO now would be controversial to say the least. And I don't think the EU has the guts to do so, even if many politicians are against Turkey joining in private.

I can bet you that with time, we will see less and less that kind of disagreements. It's simply not in our interests to weaken ourselves as we did in 2003.

That is indeed not in our interest and I think a strong union would be a good thing, but you can't change the fact many countries want to steer Europe in different courses. Let's first agree on the course, before we talk about forming an army.

I btw. feel that making one arming is relatively simple, just make one European army headquaters and standardize equipment. Preferably develop equipment within Europe between countries (like the Eurofighter). You don't all have to speak one language or anything like that to fight a war. You could also let various countries specialize themselves in certain tasks.

It's 5 years away. The Constitution will be in use as soon as in 2009. The division of Europe makes us impotent. If you're against it, then it means you support impotence.

I do not support impotence. I am strongly against it

I don't think the constitution is the answer to all our problems like you seem to think, for the most part it's just a bunch of things we already agreed on in one single document. I don't think it will change thing dramatically like you do. And we don't have a constitution yet, Brittain and The Netherlands will have a referendum first. Chances are it isn't going to make it at all.

There's no opposition between building a common European army and staying part of NATO. If there's an opposition somewhere, it would be simply in the case the United States decide to drop NATO once Europe would build a common defence.

If the US want's to do that it would certainly speed up the progress on the European army so maybe that would be good for Europe. But I am for a strong EU working togheter with the US. And we still have common enemies.

Do you really believe the US are less powerful in NATO than was the USSR in the Warsaw Pact ? Then you're a dreamer.

I don't know why you talk about the USSR. I just meant NATO is more than a counterweight to the Warschaupact it's the principle of a united Western world I still agree on. Again we still have common enemies.

 

[Winner]

In the UK and US, the Executive do not write policy - they execute it.

In the EU, the Executive writes policy. This is the difference.

Not true, again, I have feeling you are confusing Comission with Council (of ministers or EU Council, i am not sure about translation).

Comission has the same purpose as standard government in nation state. It write proposal of a law, sends it to Parliament (or Council in the case of EU - this is what I strongly disagree with), there it is accepted or rejected, and than the Comission executes what is said in such a law.

Comission surely hasn't right to reject EU laws.

 

[Marla_Singer]

A minister won't change the fact that many countries still disagree what our foreign policy should be and the war in Iraq made that painfully obvious. The minister will be nothing more than a lame duck without any autority to speak for the EU. Unless it's about trivial things like foreign aid, or congratulating Bush with his birthday.

[...]

That is indeed not in our interest and I think a strong union would be a good thing, but you can't change the fact many countries want to steer Europe in different courses. Let's first agree on the course, before we talk about forming an army.

Are you that sure Europeans were divided about Iraq ? Obviously they weren't. I guess more Spaniards or Brits agreed with Schröder or Verhofstadt than they did with Aznar or Blair. What has created the divisions in Europe weren't Europeans themselves, but the division in states.

As such, I can't follow you when you say that Europe is still too divided to unite. It's quite the opposite. Europeans were, about Iraq, more united than were their leaders. That is why, despite the fact the majority of European leaders supported Bush, we consider Europe was mainly anti-war.

Honnestly Drunk Master, imagine the US' states had their own independent foreign policies. Do you truely believe the 50 states would have all supported the war in Iraq ? Would you then consider that the divisions we would have seen were an enough good reason for the US to not unite ?

I btw. feel that making one arming is relatively simple, just make one European army headquaters and standardize equipment. Preferably develop equipment within Europe between countries (like the Eurofighter). You don't all have to speak one language or anything like that to fight a war. You could also let various countries specialize themselves in certain tasks.

It may be simple, but it still takes time, especially about standardization. Then why not starting now ? The thing is that I actually don't understand the fact you consider it's still too early. Britain and France will build 3 carriers together. Those 3 carriers are built on the exact same plan to limit the costs.

As long as it's certain that we won't use those weapons between ourselves, I see no reason to stay independent on the matter.

I don't think the constitution is the answer to all our problems like you seem to think, for the most part it's just a bunch of things we already agreed on in one single document. I don't think it will change thing dramatically like you do. And we don't have a constitution yet, Brittain and The Netherlands will have a referendum first. Chances are it isn't going to make it at all.

I agree that the Constitution won't change massively the thing. However, what's interesting in the Constitution is more its potentials than the new stuff it really proposes. For instance, the Eurogroup could easily be considered as an embryo of a European Minister of the Economy, the same could be said about defence, and finally, the possibility to see the Presidents of the Comission and of the Council merging would give a real leader to the EU. All these are potentials of course, but the Constitution makes them very extremely easy to achieve.

If the US want's to do that it would certainly speed up the progress on the European army so maybe that would be good for Europe. But I am for a strong EU working togheter with the US. And we still have common enemies.

I don't know why you talk about the USSR. I just meant NATO is more than a counterweight to the Warschaupact it's the principle of a united Western world I still agree on. Again we still have common enemies.

I totally agree on this, but you shouldn't be stressed about it. Indeed, a large part of European countries (if not all actually) support such an alliance. As such, it's obvious a common army would be accepted ONLY with guarantees that such an alliance will remain. Europeans won't be those supporting to leave NATO. Actually, even a country like France would support remaining in NATO, since what De Gaulle was blaming wasn't the principle of an alliance, but the US hegemony inside it.

However, I ask once again the question : Will America accepts to get over their hegemony inside NATO to share its power with a Europe at its size ? That's the thing I'm dubious with.

Indeed, the same Americans who are anti-UN because they feel Washington can't do whatever it wants in it will turn anti-NATO if it suddenly appears Washington couldn't do whatever it wants also in it. However, that doesn't mean Washington would necessarily leave NATO. I don't know how the US would react actually.