They don't want to do this because its a centuries old tradition for Europeans to want to kill each other. Can't do that with centralized arms production.
>its a centuries old tradition for Europeans to want to kill each other. Can't do that with centralized arms production
Sure you can. Greece and turkey basically share the same TOE of second hand american arms across all branches, and they are like one bad tweet away from genociding each other
It's a long chain of things happening through history. Ottomans conquering the bysantines lead to turks dominating greece for many centuries, until greece won her freedom in a series of bloody wars, leading to greece and turkey disagreeing on who owns what islands, leading to the turkish invasion of cyprus and the current political climate
national identity and sovereignty are non-negotiable
with the EU you get the humility of the French, the punctuality of the Italians, the work ethic of the Spanish and the flexibility of the Germans
for all the EU superstate fanboys, it's clear you've never been near a EU institution before let alone worked with one.
Going against the current treaties to shit defense to the EU wouldn't fix defense and create a military super power. All you'd do is exchange the fragmented procurement across the nations and trade it in for even bigger frick ups.
Enjoy figuring out how you are going to pay people from all over the EU when they become part of one army (place of recruitment? where they are based?), enjoy being stuck with ridged hiring quotas for every country while not being able to change wages, good luck getting any kind of rapid response out off the endless rounds of committees, have fun integrating all the different language speakers when they have the right to work in any of the 24 official EU languages (heck just doing everything in the 3 procedural ones is a drag), promotions locked to quotas and with a balancing act when you get to the higher ranks (yes, your army will be getting run by a b*lgian more than half the time)
A EU army would be the end point of EU integration far beyond what almost all EU citizens (and politicians) want, good luck getting there. Elections are in 42 days, good luck finding a pro EU party that isn't a bunch of gun grabbers.
>Enjoy figuring out how you are going to pay people from all over the EU when they become part of one army
How are people paid in other EU institutions, Europol or Frontex? >(place of recruitment? where they are based?)
See above. >good luck getting any kind of rapid response out off the endless rounds of committees
Of course you'd need a more integrated EU commanding structure. QMV and the like. >have fun integrating all the different language speakers when they have the right to work in any of the 24 official EU languages
It would just work like NATO does. >promotions locked to quotas and with a balancing act when you get to the higher ranks
???
Having an integrated procurement system would already solve like 80% of the problems European armies have.
There is no reason to believe that nation-states are the optimal level of integration for European countries, especially as we have blatantly seen their limitations for the past few decades.
>How are people paid in other EU institution
pay them several thousand euro tax free plus tons of compenation >Europol
they keep their wage from their police force they where sent from plus a stipend >frontex
recruits from the border nation they operate in ad use local wages
the issue is they there are massive wage disparities an you can't magic want them away without a) wages take up 3/4 or 4/5 of the budget
b) a pole being posted to france goes broke while getting payed
c) you can't move units or personnel to other countries because then their wages have to change
d) you still end up referencing local wages >See above.
see above >Of course you'd need a more integrated EU commanding structure
yes, structure that if made by the EU will be like the EU and the EU isn't fast at anything. Remember how proud they where on getting roaming chargers banned in other EU countries? That took them what 20 years since cellphones became common? >It would just work like NATO does.
yes, the french will be trilled that they are going to have to do everything in english when the only english speaking countries are Ireland and Malta. They will honhonhon while they make English the offical army language. >???
you just have no idea how the EU institutions don't you?
>There is no reason to believe that nation-states are the optimal level of integration for European countries, especially as we have blatantly seen their limitations for the past few decades.
no, but that doesn't make moving it to the European level a magical solution.
What is happening now is clusters of EU countries increasing military co-operation and restructuring their armies to work more closely together. There is a French Belgian unit, the Belgian and Dutch navy are integrated, there is a Danish German unit, the Visegrád armies do a lot of things together.
learn how the EU works and the subsidiarity principle first
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>they keep their wage from their police force they where sent from plus a stipend
Sounds good to me. You get paid as much as a soldier in your country, and get more if you are posted somewhere with a higher CoL. >and the EU isn't fast at anything
Because it's not integrated. A unified command structure would move more rapidly than having to tard wrangle 27 different states, which is itself more rapid than waiting for 27 national parliaments. >yes, the french will be trilled that they are going to have to do everything in English
The French already work in NATO. And they are the ones pushing for an EU army right now.
EU working langues are based on how many Europeans can speak them anyway, English would be one of them even without a single member states with English as an official language.
>no, but that doesn't make moving it to the European level a magical solution.
Well it either stays the same, becomes more closely integrated or becomes less integrated, there aren't many choices. Do you think this
https://i.imgur.com/vYdhn2h.jpeg
How would you fix this?
is good and can work in a century in which single Chinese cities have a higher population than several European countries put together? >What is happening now is clusters of EU countries increasing military co-operation and restructuring their armies to work more closely together.
Which is good. Of course it will be a multi-speed solution. My point is that we should do much more and more quickly. PESCO, the EDF, the CSDP, they are all good things, but there is much more that can be done.
>learn how the EU works and the subsidiarity principle first
I have a master's degree in Economics with a specialisation in European studies. EU competencies can change if the member states are willing, and it's happened quite frequently in the past few years. I'd just like for them to do it *before* the next crisis, not afterwards when the member states once again realise they can do shit on their own.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
frick off europhile homosexual. the eu is undemocratic and no one feels represented by whatever those losers are doing up there. national parliaments and also national armies is where its at. all military cooperation can go through nato, we already have shared standards and having different designs for different requirements is not a bad thing at all. go suck eu dick on reddit Black person
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're going to like the next 20 years.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You get paid as much as a soldier in your country, and get more if you are posted somewhere with a higher CoL.
you now have any army full off eastern euros trying to win it big on the basing lottery. >Because it's not integrated >The only supra-national entity on earth
and how are you going to fully integrate the only supra-national army in the world any better then? >language
you did not address going angle without the anglos in the EU. >China
we are not going to be fighting china. If there was a war with the chinks half the EP has to be locked up for treason for taking chink money. The EU doesn't work on what is best but on what they can agree on and the process to get people to agree takes several years, a lot of haggling across countries, political factions and lobby groups. >My point is that we should do much more and more quickly
yes, but you simply ignore me every time I bring up that the EU works slow. It is slow by design. It is not a bug, it is a feature. You can't get everyone to agree to the compromise of the compromise of the compromise if you do things fast. >economics
great go get a law degree next because it's not the economists that run the EU but us lawgays >I'd just like for them to do it *before* the next crisis, not afterwards when the member states once again realise they can do shit on their own.
that's nice, but they never do, you live in a lala dream land if you think they ever will.
I've worked in the EP, I know people that work in just about every EU institution. If you think that the EU running defense is going to fix it you are just moronic. When the Eu fixes something it breaks two other things.
You mandate nature restoration and you frick with agriculture, you try to fix the budgets you frick with green investment and global competitiveness, you try to mandate immigrant spread and you get fricking TUSK to appose it.
frick off europhile homosexual. the eu is undemocratic and no one feels represented by whatever those losers are doing up there. national parliaments and also national armies is where its at. all military cooperation can go through nato, we already have shared standards and having different designs for different requirements is not a bad thing at all. go suck eu dick on reddit Black person
you are just as stupid as him
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you now have any army full off eastern euros trying to win it big on the basing lottery.
And that's a bad thing? Eastern euros are motivated, and you'd get plenty or recruits in times when it's hard to fill recruitment quotas. >and how are you going to fully integrate the only supra-national army in the world any better then?
For example by requiring only QMV for a rapid reaction force instead of having 27 vetos, for starters. >you did not address going angle without the anglos in the EU.
