273 replies to this topic

[Funktastic]

Why would it?
It‘s foremost a geographically restricted area, and it‘s based on western democratic values. Both doesn‘t point to expansion into other regions.

 

I am not getting myself understood. First and foremost: WHY do you want Europe as one sovereign state? If we start with that then I'll expand my thoughts based on what you've said.

Edited by Funktastic, 14 April 2014 - 03:57 PM.

[Milareppa]

United EU doesn‘t imply unification of language.
Switzerland is running well on four languages - sure, 24 is a bunch more, but running administration in 3-4 is no problem. English is the language of business and science already, there is no problem to use it for administration as well imo.

 

That's pretty much my point.

[azer_moli]

You accepted Turkey didn't you....

 

It hasn't been done yet, has it? 

Turkey is a very problematic case. 

On one part, its history makes it close to Europe. On the other part, its current state of affairs makes it closer to middle east… 

So it's pretty much at the limits of Europe. 

[Milareppa]

You accepted Turkey didn't you....

 

Turkey has been involved in the origins of the EU since the very beginning (the '60s). As of right now, they're still a candidate, not a full member. However, not all countries in Europe are members of the EU.

[azer_moli]

I am not getting myself understood. First and foremost: WHY do you want Europe as one sovereign state? If we start with that then I'll expand my thoughts based on what you've said.

 
Personally, it's because we're tiny states compared to the USA, China, Indian Union or Russia. Together, we'd have more weight, be it economically or politically. 
It's better that than following a powerful nation like good little dogs… 

 

Good old Europe has to remain independent :3 (and of course it's not a plan to conquer the world ^^)

[Oben]

I am not getting myself understood. First and foremost: WHY do you want Europe as one sovereign state? If we start with that then I'll expand my thoughts based on what you've said.

Cause it's useful. We don't need 28 armies each for example, one big army would be cheaper and easier to coordinate in case of need as well. The current EU has shown grand deficits when replying to crises - Libya for example. Same goes for many other areas like administration, finances (especially considering the debt crisis), diplomacy, trade (as even with Schengen, there are still borders up), prevention of war, education, proliferation and so forth.
Second, and this is less pragmatic, I think that Europe is so rich with culture that it would be shame to keep national tunnel-views instead of a united country.

@Milareppa : I was just throwing it out to the thread ^^

[DarkNemesis]

The EU should do what the US does. In the US, we have The National Guard. Each state has their own National Guard. And of course, we have the overall US Army (and other Armed Forces). So each EU member country should be allowed to have their own standing army. But the EU itself would be the main army. So the EUAF for defense of the Union and International Engagements. And the EUNG for each respective member country to handle domestic/local affairs.

[Funktastic]

 
Personally, it's because we're tiny states compared to the USA, China, Indian Union or Russia. Together, we'd have more weight, be it economically or politically. 
It's better that than following a powerful nation like good little dogs… 

 

Good old Europe has to remain independent :3 (and of course it's not a plan to conquer the world ^^)

 

I'll look past the fact that a unified Europe would (hopefully) include Russia. So you're in favour of the EU because together we stand strong basically, it's harder to break thirty sticks than one. Meaning together we can push economical and political interests in order to compete with other powers. Doesn't the EU already fill that function though? What more could be contributed by uniting all nations into one?

 

Cause it's useful. We don't need 28 armies each for example, one big army would be cheaper and easier to coordinate in case of need as well. The current EU has shown grand deficits when replying to crises - Libya for example. Same goes for many other areas like administration, finances (especially considering the debt crisis), diplomacy, trade (as even with Schengen, there are still borders up), prevention of war, education, proliferation and so forth.
Second, and this is less pragmatic, I think that Europe is so rich with culture that it would be shame to keep national tunnel-views instead of a united country.

@Milareppa : I was just throwing it out to the thread ^^

 

So basically you want a unified Europe because armies are expensive and to spread different cultures (the other points you made you will need to elaborate on). Wouldn't it help to just join Nato?

One of the most repeated arguments is that culture will be lost if Europe were to become one, isn't that the case? Why would a unified Europe (in the sense that you're arguing) promote a more richness of culture and not destroy it?

Edited by Funktastic, 14 April 2014 - 04:25 PM.

[azer_moli]

I'll look past the fact that a unified Europe would (hopefully) include Russia. So you're in favour of the EU because together we stand strong basically, it's harder to break thirty sticks than one. Meaning together we can push economical and political interests in order to compete with other powers. Doesn't the EU already fill that function though? What more could be contributed by uniting all nations into one?

