EU Launches New Defense Pact

[Mittens]

Federal Republic of Germany exists since 1949.

If the EU transforms itself into a federation, than it should be called European Federation.

- - - Updated - - -



But Trump's policies of moving away from Europe was what led to a faster integration. One year ago, everyone and their cats were calling for the end of EU and yet Trump and Brexit made the EU more united than ever.

Trump probably played a role, but Brexit was far more important.

There are three main powers in the EU

Germany who pushes for integration for everyone but herself.

France who pushes for aggressive integration

The UK who is skeptical of the EU.

Everyone else can fo fuck itself, because in the eyes of the EU they don't matter.

Without the UK, there is no one pushing back against further integration.

[Felya]

Trump probably played a role, but Brexit was far more important.

There are three main powers in the EU

Germany who pushes for integration for everyone but herself.

France who pushes for aggressive integration

The UK who is skeptical of the EU.

Everyone else can fo fuck itself, because in the eyes of the EU they don't matter.

Without the UK, there is no one pushing back against further integration.

There are plent “outside” Europe that are pushing against it.

[Mittens]

There are plent “outside” Europe that are pushing against it.

My bad, a country that matters in the EU (Germany, France and formerly the UK)

[Tomyris]

Good news. I like seeing the European countries working together on a project despite all the differences. Who would have seen it 100y ago?

[Deleted]

Trump probably played a role, but Brexit was far more important.

The UK should have never been let in. de Gaulle was right about them. They were just Americas mouthpiece in the EU and did everything they could to destabilize it.

There are three main powers in the EU

If you ignore the EU Parliament, Council then yes

Germany who pushes for integration for everyone but herself.

Source please

France who pushes for aggressive integration

You mean one of the founders of the EU is pro integration into its projects? Surprising for nobody except Americans.

The UK who is skeptical of the EU.

The UK has been trying to destabilize the European project, since de Gaulle died and Pompidou let them in.

Everyone else can fo fuck itself, because in the eyes of the EU they don't matter.

Are their votes on the EU parliament invalid or something?

Without the UK, there is no one pushing back against further integration.

If only the EU had some kind of Parliament or Council were they vote on matters...........

[Slant]

Considering there is already a United States (America) and (Russian) Federation, it would be foolish to choose either title for the unified country, it would be seen as copycatting. European Union is a perfectly adequate name for a country of this nature, and I bet it will remain the name after unification.

That's my personal preference as well. The name sticks rather well. Why change it.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh? The EU becoming more powerful by stripping sovereign powers from member States has been a thing from quite a while. Trump or not this was coming, they'll probably half-ass and become a problem with poorer countries while disproportionately benefiting Germany and co.

The EU never stripped anyone of their sovereign powers. Stop being dishonest.

[Warning]

Its a decent start, imo we should move toward a ~200 bn (or a set 1.5% of EU GDP) EU military budget alongside, additional to and working closely with national units as well as greatly increased funding for hardening critical infrastructure targets against cyber attacks. Furthermore we should have specialized military research, construction and maintenance sites at logistically sensible and politically viable locations across Europe to cut costs.

[Zarc]

Fuck yeah! One more step towards European nation state!

I meant it sarcastically. But it's still better than "United States of Europe" that is gaining momentum inside the EU structures...

I prefer European Federation myself.

Considering there is already a United States (America) and (Russian) Federation, it would be foolish to choose either title for the unified country, it would be seen as copycatting. European Union is a perfectly adequate name for a country of this nature, and I bet it will remain the name after unification.

"Fuck yeah" indeed. But it is not one step towards a "European nation state", the goal of European integration is not to become a country. The ambition is for us to become a federal state. The United States of America is a nation state, a country and a federal state. The European Union is only working towards becoming the latter. Quite frankly, it is usually the enemies of our union who tries to tell you otherwise.

The "United States of Europe" is just a popular phrase to describe Europe as a federation of states, it has the same meaning as "Federal Europe". It does not express a desire to vainly or merely re-name the European Union as such, or for our political structures to be a copy of American ones. The European Union as a name is here to stay, even as we continue to move beyond the progress already made during the past 60 years.

[Fuiking]

French President Emmanuel Macron, whose election victory in May gave new impetus to efforts to revive defense cooperation after Britons voted in 2016 to leave the bloc, hailed “concrete progress.” Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said the pact would make the EU more agile abroad and would support NATO.

Everything Mark Rutte says should be ignored.. He will not spend a penny on either of them.

[Mittens]

That's my personal preference as well. The name sticks rather well. Why change it.