Soldiers already have to know basic English to be in NATO, don't they? It's a non-issue. Most young people in the EU are bilingual or even trilingual. >we are not going to be fighting china
That's not the point. It's economies of scale. >It is slow by design
It passed the Ukraine aid bill faster than the Americans. It launched Coronabonds in a few months. It can deploy firefighters and satellites aid through RescEU in a few hours. Of course, having to get 27 leaders to agree in an emergency won't work, and that's my point.
>Which is good. Of course it will be a multi-speed solution.
and that's why it works.
These are co-operations being led and worked on by the nations armed forces. Let the soldier sort out how they are going to work together and once they have figured out how they want to do it and they get more comfortable to integrate more and with more countries provide a frame work for them to do so. But under no instance should it become a EU institution. Why? Because EU institutions and the people that work there don't share the same incentive structure and priorities as the armed forces.
If you do absolutely need to make a Europe wide instance for it, make it a parallel but outside of the EU like Euratom.
>the EU is too slow >let's make it intergovernmental instead of supranational, now that's going to be speedy!
Lol. Imagine if we had to get 27 leaders to agree to start a trade investigation through IPI like last morning, or any other field in which the EU has exclusive competency. Thank god those areas are handled by the EU alone otherwise nothing would ever be done.
Imagine if the EU had voted for Ukrainian aid through QMV instead of having to wait for Orban to move his butt. It would have been passed within a month.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>And that's a bad thing?
you are going to get a army that is going to bevy disproportional and the EU doesn't like disproportional things because the countries always want their backs scratched. So you are going to get quota systems where every nation gets x of rank y with certain margins on it. Like just about every EU institution is now. And then the Eastern euros are going to try and get into other countries quotas. This will cause no end of bickering, friction and internal problems.
imagine being a Romanian soldier in the same army, same branch, same corp, same division, same regiment next to your French friend who's earning over twice for the same work and risk. >For example by requiring only QMV for a rapid reaction force instead of having 27 vetos, for starters.
so you do not address that problem with the existing supra national entity being slow, but simply try to tinker with it so it becomes a bit less slow. >It's a non-issue
to the highly educated, yes.
it might hurt some feelings sure but if the pay is right.
But em a lot of grunts, not masters or even bachelors material, heck happy to have finished high school a quarter of the time.
And then you have the French now being the biggest army going into it, without any anglos in it and you expect them not to push for French? >That's not the point. It's economies of scale.
economies of scale against whom for what?
russia is currently gimping it's self, the Americans are our allies (thank god for that) and china is half the world away without power projection. What do we need a unified command for, the moroccans trying to take the canary islands and the Spanish exclaves? The Turks getting feisty in the aegean? Or a second hundreds year war? >exceptions
there is an saying in Dutch, "the exception only serves to prove the rule" when faced with a sufficiently big crisis the EU will act a lot quicker but only in comparison to it's usual lethargy.
cont.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>and the EU doesn't like disproportional things because the countries always want their backs scratched
Not necessarily. I doubt the makeup of say Frontex is the same as that of the civil servants at the Commission. >imagine being a Romanian soldier in the same army, same branch, same corp, same division, same regiment next to your French friend who's earning over twice for the same work and risk.
So imagine NATO? Doesn't seem to be a problem today. >but simply try to tinker with it so it becomes a bit less slow.
Yeah? The point is to improve it, and QMV is vastly faster. >and you expect them not to push for French?
I expect them to b***h like they always do and then speak English. Grunts are not going to be discussing Shakespeare, the very basic level of English they have to learn already due to NATO will be more than enough. >economies of scale against whom for what?
Against everyone else. Or you think the current model of producing 100 or so fighters with extremely high costs per unit will be a winning move when you're trying to sell them to third countries? The industry is already integrating while the politicians are sleeping. >What do we need a unified command for,
Dunno. The world is so safe and stable lately, I'm sure nothing will happen. >And no member state is going to vote for that, no member states population is going to vote for that, no EP faction is going to vote for that.
Everything the EU does today would have been unthinkable 100 years ago. The euro would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. A common debt instrument unthinkable 10 years ago. I'm sure you see my point.
>I'll translate it to my french friends
I have a few French friends and I speak in English to them. Macron speaks a perfect German too, but likes to fake a heavy French accent 😉 people can surprise you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Not necessarily. I doubt the makeup of say Frontex is the same as that of the civil servants at the Commission.
yes, because as I have stated in
>How are people paid in other EU institution
pay them several thousand euro tax free plus tons of compenation >Europol
they keep their wage from their police force they where sent from plus a stipend >frontex
recruits from the border nation they operate in ad use local wages
the issue is they there are massive wage disparities an you can't magic want them away without a) wages take up 3/4 or 4/5 of the budget
b) a pole being posted to france goes broke while getting payed
c) you can't move units or personnel to other countries because then their wages have to change
d) you still end up referencing local wages >See above.
see above >Of course you'd need a more integrated EU commanding structure
yes, structure that if made by the EU will be like the EU and the EU isn't fast at anything. Remember how proud they where on getting roaming chargers banned in other EU countries? That took them what 20 years since cellphones became common? >It would just work like NATO does.
yes, the french will be trilled that they are going to have to do everything in english when the only english speaking countries are Ireland and Malta. They will honhonhon while they make English the offical army language. >???
you just have no idea how the EU institutions don't you?
>There is no reason to believe that nation-states are the optimal level of integration for European countries, especially as we have blatantly seen their limitations for the past few decades.
no, but that doesn't make moving it to the European level a magical solution.
What is happening now is clusters of EU countries increasing military co-operation and restructuring their armies to work more closely together. There is a French Belgian unit, the Belgian and Dutch navy are integrated, there is a Danish German unit, the Visegrád armies do a lot of things together.
learn how the EU works and the subsidiarity principle first
the bulk off fortex personnel gets recruited and stays in the border country the live in. If you want to have the same system be my guest but now you have a military where units are stuck in on the bit of land they where raised on, you know like now.
The commission staff is on the other hand a constant game of balance to make sure everyone is represented at about their countries part of the total population with an exception for belgians. A great model for a integrated army >So imagine NATO? Doesn't seem to be a problem today
ah yes, but they are part of the Romanian and the French army. Not the EU army. Romanian army, French army gets you Romanian and French wages. A EU army gets you EU wages and we are back at square one, how do you determine those EU wages without being unfair to any region or country while also not costing so much as to eat up most of your budget >Yeah? The point is to improve it, and QMV is vastly faster.
Yes QMV is always going to be faster but that doesn't make it fast. A few weeks isn't fast heck a few days isn't fast. The only logical conclusion would be to give to the president of the council or the the president of the commission. both of them aren't elected by the citizens or the direct product of any election, take a lot of haggling to appoint, are currently having a bit of a b***h fight to become "the face" of the EU and frankly most Eu citizens don't even know them or what post they have/what they do. >I expect them to b***h like they always do
bitch, b***h and b***h then get their exceptions, a few extra senior positions and the funding to flow just that bit more in their favor. >the very basic level of English they have to learn already due to NATO will be more than enough
some of them don't learn the basic level english that NATO requires
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>a constant game of balance to make sure everyone is represented at about their countries part of the total population with an exception for belgians
Is it? I remember Eastern Euros and other recent joiners complaining they weren't very represented compared to their population. >ah yes, but they are part of the Romanian and the French army.
They do the same job and risk the same, within NATO, within the EU, on their own... your example is meaningless. There are regions within the same country with very different CoL, I doubt it's a huge problem for national armies. >A few weeks isn't fast heck a few days isn't fast.
It depends on what kind of war we are talking about. Going from a year to a few days, or whatever it takes for an emergency Council meeting would already be a pretty nice improvement. >So why would the EU get involved aside from giving industry a nudge.