 

I doubt Russia would join. It's part of Asia, you know. Sure, Moscow and Petersburg are more European-like… but Russia still covers a big part of Asia. That said, its culture is so close to us that I wouldn't mind having Russia in EU, but… it's geographically complicated. 

 

Currently, each country has its own economy with huge differences according to the states. A real European economy would help to harmonize prices, salaries, etc. There would still be differences, of course, I'm not an utopian, but it could get better.

 

Economical unity is not yet achieved in Europe. I'm sure we can go further. I'd like to see an Europe in which there's no competition between its countries but a real cooperation without the richest ones seeing only how much they have to pay to help the poorest ones, but with all of them working together to build a strong Europe. I know it's possible. 

 

And politically it's very important too. 

[Oben]

So basically you want a unified Europe because armies are expensive and to spread different cultures (the other points you made you will need to elaborate on). Wouldn't it help to just join Nato? One of the most repeated arguments is that culture will be lost if Europe were to become one, isn't that the case? Why would a unified Europe (in the sense that you're arguing) promote a more richness of culture and not destroy it?

I only started with military before listing lots of other stuff - the Nato isn‘t exactly reknown for their skill in administration.

Because culture and poltics are two pair of shoes. For example education - the EU gives scholarships to hundred-thousands of people to study abroad. How does that not help culture? And how would it suffer from unification?

[Funktastic]

I doubt Russia would join. It's part of Asia, you know. Sure, Moscow and Petersburg are more European-like… but Russia still covers a big part of Asia. That said, its culture is so close to us that I wouldn't mind having Russia in EU, but… it's geographically complicated. 

 

Currently, each country has its own economy with huge differences according to the states. A real European economy would help to harmonize prices, salaries, etc. There would still be differences, of course, I'm not an utopian, but it could get better.

 

Economical unity is not yet achieved in Europe. I'm sure we can go further. I'd like to see an Europe in which there's no competition between its countries but a real cooperation without the richest ones seeing only how much they have to pay to help the poorest ones, but with all of them working together to build a strong Europe. I know it's possible. 

 

And politically it's very important too. 

 

80% of Russia's population live in the european part of Russia. If anything it isn't geographically complicated :/ . But that aside, you're advocating a true free market. I don't see how that has much to do with a completely unified Europe. A free market as a system is surely efficient. But having the market in Spain (and which is currently) effect the, i.e Swedish market, is not. That would inevitably be the case if politicians representing that area have even greater influence over smaller states. I even think that it was you who mentioned the problems farmers even now have due to EU regulations. 

 

I only started with military before listing lots of other stuff - the Nato isn‘t exactly reknown for their skill in administration.

Because culture and poltics are two pair of shoes. For example education - the EU gives scholarships to hundred-thousands of people to study abroad. How does that not help culture? And how would it suffer from unification?

 

Dude, I think we lack some type of crucial understanding of one another   . Maybe it's because I'm too tired or looking into your posts too much, but I don't understand your arguments. Anyways, not that it matters. Personally I'm pro-EU. Probably not to the extent you are, but I find the benefits heavily outweighing the costs. I was just hoping to lead the discussions to a point where I would learn something new and solve a few of my concerns. Maybe I'll try again later, but now I'm too tired and am off to sleep!

Edited by Funktastic, 14 April 2014 - 04:57 PM.

[azer_moli]

80% of Russia's population live in the european part of Russia. If anything it isn't geographically complicated :/ . But that aside, you're advocating a true free market. I don't see how that has much to do with a completely unified Europe. A free market as a system is surely efficient. But having the market in Spain (and which is currently) effect the, i.e Swedish market, is not. That would inevitably be the case if politicians representing that area have even greater influence over smaller states. I even think that it was you who mentioned the problems farmers even now have due to EU regulations. 

 

Yes, I know, but it's symbolical. 

 

And yes, I mentioned the farmers. 

 

I think EU is a wonderful thing, but right now, we can't achieve what we're aiming for. It's still a distant dream to me. For now, it's too complicated. And too many things are to be put in balance. 

[Neder]

As for the armies, it would be way better once it's under Europe's control. 

Part of it would protect the European frontiers. 

Each country can be specialized in one area too, and we'd learn much from each other anyways. As long as we can really cooperate. 

It's true it can lead to some problems regarding business, but it's linked to European economy as a whole, which is a total mess anyways. And every country can be specialized in some things. It doesn't matter where one thing is thought and made, as long as the military actions are under the European flag. 

