Britain will veto EU army, says Defence Secretary

[Vorkreist]

The EU doesn't need a standing army at all. Awful idea.

I bet Putin agrees with that idea.

[Slant]

Even though i agree that the UK has no say in the matter we don't need an EU army we have Nato.

With "NATO" you really mean "the US". And that's the point that has to change. The US is sick and tired of babysitting us and I can understand them.

[Wyrt]

Well, not until Hungary and the Czech Republic fall, they don't. You're right. Are you seriously not getting my point? It's not that complicated...

No, I'm not. Tell me how Austria is in danger from Russia.

[Deletedaccount1]

Just to make it clear, you suggest Europe should just leave the floodgates open indefinitely? Ankh-Morporkian diplomacy style?

It may work in fiction books, but not in the real world...

Why do you think it wouldn't work? A typical estimate is that global free migration would double global production.

[Slant]

Why do you think it wouldn't work? A typical estimate is that global free migration would double global production.

Because all those unskilled and illiterate people that easily make 2/3rds of the world population don't actually increase production. They clog the systems.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm not. Tell me how Austria is in danger from Russia.

Why does Austria have an army?

[willtron]

The entire point is that the EU Army stops any foreign threat at the border, successfully. Ideally without the US having to step in. We are relying on a foreign country that is heading into a presidency of either a chronically unfit person or Hitler reborn... those are not good candidates for us. We should not rely on the US any longer. We should make sure that we can rely on ourselves. This doesn't mean we should be aggressively pushing the militaristic route. But it means we could perhaps have a coordinated army that works as a deterrent instead of the token toys of defense ministers.

And I'm sure lots of countries will be happy to commit a different number of troops, with different levels of funding and training answering to another committee of appointed pencil pushers with different interests that won't at all be biased

Good luck with that.

[Vorkreist]

Even though i agree that the UK has no say in the matter we don't need an EU army we have Nato.

Nato is the US pocket force.
What if another Ukraine scenario happens and this time with Poland or some other country in that area. You actually believe US Nato would just jump in a full world war with Russia over that ?
The EU needs a strong army to avoid another Ukraine scenario or Erdogan throwing another fit along with some nukes to go with it.

[Flarelaine]

I'd also be curious to see which countries favour a United States of Europe more. I have a feeling the trend might favour more eastern countries.

My bet would be on the Baltics.

Other than that... My country (Hungary) has been whipped into an anti-EU fervor by the government. You certainly could not count us as favouring an USE. However, I'm personally in favour. I would love to see a European Union that can do more about embezzling than sending a politely worded memo to our government that not stealing all that EU money would be fantastically appreciated.

[willtron]

Because all those unskilled and illiterate people that easily make 2/3rds of the world population don't actually increase production. They clog the systems.

- - - Updated - - -



Why does Austria have an army?

Name a first world country without an army.

[Slant]

I know - that's why I said that all things considered, Germany is unlikely to leave the Euro :P

Though to be Frank, it might be better for Europe overall if they did.

I'm not sure it would. Germany and France have been the driving forces behind the EU from start until now. If you take the engine out of Europe like that, it'll be an empty shell of what it once was. You'll be paying a lot of bureaucrats and institutes for shit that doesn't accomplish jack. At the same time, Germany will really start making a profit, because... and this is something people keep ignoring in these threads all the time... people buy cars not out of national economic interest. They buy cars (especially from German companies), because they like the brand. Germany will sell a fuckton of cars every year, within or without the EU. And Europe would not see a cent of those sales. Yet, they'd keep pumping money into Germany all the time. If you think you have it bad now, just imagine how bad it would be if you didn't have French and German funds paying the piper for Europe.

[Kalis]

Um... reality check here: The EU giving the UK a crappy deal is absolutely in the interest of the EU. With "crappy deal" translating to basically "Shittong of money for the EU and alms for the UK" that's the textbook definition of "being in their interest".

Anything not being a crappy deal would not be, in the strictest sense, in our interest.

Also, since it's Germany and France doing the decisions on the EU Army, I think it looks unlikely that France is going to pussy out like the UK did anytime soon.

People keep saying this, but it has not true. You don't want a weakened major trading partner, as it weakens your own economy.

The UK is pretty useless as a source of cheap labour, there are far more nations better suited to that role, so you want it to be relatively prosperous in order to sell your goods and services to it.

Punishing the UK for leaving also sends a terrible message to EU member states that have a strong anti-EU sentiment within their borders, as it shows the EU is run on threats and not as a mutually beneficial union, which will strengthen anti-EU sentiment not weaken it.

The EU doesn't have the clout to be run on fear, it needs to show that being a member has benefits, not that leaving has penalties.

[Deleted]

Wait, isn't that why the UK wanted to leave in the first place?

Btw, it's hilarious that lack of democracy is cited and then the UK threatens to block democratic decisions with a veto out of spite. :P

Pretty sure the people voted to leave for a variety of reasons however let's pretend otherwise

[Slant]

And I'm sure lots of countries will be happy to commit a different number of troops, with different levels of funding and training answering to another committee of appointed pencil pushers with different interests that won't at all be biased

Good luck with that.

Germany and France have a pretty successful Brigade. International armies aren't exactly a new invention here... but continue to downtalk it just out of personal preference.

[Wyrt]

Why does Austria have an army?

Same reason Switzerland has an army, to defend themselves. They don't have an army to get involved in the wars of other nations though.

[Slant]

Name a first world country without an army.

So, why does Austria need an army now? Just answer the fucking question instead of dodging it.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure I understand why you feel like the UK should be allowed to be dicks on purpose, and get away with it?

I don't care what a random guy says... I suspect most Brits don't care either

[Slant]

Same reason Switzerland has an army, to defend themselves. They don't have an army to get involved in the wars of other nations though.

Neither does NATO, surprisingly. And that's my point. NATO isn't meant to counter an actual attack. It's meant to be there if such an attack occurs. It's an insurance of sorts.

[willtron]

So, why does Austria need an army now? Just answer the fucking question instead of dodging it.

Defence, disaster relief, counter terrorism. That defence doesn't and shouldn't be for someone elses country.

[Kalis]

Nato is the US pocket force.
What if another Ukraine scenario happens and this time with Poland or some other country in that area. You actually believe US Nato would just jump in a full world war with Russia over that ?
The EU needs a strong army to avoid another Ukraine scenario or Erdogan throwing another fit along with some nukes to go with it.

What would an EU Army have done in Ukraine? Half the EU nations don't like war at all, under any circumstances, any EU Army would be crippled by indecisiveness as they all fight about whether or not an armed response is appropriate.

The only way to overcome that is to let a hawk like France make all the decisions, but no other EU member would agree to that.

[Slant]

I don't care what a random guy says... I suspect most Brits don't care either

That's your choice. Don't whinge when random guy decides to fuck you over, though. This is how you lose sympathy, btw. You're doing it well!

- - - Updated - - -

Defence, disaster relief, counter terrorism. That defence doesn't and shouldn't be for someone elses country.

Haha, since there were militaries, there were alliances. I'm astonished you've still not understood the concept. Austria was part of many alliances in the past, too.

- - - Updated - - -

What would an EU Army have done in Ukraine? Half the EU nations don't like war at all, under any circumstances, any EU Army would be crippled by indecisiveness as they all fight about whether or not an armed response is appropriate.

The only way to overcome that is to let a hawk like France make all the decisions, but no other EU member would agree to that.

Ukraine isn't in the EU. Let someone attack Poland and see how that goes.