^The point is I am rather afraid French interests would become European interests if that becomes a whole thing going by the attitude of some of the driving forces within EU.
There are two major stances in the EU: the French attitude which for a single army under EU control, no national armies, and the British one, which is for member states to retain their national armies but have an EU military structure where, for EU matters, EU takes control over the national armies (superceding national interest).
France and the UK are the two major 'military powers' of the EU, so any EU military future (currently) boils down to what France and the UK are willing to agree and sell to the rest of the EU (at which point the next major player would become Germany). France and the UK have had this visionary disagreement ever since Churchill first pushed for the idea of an EU military, didn't define what he meant, turned his back on the subject and returned to it only to discover other countries had interpreted the concept completely differently to his own intention.
Anyway, as of 2009 (I might have the year slightly wrong, I'm - bad form, I know - currently in no mood to fact check right now), France and the UK have had a treaty arrangement to pool military resources and responsibilities. That's in addition to the EU-wide SAFE strategy (which is also a pooling of military resources, knowledge, training, role responsibilities, etc.). As a result, the current state of play is that the EU isn't removing national armies so much as developing a strategy to pool them (which isn't what either France or UK originally proposed, and therefore might function as a compromise).
Oh don't worry about that. The British would be there to stop us. They are our best enemies, they prevent us to act too silly ^^.
Yes, but you need someone around constantly to prevent the UK from acting too silly - Silliness has been the UK's first, middle and last name for the past few years where the EU is concerned.
Also, if it's EU intervening in Africa, it's all different, because it would really be to pacify the continent, and not just for economical issues and interests… I think. Well, an intervention by the UN would be better in any case if someone has to stand in.
But you know, good old Europe would be a peaceful area, and I think its army's main objective would be prevention and defence. We are in the middle of everything, linked to Asia, middle East and Africa, so attacking would be a no from the get-go. Therefore, I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to lead an EU army into a conflict. That would be the best way to awaken a WWIII…
It's also worth observing that right now, EU military intervention is only allowed to be considered if NATO first passes on the issue. The EU is not allowed to act militarily before NATO. NATO is always the first port of call.