 

Honestly, no country should be able to go and make their war somewhere as they please. I'll always loathe François Hollande for that. It was not France's business to go in Mali and other parts of Africa. It was UN's business. All wars should be UN's business. Europe needs protection of course, but an European army shouldn't go and attack out of the blue. That will only end up leading to some other big wars… But that might be me being an idealist-pacifist there.

 

Just to come shortly back at this point since it was more or less addressed to me:

Isn't that what you referred to partly happening already? Like UK and France taking care of the biggest (I think, not that sure) Air Forces in Europe, while the German submarine fleet has securing the Baltic Sea as task and I think the Dutch and Belgians also something like a common coastal defence/navy. I think I have heard something about that at least. Something like that is imo more realistic at the moment.

 

Even although it goes beyond this topic, about the French interventions in Africa: http://www.cfr.org/f...frica/p12578#p2

Although I don't think I am telling a French anything new here.

 

As for the matter about the EU expanding... I think the EU will somewhere find it's cultural and political borders. Turkey is already a pretty controversial case and the Ukraine etc wouldn't be less problematic. Russia getting into the EU is unthinkable. Neither does that fit with the Russian developments since 2000 nor would that make sense considering that Russia itself is a large country, a multinational state. That's like getting another union into an union. And the EU is on that account more than enough concerned with itself. It's however right that Russia is one of the most important partners for the EU on many accounts, but well... unfortunately there were made some mistakes, but that would really go beyond this thread. x)

Edited by Neder, 14 April 2014 - 05:22 PM.

[Milareppa]

The EU should do what the US does. In the US, we have The National Guard. Each state has their own National Guard. And of course, we have the overall US Army (and other Armed Forces). So each EU member country should be allowed to have their own standing army. But the EU itself would be the main army. So the EUAF for defense of the Union and International Engagements. And the EUNG for each respective member country to handle domestic/local affairs.

 

We have the police for domestic affairs. We don't need an army to do the law enforcement's job. The army stepping in for domestic affairs tends to mean something's going horribly wrong.

 

Either we'd have national armies that are called up to function in the name of the EU or we'd have one EU army. The idea of having an EU military and then each country having a separate individual 'standing army' on top of that wouldn't work. In part, that's because it depends on a 'United States of Europe' being structured along the lines of the American states - and that's not a popular view even among Europeans who want closer integration.

 

At the moment, although the three biggest armed forces are the UK, France and Germany, the bulk of the 'EU' military is dominated by the UK and French armed forces. That's because the German forces maintain a very defined (ie, restricted) role with regards to how it uses its military (for historic reasons). France and the UK also have a treaty whereby they pool their military for EU endeavours.

 

The current stance of the EU is to push for voluntary synchronising of member armies whereby training and duties can be pooled (it's called SAFE).

[Krizalid]

You accepted Turkey didn't you....

 

Not really. TR Government has set their eyes far from West, so relations to EU is in a critical state.

[DarkNemesis]

We have the police for domestic affairs. We don't need an army to do the law enforcement's job. The army stepping in for domestic affairs tends to mean something's going horribly wrong.

 

I worded that wrong. I didn't mean to have the National Guard be the police.

[azer_moli]

Just to come shortly back at this point since it was more or less addressed to me:

Isn't that what you referred to partly happening already? Like UK and France taking care of the biggest (I think, not that sure) Air Forces in Europe, while the German submarine fleet has securing the Baltic Sea as task and I think the Dutch and Belgians also something like a common coastal defence/navy. I think I have heard something about that at least. Something like that is imo more realistic at the moment.

 

Even although it goes beyond this topic, about the French interventions in Africa: http://www.cfr.org/f...frica/p12578#p2

Although I don't think I am telling a French anything new here. http://i.imgur.com/tfX4wLI.png...

 

It's still national armies though. I want to see a real European army, with a European uniform, with units composed of people from various nationalities, just like the UN forces. 

But indeed, what you say is more realistic atm. Whatever we want to do with Europe, it will take time anyways. 

 

Lol, in a nutshell, those are some of the reasons why I'm against those interventions in Africa. I can understand we have interests there, but when it comes to war, protecting our interests is not what should come in first… 

A European army would prevent something like that to happen though~ 

[Neder]

^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.

[azer_moli]

^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.

 

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 ^^. And I doubt Germany would just follow France anyways. 

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… 

[Milareppa]

^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.