A nudge is good enough, but why stop there? Would a nudge be enough to handle a GNSS constellation for example? If it were the EU wouldn't be managing Galileo. >You don't need an EU army if the nations can handle it themselves
Can they? There is probably only one EU nation that can realistically deploy overseas in a meaningful capacity, and yet all together they spend more than China. Where is the money going? >Can you imagine how the Hungarians would vote?
I mentioned multi-speed in my very first comment. If they don't like it they don't have to participate, and we can just go ahead thanks to enhanced cooperation. >veryone was laughing at the coming Brexit vote
Rightly so given the results lol. >European integration isn't a one-way street.
Brexit only accelerated European integration though.
>or how EU politics operate
EU politics operate much like continental plates. Nothing seems to move for decades as pressure builds up, and then an earthquake happens and in a few years we get common debt instruments, a rapid reaction force and Frontex.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you just completely ignore that your argument has been swept from under you. So you can be pedantic and try to score some "points".
By you have your self stated that industry is merging thus solving the question asked by this tread and the "need" for shifting defense to the EU level.
That is why econ gays always lose the debate, you can read numbers but don't have the faintest idea when it comes to making an argument.
We can keep this up for a week.
Every time I bring up a major flaw you go "but what about y" ignoring the argument ang getting into smaller and smaller details ceding that yes you can not counter my argument.
You've for instance simply chosen to ignore the first option of the first point. And then not even address the issue with the second option but try to score "a point" by bringing up a known problem with the second option: countries are very protective of their part of the staff quotas leading to friction between older and newer member states. This isn't a "got you" argument this is you admitting to the problem with the current way things are done without offering a for off improvement meaning that if defense was to become a EU competency, the same problem would just be repeated.
With the second point you ignore the problem of setting wages that are acceptable across the EU, you are a econgay this should be your thing ffs.
third point, ignores the subsidiarity principle, do nothing more than you have to. if industry is already merging than there is no need to do more. We have Galileo because it can not be done by one member state or a group of them so it was handed over to the EU (and to keep the french happy by giving french guiana more money). >third point has already been addressed in my previous post, where would an EU army have to go and fight and against whom? a question you just ignored by going "well uncertain times". If we don't need power projection then that isn't an issue.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>swept from under you
It wasn't. One thing is industrial integration (good, necessary) another thing is making it work (joint procurement, joint deployment). >We have Galileo because it can not be done by one member state or a group of them so it was handed over to the EU
Exactly my point. > is what convinced a lot of brits to vote for leave
What convinced the Brits to leave were clever ads, dissatisfaction with their political class and a red bus. I can assure you maybe 0,1% of the people who voted for Brexit knew what the subsidiarity principle is or cared about the difference between QMV and unanimity voting or whatever. >no one had planned fore a pro brexit vote
False. Juncker himself said to Cameron that if it were to go for a referendum Brexit was going to win, there's a fairly famous article about it. >and don't plan out even the most basic of contingencies?
Who, the Brits lol? It wasn't the EU who asked to delay Brexit several times or has still not implemented proper border checks. They didn't intervene during the debate (rightly so), and then started negotiating as the Brits tried to decide what kind of Brexit they wanted to have. >yes and that continental drift speed until you have a crisis is ideal for keeping a military ready for war.
That's why we should prepare ahead of time and not after the next crisis, once the member states realise once again they can't do it on their own, as I said in my first comments. Thankfully the Russian invasion is looking like a wake-up call
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you have once again ignored half the points I have made. I assume you now agree with me that recruitment, wages and control of the army are issues that can't be managed by the normal way the EU does things.
But there is no further use in going one as you are clearly arguing in bad faith.
For instance, you just ignore the first part of this argument > ignores the subsidiarity principle, do nothing more than you have to. if industry is already merging than there is no need to do more. We have Galileo because it can not be done by one member state or a group of them so it was handed over to the EU (and to keep the french happy by giving french guiana more money).
The first part that is however the important part, the subsidiarity principle.
All the rest of this discussion is irrelevant as you should know having "a master's degree in Economics with a specialisation in European studies" that defence will not become an EU competency unless the member states are not able to manage defence on their own and they then chose to shift the competency to the EU.
First you would have to show the need for this to happen. In this regard you’ve only undermined your argument by pointing out that the MIC in Europe is already merging.
China isn’t an argument because china isn’t a military threat to the EU or it’s member state, frankly bringing up china makes about as much sense as saying we have to plan for a war with the US, it is grasping at straw now that Russia can no longer be propped up as an existential treat that would need a combined EU military led response and that is only if you ignore NATO entirely. >joined development
follows from further merging industry.
But joined development is already the norm, just not 1 development program. >joined procurement
is already being done by member states on a voluntary basis so once gain subsidiarity principle => no need for the EU to get involved.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you have once again ignored half the points I have made
I want to keep my comments in under one post and I don't have to time to write down 5000 words for a PrepHole comment. No, I haven't agreed. An army wouldn't be unique compared to Frontex and other EU agencies, and I would even be ok with a small RRF, where salaries would be negligible. I'm not necessarily talking about a millions-strong army. >that defence will not become an EU competency
It's already a shared competency thanks to Lisbon. Are you saying that PESCO, the EDF etc. are all illegal? There is currently nothing stopping the EU from having its own soldiers, which is why the aforementioned RRF is already in the works. >First you would have to show the need for this to happen
The point is to get ready *before* there is a need. You don't want to have to set up a new army in the middle of a war, obviously. Having a force able to deploy quickly somewhere in the world to defend shared EU interests (evacuating personnel from Afghanistan, defending trade routes, etc.) would already be useful. And I'm bringing up China because they spend on defence about as much as the various member states do, but they obviously get a much better bang for their buck. It's pathetic really what the member states have with all the money they spent. Oh nice, >muh sovereignty tank build in 150 units, now it costs as much as a stealth fighter per unit and can't compete in any international market. >This would as I am sure you are aware of not just need unanimity but a change to the treaties or at least a new treaty.
I already mentioned ENHANCED COOPERATION. And you are the one with a law background, and I don't read your comments? EC is already okayed for defence matters since Lisbon, that's why we have PESCO without unanimity. You could set up say a EU structure to handle aerial refueling/satellite comms/logistics tomorrow, as far as the Treaties go. There is no need for referendums, unanimity, all that mess.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
cont.
The second issue you then face is the willingness for the member states to give up defence and hand it over to the EU. This would as I am sure you are aware of not just need unanimity but a change to the treaties or at least a new treaty. This would take years of negotiations, nations getting their exceptions, carve outs ect. Then this compromise of a compromise would probably face several referendums and the end results would be encumbered by all the issues the EU faces now.
That you can’t even give a good answer as to how pay will be determined and recruitment handled. Shows just how complex this will all be. And while you are convinced the French will give up everything for the blue and yellow stars, good luck getting them to place their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems (air force and navy) under a commander form an other country.
For these and many more reasons it isn’t just simpler but better to leave defence as a member state competency that will further integrate via regional cooperation and NATO.
And this isn’t some EU hater's ramblings about "an EU army to oppress us" but the conclusion that the EU institutions have made. All the EU has done post invasion of Ukraine is try and co-ordinate the voluntary efforts of the member states and provided funding. There have been no calls for a EU army ect.
The EU it's self does not want an army
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
cont. >wants to make a EU army but make it multi speed >just not let the memberstates do multi speed in their own voluntary co-operation programs they have already >no make a new EU institution to do exactly what the member states are already doing for the sake of moving it to the EU
again subsidiarity principle
you ignore that berxit isn't a failure of the brits, had the EU worked as you believe it does as nothing but a force for good, no downsides, always perfect ect. Then the brits, the third largest member state, its second nuclear armed one and second seat on the UN security council, would never have even considered leaving. the smugness of people like you is what convinced a lot of brits to vote for leave. I'm sure they rue the day they did so but that doesn't absolved the EU in bungling things bad enough they even felt like the vote was in order.
