A European Army ?

[agricola]

In theory, if europe clubbed together for defence, economies of scale would mean reduced overall spending on defence, wouldn't it? And that's a good thing. Leaves more for hospitals schools welfare and those other good things.

It would, but I fear that the whole way the EU is organized and run would probably mitigate against any savings, and the whole affair would be turned into a national shouting match between defence contractors / their governments - as happened during the efforts to standardize the NATO rifle round (especially the 7.62) .

The best that could probably be hoped for under the current system is to identify what requirements would be pan-European, have a tendering process and then dole out the manufacturing of such items to each of the defence companies.

 

[Rogue Element]

It might also worry the Americans too. A European military would mean Europe is less dependent on America's NATO forces and so would undertake a more independent, and possibly contrary foreign policy to America's interests.

I doubt that would be the case - barring the last 8 years, it seems mostly American and European foreign policy interests have aligned, but there would always be that nagging possibility, which could introduce even more distrust into current transatlantic relationships.

I also don't really see a need. While it could possibly boost numbers for humanitarian peacekeeping, with the UNSC paralyzed as it normally is the political will to use such troops might not be there. And while a lot has been made of Russia's resurgence and in particular their worries about the NATO Missile System in central Europe, they're soon going to be looking east and south. China is becoming less stable, Japan is becoming more likely to start rebuilding an offensive military force, India is becoming more assertive and the USA is seeking to keep its role as the only Great Power in the region. North Asia is what will worry them, especially with Russia's low population density and the distance from Moscow that Asian Russia has.

 

[gorski]

http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/treaty-lisbon/article-163412

http://www.euractiv.com/en/security

http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/eu-treaty-impact-defence-policy-remains-unclear/article-170256

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth97_en.htm

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16614

http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/eu_army.htm

Different flavours to the broth...

 

[CyberRose]

I also don't really see a need. While it could possibly boost numbers for humanitarian peacekeeping, with the UNSC paralyzed as it normally is the political will to use such troops might not be there.

Well to be fair it's only paralysed on issues that affect areas close to the hearts of the Security Council members. Places where they don't give two shits about, like central Africa, then they can agree something needs to be done, it's just the flip side to that is none of them actually want to do anything about it themselves. Like I said, this issue isn't a new one (it's just because some Polish MEP made some "controversial" comment). The EU's military command and other ESDP have already taken part in a number of operations (some civilian, some military):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_European_Union

The concern is that we don't face another Rwandan crisis where the UN agrees to send in peacekeepers, but the only countries to volunteer are massively understaffed and incapable of mounting successful military operations. The EU should, between its members, have enough resources to club together to volunteer to mount UN missions successfully - what the EU is creating is a way to blend these forces together just like what happens under NATO missions, rather than having 20+ separate militaries all doin their own thing and undermining each other

 

[clint999]

Good food, girls are good in bed. What's to complain about?

 

[goneforlunch]

Either way, your first post on the thread suggested you were confused as to what exactly the EU is doing (indeed, has already done). Anybody that uses the phrase "EU army" either doesn't understand what ESDP is, or they're trying to portray a negative image of the EU ordering around our armed forces...

Angela Merkel is a supporter of the plan for an EU army. "We need to get closer to a common army for Europe," she says. Sarkozy also seems to like the idea.

And wasn't Commission president, Romano Prodi, who told The Independent, "When I was talking about the European Army, I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European Army, don't call it a European Army. You can call it 'Margaret', you can call it 'Mary-Ann', you can find any name, but it is still a joint, not bilateral, effort at European level" back in 2000?

Perhaps you should put Merkel, Sarkozy and Prodi straight. They seem "confused" too!

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2415318,00.html

 

[CyberRose]

Angela Merkel is a supporter of the plan for an EU army. "We need to get closer to a common army for Europe," she says. Sarkozy also seems to like the idea.

And wasn't Commission president, Romano Prodi, who told The Independent, "When I was talking about the European Army, I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European Army, don't call it a European Army. You can call it 'Margaret', you can call it 'Mary-Ann', you can find any name, but it is still a joint, not bilateral, effort at European level" back in 2000?

Perhaps you should put Merkel, Sarkozy and Prodi straight. They seem "confused" too!

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2415318,00.html

Does NATO have an army?

 

[goneforlunch]

Does NATO have an army?

I'm sure you know very well NATO does not have an army. What's your point?

 

[CyberRose]

I'm sure you know very well NATO does not have an army. What's your point?

Then if what the EU is trying to create is identical to the set-up over at NATO then how can you say the EU will have an army?

If you could stretch the definition of an army to cover what NATO has, then fair enough you could make the point that what the EU is trying to create is also an "army". You'd be wrong like, but you know NATO doesn't have an army so I'm not sure how you can make the jump to say the EU will have an army?

 

[goneforlunch]

Eh? Did you read what Angela Merkel said? I can say the EU is planning an EU army because she and other European politicians have said exactly that, but you can call it Mary-Ann or Margaret if you like.

Comparing the EU's planned Army with NATO forces is plain silly. The two organisations are very different.

 

[CyberRose]

Eh? Did you read what Angela Merkel said? I can say the EU is planning an EU army because she and other European politicians have said exactly that, but you can call it Mary-Ann or Margaret if you like.