- - - Updated - - -



The EU never stripped anyone of their sovereign powers. Stop being dishonest.

The European constitution and its successor the Lisbon treaty don't real I guess.

[Slant]

The European constitution and its successor the Lisbon treaty don't real I guess.

They are very real. That doesn't mean the EU is stripping anyone of powers. If you don't understand how the EU works, ask. Don't come here making wild claims that are factually untrue. Go back to 4chan and do that shit there. They may appreciate it more than we do.

[Kellhound]

Good news. I like seeing the European countries working together on a project despite all the differences. Who would have seen it 100y ago?

Hmmm.... Well NATO would like to point out they have been uniting Europe longer than the EU has.

[Mayhem]

Hmmm.... Well NATO would like to point out they have been uniting Europe longer than the EU has.

Not really.

[Kellhound]

Not really.

Yes really. NATO provided the interoperability that will make a EU defense force even possible.

[Skroe]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...ource=facebook



Isn't this what you've always dreamed of @Skroe?

I mean... sure on paper. But Europe loves pieces of paper. Sometimes they even sign pieces of paper reinforcing peices of paper they signed before.

This is one of those cases where the proof will be in the pudding.

NATO is European defense. NATO will remain European defense, no matter what alternatives spring up, period. And that will be because the US Military and US military indistruial complex is and will remain the backbone of Western defense for the forseeable future due to the lack of consolidation of those things in Europe.

Europe needs to consolidate its military industrial complex. Period. From that, everything else will flow naturally.

I want Europe to do these things. But doing these things will take twenty years. And unifying actual equipment in service? Fifty.

The metric here is Poland. Why? Because ever since Poland joined NATO, it has been the US Military's hobby. It's been the test case for transforming an former eastern bloc country that spent decades training, fighting and equipping in the Soviet manner, into one that fights, trains and equips like the US and its allies do. It's getting there. It has many more years to go. But the US has been at it 20 years already and Poland likely has another 20 years ahead of it before it's on level.

A true EU military, to some degree, would be that for the entire continent.

Yeah, first steps and all that, but let's not kid ourselves... until countries decide to kill off the concept of sending taxpayer dollars to the local shipyard rather than another EU country's that makes better ships... then it's a concept in name only.

[Mayhem]

Yes really. NATO provided the interoperability that will make a EU defense force even possible.

That's nice and all, but the institutions that the EU is build upon were in place before NATO.

[Deleted]

A true EU military, to some degree, would be that for the entire continent.

Not really. You can't seriously expect us to come to the defence of non-members like Serbia.

[Skroe]

Not really. You can't seriously expect us to come to the defence of non-members like Serbia.

The greatest, most long term, strategic failure of Europeans is to actively look for and define the limits of what they 'won't do'. You people love your treatiest defining what you won't do. I don't blame you with your history. But neither are modern Europeans responsible for the crimes and failures of their grandparents. You shouldn't handcuff yourselves because of their catastrophes.

I'd worry about building your unified military force, and worry about where and when you'll use it later. Chances are, much like the US, you'll find you built a hammer in search of some nails. Oftentimes justly. Sometimes unjustly.

But to telegraph your limits? The US is thankfully, painfully, getting out of that miserable habit. Europe should too. Let the other side imagine what they will be. Strategic ambiguity has proven its usefulness time and time again.

[Tomyris]

Hmmm.... Well NATO would like to point out they have been uniting Europe longer than the EU has.

That does not make it a useless project, especially since NATO is considered US's puppet by parts of the public. How much it is so, I don't know.

[Skroe]

That does not make it a useless project, especially since NATO is considered US's puppet by parts of the public. How much it is so, I don't know.

It's not one. And the case example of that is that Obama wanted to strike Assad in 2013 by making it a NATO operation (after getting UN approval failed). Such a decision, like all NATO decisions, requires unanimous consent. The British Parliament voted against the plan, killing the "NATO-ization" approach then and there.

The US has an enormous amount of influence in NATO. But how could it not? It's the largest, richest, most advanced and most powerful Western country. It has the most developed military industrial complex on Earth. It has a seat at the head of the table because, to put it plainly, it brings more to the table than any one other member.

But it is not our playground. Our allies must ALL agree. And that is fair.

This is one reason why I want the European Union to get it's military indistrial base in order. Right now, in the US, Western Democracy has a single point of failure. A single load bearer. A EU that is ACTUALLY a peer and partner rather than just one based on some pieces of paper and superlatives, would make the West as a whole far stronger and the post-World War II order far more robust.

Integrated European defense, done in cooperation with NATO, is better for everyone in the West.