I knew people back then that simply ignored the possibility of a brexit vote. people in the commission, the various institutions ect. They where laughing at it until it happened and then they paniced, no one, no one had planned fore a pro brexit vote. And you want to give our defense over to those people? people that know that a much tighter than expected election to some thing as fundamental as triggering art. 50 is coming up and don't plan out even the most basic of contingencies? >continental plates
yes and that continental drift speed until you have a crisis is ideal for keeping a military ready for war. In no way would this lead to a unprepared, underfunded, over bureaucratic mess until it get's smacked and then suddenly has to reinvent its self on the fly.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
cont.
>The industry is already integrating while the politicians are sleeping.
ah and here we can end the entire discussion. For the main premise of your argument has just so elegantly been swept out from under your feet by your own post.
How will European armies fix their hodgepodge of procurement? Industry consolidation.
So why would the EU get involved aside from giving industry a nudge. You don't need an EU army if the nations can handle it themselves, you can follow the subsidiarity principle. No once the suppliers have consolidated the already integrating EU armies that can already fight together in NATO can just be left under their own nations.
No need to cause a political fuss, no need to get all worked up, no need to rile people up or expose the European project to any referendums. I mean God forbid you want to move defence to the EU level and some off the countries hold referendums. Can you imagine how the Hungarians would vote?
just for funsies >Everything the EU does today would have been unthinkable 100 years ago. The euro would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. A common debt instrument unthinkable 10 years ago. I'm sure you see my point.
8 years ago, everyone was laughing at the coming Brexit vote, I mean they'd never vote to leave.
European integration isn't a one-way street. >I have a few French friends and I speak in English to them.
Yes but I speak French with them because it is the polite thing to do since I speak fluent French and they don't speak Dutch.
people do indeed surprise me, like how you got your degrees but still haven’t the faintest idea how the EU institutions actually work or how EU politics operate. Never do anything if you can do nothing.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
cont. >the EU is too slow >let's make it intergovernmental instead of supranational, now that's going to be speedy! >so let's put it in the supranational entity I have admitted is usually slow as frick and still takes months or weeks to do things in a crisis.
There is no entity you can put a EU army into that can act fast or integrate it without there being a EU state. And no member state is going to vote for that, no member states population is going to vote for that, no EP faction is going to vote for that.
And that is why increased regional cooperation and gradual military driving integration is the only way forward whether you like it or not. Because economygayging over "muh efficiency" >EU institutions >efficiency
lol that's a good one
is going to get you the votes for the massive legislative changes you are going to have to make.
And now I bid you goodnight, I have to get my train to Brussels for an other day of getting payed without paying taxes. Don't forget to vote and we'll have a chuckle over our long lunch at some homosexual on the internet that want to give the EU defense and then I'll translate it to my french friends and they can have a good laugh at them agreeing to make English the EU armies official language.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Which is good. Of course it will be a multi-speed solution.
and that's why it works.
These are co-operations being led and worked on by the nations armed forces. Let the soldier sort out how they are going to work together and once they have figured out how they want to do it and they get more comfortable to integrate more and with more countries provide a frame work for them to do so. But under no instance should it become a EU institution. Why? Because EU institutions and the people that work there don't share the same incentive structure and priorities as the armed forces.
If you do absolutely need to make a Europe wide instance for it, make it a parallel but outside of the EU like Euratom.
>national identity and sovereignty are non-negotiable
Of course they are. Just like the pre nation state entities that got merged into the nation states. You are stuck in a 18th century mass mobilization narrative.
slowly, with a lot of recommendations and input by as many soldiers as possible as well as lessons learnt from Ukraine
All compiled and studied by an Independent council of experts sourced from the respective countries just locked up in a castle until they can create a list of required systems and features
then begins a lengthy process where European companies (and foreign companies willing to join a joint venture with tech transfer and minority share) can pitch products and subsystems that will ultimately be merged by councils of different system specific experts to create a new generation of standardized equipment produced and maintained all over europe with an equal distribution that should make every country get a fair piece of the MIC pie
ultimately the challenge would be to keep experts neutral and countries content
Centralization and joint procurement. It's nuts how countries like the Baltic states all use different equipment when their defense policy, threats, geography and demographics are basically the same.
True, it makes sense for small countries to have.joined procurement, Belgium and the Netherlands are buying mines-sweepers together for instance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-class_mine_countermeasures_vessel
I wouldn't, there's nothing wrong with a entire continent having more weapons systems than a single country. What is wrong is comparing an entire country to a entire continent.
Also slide /misc/ thread. If talking about refineries getting bombed is /misc/ then so is this.
It’ll never happen and wouldn’t even be worth it because Europe is different from the USA but at least there could be more joint projects.
Many European countries have different interests and needs so they can’t all use the same but in most cases, any European country could find at least a few others who need a similar type of equipment. For example if a few southern countries developed a vehicle together because they all have relatively dry climates and a lot of hills and mountains.
So what are the other ten types of MBTs being used by Euros, or are they counting derivatives of the same model: Leopard 2, Leopard 2A1, Leopard 2A2, etc?
Well Albania uses T-55s
Belgium uses Leo 1's still for training
Greece has M60s and M48s
Poland uses M1's and K2's in addition to what's been listed
Romania has their own indigenous version of a T-55 that's pretty far removed from the original at this point
Turkey has the Altay whenever they ramp up production
Ukraine has a hodgepodge of almost everything including T-64s and T-80s
>Belgium uses Leo 1's still for training
only as driving trainers for their engineering variants
saying that Belgium still has Leo 1's as MBT is stretching the truth a whole lot
I spose logistically is bad for combined ops etc, but on the other side of the coin more varients/models etc is more experimentation and avenues which can be a good thing
You're never going to. Each (major) country has it's own domestic defence industry and they're going to protect it at the cost of capabilities if necessary. Only real solution is what the bongs have been doing, investing or outright purchasing foreign companies so that ultimately nothing they ever buy is too far removed from their domestic industry itself.
We are seeing great improvements on this front with the Leopard 2 becoming the main battle tank for most of Western Europe meanwhile Eastern Europe uses upgraded soviet models plus some Korean weapons systems.
Now if we could only get France and England to stop with their isolationism
I think that France has already stopped being "isolationist"(the never where isolationist they just want other to copy them/let them lead), but that is will take time to filter tough the systems they use.
The biggest tell is small arms procurement. If the French really wanted tough they could have spun up domestic production.
One problem they will have tough it their nuclear arms. They will need delivery platforms for their nukes and that will guide their development and procurement to diverge from the needs and wants of other non nuclear nations. It also makes them reluctant when it comes to relying on import for their delivery platforms.
The best option I believe would be to make a joined euro project for those systems but give the frogs the guarantee that they can get a nuclear capable variant with no one getting a string around their finger when they want to push the button. But that is easier said than done.
Develop new platforms together with full technology share and procurement/delivery priority based on monetary input. Exclude the UK from any cooperation. Force france and germany to make up and stop being morons with each other.
have an EU military and centralize production. what are you sliding with this /misc/ tier thread?
They don't want to do this because its a centuries old tradition for Europeans to want to kill each other. Can't do that with centralized arms production.
