Eu head wants an EU army

For me, that is the whole point of this discussion. A war actually in Europe, yet the US was still needed. Here we are, 25 years later and I doubt ‘Europe’ let alone the EU could do it alone

Always is. The media need to feed the people who then raise the questions.
I'm an Atlanticist, too. I was merely pointing out that practical research on the ground by the US was occurring in 1993.

An EU Army remains a pipe-dream at the moment. Increased cooperation is obviously to be taken for granted and that was enforced today.
 
For me, that is the whole point of this discussion. A war actually in Europe, yet the US was still needed. Here we are, 25 years later and I doubt ‘Europe’ let alone the EU could do it alone

Always is. The media need to feed the people who then raise the questions.
And that is somes argument for an EU army

I don’t necessarily agree with it but that is the argument
 
And that is somes argument for an EU army

I don’t necessarily agree with it but that is the argument
They couldn’t do it now (happy to be corrected), they couldn’t do it 25 years ago. If a member state votes against deployment of the ‘EU Army’ they can’t do it in the future. It’s a ‘none starter’ imo until the EU is a federal state and member states lose their individual will.
 
People keep saying its a non starter, won't happen etc etc, I tend to agree with the logic of that argument. But this is politics and if the EU wants an army it will have one.

The interesting question, is many people assume it will be based on existing designs with plug in forces from national militaries, I'm not so sure.. If all the member states, say contributed half their current expenditure to an effectively expanded Foreign Legion type entity, with an Air Corp based on the US Marines. Then its perfectly possible that force could be turned into a political army, far more capable than individual national militaries, garrisoned in France/Germany, or eastern europe where there is room to train.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Time now for some of you clever chaps to come up with a design for an EU Army recruiting poster.
 
People keep saying its a non starter, won't happen etc etc, I tend to agree with the logic of that argument. But this is politics and if the EU wants an army it will have one.
Which comes down to who pays for it and if they can't even step up to the crease on a NATO 2%, how are they going to get member states to pony up?
The interesting question, is many people assume it will be based on existing designs with plug in forces from national militaries, I'm not so sure.. If all the member states, say contributed half their current expenditure to an effectively expanded Foreign Legion type entity, with an Air Corp based on the US Marines. Then its perfectly possible that force could be turned into a political army, far more capable than individual national militaries, garrisoned in France/Germany, or eastern europe where there is room to train.
Why should Germany for example pony up 0.6% (going to 0.8%) with, Ireland on 0.15%, Luxembourg on 0.45% for an armed forces that they don't control? Or of they do control, how does Ireland, Austria and the other neutrals square away their neutrality if their money and troops is being spent on an offensive Op they disagree with?

Unless everyone agrees on a baseline expenditure for EU defence, you're still going to get people raising obvious questions as to why they're not stepping up to the crease. That then means 'direct debit' or equivalent from members GDP. I'm sure that will go down well.

The nearest you have to it is Luxembourg's defence spending going on AWACS for NATO.
 
Time now for some of you clever chaps to come up with a design for an EU Army recruiting poster.
As above, there's some already in existence, as well as others a bit older:
 
They couldn’t do it now (happy to be corrected), they couldn’t do it 25 years ago. If a member state votes against deployment of the ‘EU Army’ they can’t do it in the future. It’s a ‘none starter’ imo until the EU is a federal state and member states lose their individual will.
not really. The EU just says that members can't veto EU armed forces deployments... Little cuts.
 
An EU army could be achievable without the express approval of the MS.

Recruit volunteers from the member states, lured mainly from the East by wages far in excess of those at home, paid for by a reduction in the financial hand outs from the EU.

The MS couldn't complain that their youth had followed the money instead of joining their domestic forces, or object to the cost of the venture, as the MS would still be net recipients of EU largesse.

The EU army would be a structure bought and paid for by the EU, with T&Cs agreed by the volunteers that they'd be deployable as and when the EU see fit, regardless of their native governments view on foreign policy, defence etc.

The big win for the EU is the ready availability of cheap cannon fodder to spend without losing political capital in the parts of Europe that really matter.

All in all, it's not too dissimilar to the model currently favoured by commerce and industry in the West, bring in people on the cheap to do the shit you're own folk can't or won't do for the price you're willing to pay.
 
But this is politics and if the EU wants an army it will have one.
The EU may well be able to politicaly create an EU army...it’s effectiveness regretfully will remain questionable, and probably a bit lopsided.

Mercs without a long history and sense of family and ethos of success/pride/esprit de corps as the French Foreign Legion undoubtedly has, will probably remain less committed/effective than national armies.
 
The EU may well be able to politicaly create an EU army...it’s effectiveness regretfully will remain questionable, and probably a bit lopsided.
That is the bit that doesn't make sense and makes me think the EU would like to actually create something smaller and more competent, drawing the better recruits from the national armies as well as direct recruiting...

Take the Foreign Legion, its discipline and esprit de corp and multiply it by say ten times and you have a much more capable and dangerous force, which few national army could cope with.
 
That is the bit that doesn't make sense and makes me think the EU would like to actually create something smaller and more competent, drawing the better recruits from the national armies as well as direct recruiting...
Which costs money, which is paid for by who? There's a difference between having a Comd element and even 'EUFOR' to having an Army
Take the Foreign Legion, its discipline and esprit de corp and multiply it by say ten times and you have a much more capable and dangerous force, which few national army could cope with.
You could also end up with something like the Spanish Foreign Legion.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top