>its a centuries old tradition for Europeans to want to kill each other. Can't do that with centralized arms production
Sure you can. Greece and turkey basically share the same TOE of second hand american arms across all branches, and they are like one bad tweet away from genociding each other
Ive never understood their beef, is it still ottoman empire based? Balkan poltics is an area the american education system fails
It's a long chain of things happening through history. Ottomans conquering the bysantines lead to turks dominating greece for many centuries, until greece won her freedom in a series of bloody wars, leading to greece and turkey disagreeing on who owns what islands, leading to the turkish invasion of cyprus and the current political climate
>Balkan poltics is an area the american education system fails
We never mentioned the Balkans outside WW1 in my history classes
A EU military will be the end of any last semblance of soverneignity the EU member states have. Mark my words
One can only hope.
Oh no, the horror!
Let’s hope we get Draghi and not vdL.
national identity and sovereignty are non-negotiable
with the EU you get the humility of the French, the punctuality of the Italians, the work ethic of the Spanish and the flexibility of the Germans
for all the EU superstate fanboys, it's clear you've never been near a EU institution before let alone worked with one.
Going against the current treaties to shit defense to the EU wouldn't fix defense and create a military super power. All you'd do is exchange the fragmented procurement across the nations and trade it in for even bigger frick ups.
Enjoy figuring out how you are going to pay people from all over the EU when they become part of one army (place of recruitment? where they are based?), enjoy being stuck with ridged hiring quotas for every country while not being able to change wages, good luck getting any kind of rapid response out off the endless rounds of committees, have fun integrating all the different language speakers when they have the right to work in any of the 24 official EU languages (heck just doing everything in the 3 procedural ones is a drag), promotions locked to quotas and with a balancing act when you get to the higher ranks (yes, your army will be getting run by a b*lgian more than half the time)
A EU army would be the end point of EU integration far beyond what almost all EU citizens (and politicians) want, good luck getting there. Elections are in 42 days, good luck finding a pro EU party that isn't a bunch of gun grabbers.
>Enjoy figuring out how you are going to pay people from all over the EU when they become part of one army
How are people paid in other EU institutions, Europol or Frontex?
>(place of recruitment? where they are based?)
See above.
>good luck getting any kind of rapid response out off the endless rounds of committees
Of course you'd need a more integrated EU commanding structure. QMV and the like.
>have fun integrating all the different language speakers when they have the right to work in any of the 24 official EU languages
It would just work like NATO does.
>promotions locked to quotas and with a balancing act when you get to the higher ranks
???
Having an integrated procurement system would already solve like 80% of the problems European armies have.
There is no reason to believe that nation-states are the optimal level of integration for European countries, especially as we have blatantly seen their limitations for the past few decades.
>How are people paid in other EU institution
pay them several thousand euro tax free plus tons of compenation
>Europol
they keep their wage from their police force they where sent from plus a stipend
>frontex
recruits from the border nation they operate in ad use local wages
the issue is they there are massive wage disparities an you can't magic want them away without a) wages take up 3/4 or 4/5 of the budget
b) a pole being posted to france goes broke while getting payed
c) you can't move units or personnel to other countries because then their wages have to change
d) you still end up referencing local wages
>See above.
see above
>Of course you'd need a more integrated EU commanding structure
yes, structure that if made by the EU will be like the EU and the EU isn't fast at anything. Remember how proud they where on getting roaming chargers banned in other EU countries? That took them what 20 years since cellphones became common?
>It would just work like NATO does.
yes, the french will be trilled that they are going to have to do everything in english when the only english speaking countries are Ireland and Malta. They will honhonhon while they make English the offical army language.
>???
you just have no idea how the EU institutions don't you?
>There is no reason to believe that nation-states are the optimal level of integration for European countries, especially as we have blatantly seen their limitations for the past few decades.
no, but that doesn't make moving it to the European level a magical solution.
What is happening now is clusters of EU countries increasing military co-operation and restructuring their armies to work more closely together. There is a French Belgian unit, the Belgian and Dutch navy are integrated, there is a Danish German unit, the Visegrád armies do a lot of things together.
learn how the EU works and the subsidiarity principle first
>they keep their wage from their police force they where sent from plus a stipend
Sounds good to me. You get paid as much as a soldier in your country, and get more if you are posted somewhere with a higher CoL.
>and the EU isn't fast at anything
Because it's not integrated. A unified command structure would move more rapidly than having to tard wrangle 27 different states, which is itself more rapid than waiting for 27 national parliaments.
>yes, the french will be trilled that they are going to have to do everything in English
The French already work in NATO. And they are the ones pushing for an EU army right now.
EU working langues are based on how many Europeans can speak them anyway, English would be one of them even without a single member states with English as an official language.
>no, but that doesn't make moving it to the European level a magical solution.
Well it either stays the same, becomes more closely integrated or becomes less integrated, there aren't many choices. Do you think this
is good and can work in a century in which single Chinese cities have a higher population than several European countries put together?
>What is happening now is clusters of EU countries increasing military co-operation and restructuring their armies to work more closely together.
Which is good. Of course it will be a multi-speed solution. My point is that we should do much more and more quickly. PESCO, the EDF, the CSDP, they are all good things, but there is much more that can be done.
>learn how the EU works and the subsidiarity principle first
I have a master's degree in Economics with a specialisation in European studies. EU competencies can change if the member states are willing, and it's happened quite frequently in the past few years. I'd just like for them to do it *before* the next crisis, not afterwards when the member states once again realise they can do shit on their own.
frick off europhile homosexual. the eu is undemocratic and no one feels represented by whatever those losers are doing up there. national parliaments and also national armies is where its at. all military cooperation can go through nato, we already have shared standards and having different designs for different requirements is not a bad thing at all. go suck eu dick on reddit Black person
You're going to like the next 20 years.
>You get paid as much as a soldier in your country, and get more if you are posted somewhere with a higher CoL.
you now have any army full off eastern euros trying to win it big on the basing lottery.
>Because it's not integrated
>The only supra-national entity on earth
and how are you going to fully integrate the only supra-national army in the world any better then?
>language
you did not address going angle without the anglos in the EU.
>China
we are not going to be fighting china. If there was a war with the chinks half the EP has to be locked up for treason for taking chink money. The EU doesn't work on what is best but on what they can agree on and the process to get people to agree takes several years, a lot of haggling across countries, political factions and lobby groups.
>My point is that we should do much more and more quickly
yes, but you simply ignore me every time I bring up that the EU works slow. It is slow by design. It is not a bug, it is a feature. You can't get everyone to agree to the compromise of the compromise of the compromise if you do things fast.
>economics
great go get a law degree next because it's not the economists that run the EU but us lawgays
>I'd just like for them to do it *before* the next crisis, not afterwards when the member states once again realise they can do shit on their own.
that's nice, but they never do, you live in a lala dream land if you think they ever will.
I've worked in the EP, I know people that work in just about every EU institution. If you think that the EU running defense is going to fix it you are just moronic. When the Eu fixes something it breaks two other things.
You mandate nature restoration and you frick with agriculture, you try to fix the budgets you frick with green investment and global competitiveness, you try to mandate immigrant spread and you get fricking TUSK to appose it.
you are just as stupid as him
>you now have any army full off eastern euros trying to win it big on the basing lottery.
And that's a bad thing? Eastern euros are motivated, and you'd get plenty or recruits in times when it's hard to fill recruitment quotas.
>and how are you going to fully integrate the only supra-national army in the world any better then?
For example by requiring only QMV for a rapid reaction force instead of having 27 vetos, for starters.
>you did not address going angle without the anglos in the EU.
Soldiers already have to know basic English to be in NATO, don't they? It's a non-issue. Most young people in the EU are bilingual or even trilingual.
>we are not going to be fighting china
That's not the point. It's economies of scale.
>It is slow by design
It passed the Ukraine aid bill faster than the Americans. It launched Coronabonds in a few months. It can deploy firefighters and satellites aid through RescEU in a few hours. Of course, having to get 27 leaders to agree in an emergency won't work, and that's my point.
>the EU is too slow
>let's make it intergovernmental instead of supranational, now that's going to be speedy!
Lol. Imagine if we had to get 27 leaders to agree to start a trade investigation through IPI like last morning, or any other field in which the EU has exclusive competency. Thank god those areas are handled by the EU alone otherwise nothing would ever be done.
Imagine if the EU had voted for Ukrainian aid through QMV instead of having to wait for Orban to move his butt. It would have been passed within a month.
>And that's a bad thing?
you are going to get a army that is going to bevy disproportional and the EU doesn't like disproportional things because the countries always want their backs scratched. So you are going to get quota systems where every nation gets x of rank y with certain margins on it. Like just about every EU institution is now. And then the Eastern euros are going to try and get into other countries quotas. This will cause no end of bickering, friction and internal problems.
imagine being a Romanian soldier in the same army, same branch, same corp, same division, same regiment next to your French friend who's earning over twice for the same work and risk.
>For example by requiring only QMV for a rapid reaction force instead of having 27 vetos, for starters.
so you do not address that problem with the existing supra national entity being slow, but simply try to tinker with it so it becomes a bit less slow.
>It's a non-issue
to the highly educated, yes.
it might hurt some feelings sure but if the pay is right.
But em a lot of grunts, not masters or even bachelors material, heck happy to have finished high school a quarter of the time.
And then you have the French now being the biggest army going into it, without any anglos in it and you expect them not to push for French?
>That's not the point. It's economies of scale.
economies of scale against whom for what?
russia is currently gimping it's self, the Americans are our allies (thank god for that) and china is half the world away without power projection. What do we need a unified command for, the moroccans trying to take the canary islands and the Spanish exclaves? The Turks getting feisty in the aegean? Or a second hundreds year war?
>exceptions
there is an saying in Dutch, "the exception only serves to prove the rule" when faced with a sufficiently big crisis the EU will act a lot quicker but only in comparison to it's usual lethargy.
cont.
>and the EU doesn't like disproportional things because the countries always want their backs scratched
Not necessarily. I doubt the makeup of say Frontex is the same as that of the civil servants at the Commission.
>imagine being a Romanian soldier in the same army, same branch, same corp, same division, same regiment next to your French friend who's earning over twice for the same work and risk.
So imagine NATO? Doesn't seem to be a problem today.
>but simply try to tinker with it so it becomes a bit less slow.
Yeah? The point is to improve it, and QMV is vastly faster.
>and you expect them not to push for French?
I expect them to b***h like they always do and then speak English. Grunts are not going to be discussing Shakespeare, the very basic level of English they have to learn already due to NATO will be more than enough.
>economies of scale against whom for what?
Against everyone else. Or you think the current model of producing 100 or so fighters with extremely high costs per unit will be a winning move when you're trying to sell them to third countries? The industry is already integrating while the politicians are sleeping.
>What do we need a unified command for,
Dunno. The world is so safe and stable lately, I'm sure nothing will happen.
>And no member state is going to vote for that, no member states population is going to vote for that, no EP faction is going to vote for that.
Everything the EU does today would have been unthinkable 100 years ago. The euro would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. A common debt instrument unthinkable 10 years ago. I'm sure you see my point.
>I'll translate it to my french friends
I have a few French friends and I speak in English to them. Macron speaks a perfect German too, but likes to fake a heavy French accent 😉 people can surprise you.
>Not necessarily. I doubt the makeup of say Frontex is the same as that of the civil servants at the Commission.
yes, because as I have stated in
the bulk off fortex personnel gets recruited and stays in the border country the live in. If you want to have the same system be my guest but now you have a military where units are stuck in on the bit of land they where raised on, you know like now.
The commission staff is on the other hand a constant game of balance to make sure everyone is represented at about their countries part of the total population with an exception for belgians. A great model for a integrated army
>So imagine NATO? Doesn't seem to be a problem today
ah yes, but they are part of the Romanian and the French army. Not the EU army. Romanian army, French army gets you Romanian and French wages. A EU army gets you EU wages and we are back at square one, how do you determine those EU wages without being unfair to any region or country while also not costing so much as to eat up most of your budget
>Yeah? The point is to improve it, and QMV is vastly faster.
Yes QMV is always going to be faster but that doesn't make it fast. A few weeks isn't fast heck a few days isn't fast. The only logical conclusion would be to give to the president of the council or the the president of the commission. both of them aren't elected by the citizens or the direct product of any election, take a lot of haggling to appoint, are currently having a bit of a b***h fight to become "the face" of the EU and frankly most Eu citizens don't even know them or what post they have/what they do.
>I expect them to b***h like they always do
bitch, b***h and b***h then get their exceptions, a few extra senior positions and the funding to flow just that bit more in their favor.
>the very basic level of English they have to learn already due to NATO will be more than enough
some of them don't learn the basic level english that NATO requires
>a constant game of balance to make sure everyone is represented at about their countries part of the total population with an exception for belgians
Is it? I remember Eastern Euros and other recent joiners complaining they weren't very represented compared to their population.
>ah yes, but they are part of the Romanian and the French army.
They do the same job and risk the same, within NATO, within the EU, on their own... your example is meaningless. There are regions within the same country with very different CoL, I doubt it's a huge problem for national armies.
>A few weeks isn't fast heck a few days isn't fast.
It depends on what kind of war we are talking about. Going from a year to a few days, or whatever it takes for an emergency Council meeting would already be a pretty nice improvement.
>So why would the EU get involved aside from giving industry a nudge.
A nudge is good enough, but why stop there? Would a nudge be enough to handle a GNSS constellation for example? If it were the EU wouldn't be managing Galileo.
>You don't need an EU army if the nations can handle it themselves
Can they? There is probably only one EU nation that can realistically deploy overseas in a meaningful capacity, and yet all together they spend more than China. Where is the money going?
>Can you imagine how the Hungarians would vote?
I mentioned multi-speed in my very first comment. If they don't like it they don't have to participate, and we can just go ahead thanks to enhanced cooperation.
>veryone was laughing at the coming Brexit vote
Rightly so given the results lol.
>European integration isn't a one-way street.
Brexit only accelerated European integration though.
>or how EU politics operate
EU politics operate much like continental plates. Nothing seems to move for decades as pressure builds up, and then an earthquake happens and in a few years we get common debt instruments, a rapid reaction force and Frontex.
you just completely ignore that your argument has been swept from under you. So you can be pedantic and try to score some "points".
By you have your self stated that industry is merging thus solving the question asked by this tread and the "need" for shifting defense to the EU level.
That is why econ gays always lose the debate, you can read numbers but don't have the faintest idea when it comes to making an argument.
We can keep this up for a week.
Every time I bring up a major flaw you go "but what about y" ignoring the argument ang getting into smaller and smaller details ceding that yes you can not counter my argument.
You've for instance simply chosen to ignore the first option of the first point. And then not even address the issue with the second option but try to score "a point" by bringing up a known problem with the second option: countries are very protective of their part of the staff quotas leading to friction between older and newer member states. This isn't a "got you" argument this is you admitting to the problem with the current way things are done without offering a for off improvement meaning that if defense was to become a EU competency, the same problem would just be repeated.
With the second point you ignore the problem of setting wages that are acceptable across the EU, you are a econgay this should be your thing ffs.
third point, ignores the subsidiarity principle, do nothing more than you have to. if industry is already merging than there is no need to do more. We have Galileo because it can not be done by one member state or a group of them so it was handed over to the EU (and to keep the french happy by giving french guiana more money).
>third point has already been addressed in my previous post, where would an EU army have to go and fight and against whom? a question you just ignored by going "well uncertain times". If we don't need power projection then that isn't an issue.
>swept from under you
It wasn't. One thing is industrial integration (good, necessary) another thing is making it work (joint procurement, joint deployment).
>We have Galileo because it can not be done by one member state or a group of them so it was handed over to the EU
Exactly my point.
> is what convinced a lot of brits to vote for leave
What convinced the Brits to leave were clever ads, dissatisfaction with their political class and a red bus. I can assure you maybe 0,1% of the people who voted for Brexit knew what the subsidiarity principle is or cared about the difference between QMV and unanimity voting or whatever.
>no one had planned fore a pro brexit vote
False. Juncker himself said to Cameron that if it were to go for a referendum Brexit was going to win, there's a fairly famous article about it.
>and don't plan out even the most basic of contingencies?
Who, the Brits lol? It wasn't the EU who asked to delay Brexit several times or has still not implemented proper border checks. They didn't intervene during the debate (rightly so), and then started negotiating as the Brits tried to decide what kind of Brexit they wanted to have.
>yes and that continental drift speed until you have a crisis is ideal for keeping a military ready for war.
That's why we should prepare ahead of time and not after the next crisis, once the member states realise once again they can't do it on their own, as I said in my first comments. Thankfully the Russian invasion is looking like a wake-up call
you have once again ignored half the points I have made. I assume you now agree with me that recruitment, wages and control of the army are issues that can't be managed by the normal way the EU does things.
But there is no further use in going one as you are clearly arguing in bad faith.
For instance, you just ignore the first part of this argument
> ignores the subsidiarity principle, do nothing more than you have to. if industry is already merging than there is no need to do more. We have Galileo because it can not be done by one member state or a group of them so it was handed over to the EU (and to keep the french happy by giving french guiana more money).
The first part that is however the important part, the subsidiarity principle.
All the rest of this discussion is irrelevant as you should know having "a master's degree in Economics with a specialisation in European studies" that defence will not become an EU competency unless the member states are not able to manage defence on their own and they then chose to shift the competency to the EU.
First you would have to show the need for this to happen. In this regard you’ve only undermined your argument by pointing out that the MIC in Europe is already merging.
China isn’t an argument because china isn’t a military threat to the EU or it’s member state, frankly bringing up china makes about as much sense as saying we have to plan for a war with the US, it is grasping at straw now that Russia can no longer be propped up as an existential treat that would need a combined EU military led response and that is only if you ignore NATO entirely.
>joined development
follows from further merging industry.
But joined development is already the norm, just not 1 development program.
>joined procurement
is already being done by member states on a voluntary basis so once gain subsidiarity principle => no need for the EU to get involved.
>you have once again ignored half the points I have made
I want to keep my comments in under one post and I don't have to time to write down 5000 words for a PrepHole comment. No, I haven't agreed. An army wouldn't be unique compared to Frontex and other EU agencies, and I would even be ok with a small RRF, where salaries would be negligible. I'm not necessarily talking about a millions-strong army.
>that defence will not become an EU competency
It's already a shared competency thanks to Lisbon. Are you saying that PESCO, the EDF etc. are all illegal? There is currently nothing stopping the EU from having its own soldiers, which is why the aforementioned RRF is already in the works.
>First you would have to show the need for this to happen
The point is to get ready *before* there is a need. You don't want to have to set up a new army in the middle of a war, obviously. Having a force able to deploy quickly somewhere in the world to defend shared EU interests (evacuating personnel from Afghanistan, defending trade routes, etc.) would already be useful. And I'm bringing up China because they spend on defence about as much as the various member states do, but they obviously get a much better bang for their buck. It's pathetic really what the member states have with all the money they spent. Oh nice, >muh sovereignty tank build in 150 units, now it costs as much as a stealth fighter per unit and can't compete in any international market.
>This would as I am sure you are aware of not just need unanimity but a change to the treaties or at least a new treaty.
I already mentioned ENHANCED COOPERATION. And you are the one with a law background, and I don't read your comments? EC is already okayed for defence matters since Lisbon, that's why we have PESCO without unanimity. You could set up say a EU structure to handle aerial refueling/satellite comms/logistics tomorrow, as far as the Treaties go. There is no need for referendums, unanimity, all that mess.
cont.
The second issue you then face is the willingness for the member states to give up defence and hand it over to the EU. This would as I am sure you are aware of not just need unanimity but a change to the treaties or at least a new treaty. This would take years of negotiations, nations getting their exceptions, carve outs ect. Then this compromise of a compromise would probably face several referendums and the end results would be encumbered by all the issues the EU faces now.
That you can’t even give a good answer as to how pay will be determined and recruitment handled. Shows just how complex this will all be. And while you are convinced the French will give up everything for the blue and yellow stars, good luck getting them to place their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems (air force and navy) under a commander form an other country.
For these and many more reasons it isn’t just simpler but better to leave defence as a member state competency that will further integrate via regional cooperation and NATO.
And this isn’t some EU hater's ramblings about "an EU army to oppress us" but the conclusion that the EU institutions have made. All the EU has done post invasion of Ukraine is try and co-ordinate the voluntary efforts of the member states and provided funding. There have been no calls for a EU army ect.
The EU it's self does not want an army
cont.
>wants to make a EU army but make it multi speed
>just not let the memberstates do multi speed in their own voluntary co-operation programs they have already
>no make a new EU institution to do exactly what the member states are already doing for the sake of moving it to the EU
again subsidiarity principle
you ignore that berxit isn't a failure of the brits, had the EU worked as you believe it does as nothing but a force for good, no downsides, always perfect ect. Then the brits, the third largest member state, its second nuclear armed one and second seat on the UN security council, would never have even considered leaving. the smugness of people like you is what convinced a lot of brits to vote for leave. I'm sure they rue the day they did so but that doesn't absolved the EU in bungling things bad enough they even felt like the vote was in order.
I knew people back then that simply ignored the possibility of a brexit vote. people in the commission, the various institutions ect. They where laughing at it until it happened and then they paniced, no one, no one had planned fore a pro brexit vote. And you want to give our defense over to those people? people that know that a much tighter than expected election to some thing as fundamental as triggering art. 50 is coming up and don't plan out even the most basic of contingencies?
>continental plates
yes and that continental drift speed until you have a crisis is ideal for keeping a military ready for war. In no way would this lead to a unprepared, underfunded, over bureaucratic mess until it get's smacked and then suddenly has to reinvent its self on the fly.
cont.
>The industry is already integrating while the politicians are sleeping.
ah and here we can end the entire discussion. For the main premise of your argument has just so elegantly been swept out from under your feet by your own post.
How will European armies fix their hodgepodge of procurement? Industry consolidation.
So why would the EU get involved aside from giving industry a nudge. You don't need an EU army if the nations can handle it themselves, you can follow the subsidiarity principle. No once the suppliers have consolidated the already integrating EU armies that can already fight together in NATO can just be left under their own nations.
No need to cause a political fuss, no need to get all worked up, no need to rile people up or expose the European project to any referendums. I mean God forbid you want to move defence to the EU level and some off the countries hold referendums. Can you imagine how the Hungarians would vote?
just for funsies
>Everything the EU does today would have been unthinkable 100 years ago. The euro would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. A common debt instrument unthinkable 10 years ago. I'm sure you see my point.
8 years ago, everyone was laughing at the coming Brexit vote, I mean they'd never vote to leave.
European integration isn't a one-way street.
>I have a few French friends and I speak in English to them.
Yes but I speak French with them because it is the polite thing to do since I speak fluent French and they don't speak Dutch.
people do indeed surprise me, like how you got your degrees but still haven’t the faintest idea how the EU institutions actually work or how EU politics operate. Never do anything if you can do nothing.
cont.
>the EU is too slow
>let's make it intergovernmental instead of supranational, now that's going to be speedy!
>so let's put it in the supranational entity I have admitted is usually slow as frick and still takes months or weeks to do things in a crisis.
There is no entity you can put a EU army into that can act fast or integrate it without there being a EU state. And no member state is going to vote for that, no member states population is going to vote for that, no EP faction is going to vote for that.
And that is why increased regional cooperation and gradual military driving integration is the only way forward whether you like it or not. Because economygayging over "muh efficiency"
>EU institutions
>efficiency
lol that's a good one
is going to get you the votes for the massive legislative changes you are going to have to make.
And now I bid you goodnight, I have to get my train to Brussels for an other day of getting payed without paying taxes. Don't forget to vote and we'll have a chuckle over our long lunch at some homosexual on the internet that want to give the EU defense and then I'll translate it to my french friends and they can have a good laugh at them agreeing to make English the EU armies official language.
>Which is good. Of course it will be a multi-speed solution.
and that's why it works.
These are co-operations being led and worked on by the nations armed forces. Let the soldier sort out how they are going to work together and once they have figured out how they want to do it and they get more comfortable to integrate more and with more countries provide a frame work for them to do so. But under no instance should it become a EU institution. Why? Because EU institutions and the people that work there don't share the same incentive structure and priorities as the armed forces.
If you do absolutely need to make a Europe wide instance for it, make it a parallel but outside of the EU like Euratom.
>national identity and sovereignty are non-negotiable
Of course they are. Just like the pre nation state entities that got merged into the nation states. You are stuck in a 18th century mass mobilization narrative.
Europe’s got, like, 28 times more countries than the US, and they’re all doing their own thing with budgets, land, industries, and stuff.
You don't need to, STANAG applies to all NATO forces and the Nords and Swedes have been hitting the criteria for decades too.
It should be encouraged as it breeds innovation and risk offset of any one system having a systemic fault.
But didn't Ukraine say at the start of aid that french 155mm shells did not fit into not french guns without modifications?
>Fr*nch
Why am I not surprised
Finnish 155mm doesn't fit into normal guns and need to be shaved manually
No moron, the issue lies with 105mm rounds used by low-recoil AMX-10RC guns, which are exclusive to this platform.
doesn't need fixing, frick off with your eu glowop shit that you keep pushing
>european integration is le bad
Ok, Ivan.
>iedereen die tegen EU superstaat is is een rus
Mooi geprobeerd verhofstad. Maar ik blijf toch tegen je gevel pissen
>durr it's so much better for everyone to build 59 indigenous tanks and then destroy the production line!
Weet ik
>ik blijf toch tegen je gevel pissen
tja. Als je moet, dan moet je.
slowly, with a lot of recommendations and input by as many soldiers as possible as well as lessons learnt from Ukraine
All compiled and studied by an Independent council of experts sourced from the respective countries just locked up in a castle until they can create a list of required systems and features
then begins a lengthy process where European companies (and foreign companies willing to join a joint venture with tech transfer and minority share) can pitch products and subsystems that will ultimately be merged by councils of different system specific experts to create a new generation of standardized equipment produced and maintained all over europe with an equal distribution that should make every country get a fair piece of the MIC pie
ultimately the challenge would be to keep experts neutral and countries content
Centralization and joint procurement. It's nuts how countries like the Baltic states all use different equipment when their defense policy, threats, geography and demographics are basically the same.
You don't
True, it makes sense for small countries to have.joined procurement, Belgium and the Netherlands are buying mines-sweepers together for instance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-class_mine_countermeasures_vessel
>Why does one country have less weapon diversity than many countries
I wouldn't.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_agreement
Most of the ammo calibers are standardized, no?
US sends darkies back to Africa, import Euros!
the us only has 2 attack helicopters? that's embarrassing
What fricking nonsense.
I wouldn't, there's nothing wrong with a entire continent having more weapons systems than a single country. What is wrong is comparing an entire country to a entire continent.
Also slide /misc/ thread. If talking about refineries getting bombed is /misc/ then so is this.
It’ll never happen and wouldn’t even be worth it because Europe is different from the USA but at least there could be more joint projects.
Many European countries have different interests and needs so they can’t all use the same but in most cases, any European country could find at least a few others who need a similar type of equipment. For example if a few southern countries developed a vehicle together because they all have relatively dry climates and a lot of hills and mountains.
> US = 1 MBT (Abrams)
> Europe = 15 MBT
That doesn't sound right, unless they're counting ancient Euro tanks rusting away in some museum?
types of tanks
not numbers
Leo 2
Challenger 2
LeClerc
Ariete
T-72
etc, etc, etc
vs
M1
>types of tanks
>not numbers
Yes, I understand that.
>etc, etc, etc
So what are the other ten types of MBTs being used by Euros, or are they counting derivatives of the same model: Leopard 2, Leopard 2A1, Leopard 2A2, etc?
assuming the article is talking about european nato countries:
>Leo 2
>Challenger 2
>LeClerc
>Ariete
>T-72
>T-55
>PT-91
>K2
>M1
>M84
>Leo 1
>M60
>M48
>TR58
>TR85
Well Albania uses T-55s
Belgium uses Leo 1's still for training
Greece has M60s and M48s
Poland uses M1's and K2's in addition to what's been listed
Romania has their own indigenous version of a T-55 that's pretty far removed from the original at this point
Turkey has the Altay whenever they ramp up production
Ukraine has a hodgepodge of almost everything including T-64s and T-80s
So there's 10 more types
>Belgium uses Leo 1's still for training
only as driving trainers for their engineering variants
saying that Belgium still has Leo 1's as MBT is stretching the truth a whole lot
Okay then the number is 14 instead of 15 if you want to go that route.
But then Greece and Turkey still operate Leo 1s, so the number is back to 15.
Leopard 2
Leclerc
Ariete
Leopard 1
M48
M60
T-55
TR-85
M1 Abrams
T-72
K2
Stridsvagn 122
Stridsvagn 123
Probably some others but that's all the larger european nations
Stridsvagn 122 (and 123) is Leopard 2
I spose logistically is bad for combined ops etc, but on the other side of the coin more varients/models etc is more experimentation and avenues which can be a good thing
You're never going to. Each (major) country has it's own domestic defence industry and they're going to protect it at the cost of capabilities if necessary. Only real solution is what the bongs have been doing, investing or outright purchasing foreign companies so that ultimately nothing they ever buy is too far removed from their domestic industry itself.
We are seeing great improvements on this front with the Leopard 2 becoming the main battle tank for most of Western Europe meanwhile Eastern Europe uses upgraded soviet models plus some Korean weapons systems.
Now if we could only get France and England to stop with their isolationism
I think that France has already stopped being "isolationist"(the never where isolationist they just want other to copy them/let them lead), but that is will take time to filter tough the systems they use.
The biggest tell is small arms procurement. If the French really wanted tough they could have spun up domestic production.
One problem they will have tough it their nuclear arms. They will need delivery platforms for their nukes and that will guide their development and procurement to diverge from the needs and wants of other non nuclear nations. It also makes them reluctant when it comes to relying on import for their delivery platforms.
The best option I believe would be to make a joined euro project for those systems but give the frogs the guarantee that they can get a nuclear capable variant with no one getting a string around their finger when they want to push the button. But that is easier said than done.
Develop new platforms together with full technology share and procurement/delivery priority based on monetary input. Exclude the UK from any cooperation. Force france and germany to make up and stop being morons with each other.
I thought diversity was good thoughever?