Comparing the EU's planned Army with NATO forces is plain silly. The two organisations are very different.

Go on then, how are they different? Perhaps you'd like to explain?

 

[goneforlunch]

You're joking, I hope.

 

[CyberRose]

You're joking, I hope.

Well according to you, European leaders have agreed to create an EU army, like an army that belongs to a state. If that's true, I'm sure there will be detailed plans available that can tell me exactly how this "army" will be compared to NATO. So perhaps you could show me these plans? Or give me more information on the EU army?

 

[goneforlunch]

Why must there be "detailed plans" available? The plan has barely moved off the wish list yet and it may never do so. For more information, why not ask Angela Merkel who said the EU should have a common army? Or wait for Nicolas Sarkozy to tells us more, France soon to be holders of the rotating EU presidency (though the Irish seem to have put a temporary hold on his ambitions for now at least.) Or keep calling the planned EU army Mary-Ann or Margaret. Your choice.

And it isn't just European leaders who are in favour of an EU army. Support from the Institute for Public Policy Research goes back for several years.

 

[dylanredefined]

We have a euro parliment a euro armed force could be good idea streamline
defence industries if there are less of those less need for those to fly round the world trying to flog weapons .
And anything which upsets BAE has to be a good thing .
Considering we spend 30 billion a year on the defence budget our soldiers should be riding around in sci fi type battle suits .Instead everything is held
together by gaffer tape .And units are squabbling over machine guns .
With serious co -operation we could reduce our collective military spending and get more bang for our buck .Though it might
have to invole french ships going to the falklands and uk forces getting involved in french intrests in Africa .

 

[CyberRose]

Why must there be "detailed plans" available? The plan has barely moved off the wish list yet and it may never do so. For more information, why not ask Angela Merkel who said the EU should have a common army? Or wait for Nicolas Sarkozy to tells us more, France soon to be holders of the rotating EU presidency (though the Irish seem to have put a temporary hold on his ambitions for now at least.) Or keep calling the planned EU army Mary-Ann or Margaret. Your choice.

"Planned EU army" would suggest there are plans to create a...EU army. Yet you ask why must there be detailed plans?! Now you've quoted three (count four including the Pole) politicians who have, supposedly, called for the creation of an "EU army", yet the only information you seem to have of their plans is that they have uttered the phrase "EU army". From those four people, you have made an enormous jump to come to the conclusion that the EU is planning to create an EU army. Yet you can't even describe to me what this supposed EU army will look like.

When you say "EU army", portraying it in a negative manner, yet at the same time suggesting it will be different than NATO, implies you think that the "EU" will control UK troops against the wishes of the UK government. Yet the "EU" has no competency whatsoever over defence issues. This is entirely in the realm of the nation state - do you honestly think that the UK, or France, or some of the traditional Atlanticist EU member states would ever allow the Commission any kind of control over their militaries?!

Defence cooperation between EU countries was originally intended to be within NATO. America was pissed off with having to shoulder the burden of Europe's defence for half a century. Europe got security without having to spend a lot of money. This came to a head in the Balkan conflict when the EU was supposed to save the day yet it fell to the Americans to intervene against their wishes. There was a plan to bolster the defence capabilities of the European members of NATO so they could take care of themselves more.

This plan then changed from being within NATO to being within the EU, yet effectively the plan was the same and would operate the same as it would have done under NATO. In fact, it already is operational and undertaking military operations.

And it isn't just European leaders who are in favour of an EU army. Support from the Institute for Public Policy Research goes back for several years.

Good article. I suggest you read it again, then another time, and as many times as needed until the information contained finally sinks in (clue: the title is "Minister denies Euro army move"). Btw, where does the IPPR say there should be a harmonised EU army under the command of the Commission?

 

[CyberRose]

With serious co -operation we could reduce our collective military spending and get more bang for our buck

I don't think the idea is to cut back on defence spending (ie collectively saving money) but to increase defence spending in a logical way whereby certain countries agree to spend in certain specialist capability areas that are missing from the EU's militaries.

Though it might have to invole french ships going to the falklands and uk forces getting involved in french intrests in Africa .

Well the aim of increasing the EU's collective military capabilities is to undertake Petersberg Tasks (humanitarian missions). These are missions that EU governments will pretty easily agree action needs to be taken (as is already happening). Usually these missions will be UN peacekeeping missions etc.

There is no chance of getting dragged into another nation's wars, because any military action will require the consent of all 27 member states (or maybe those opting out of the programme won't get a say?) so if, for example, the UK gets dragged along on another of America's wars, they can have a vote in the council, maybe half want to join in (like in Iraq) but the other half will veto EU action, so those that want to fight will do it individually

 

[goneforlunch]

"Planned EU army" would suggest there are plans to create a...EU army. Yet you ask why must there be detailed plans?! Now you've quoted three (count four including the Pole) politicians who have, supposedly, called for the creation of an "EU army", yet the only information you seem to have of their plans is that they have uttered the phrase "EU army". From those four people, you have made an enormous jump to come to the conclusion that the EU is planning to create an EU army. Yet you can't even describe to me what this supposed EU army will look like.

FCOL, it isn't me who is proposing an EU army, but European leaders most definitely are. We know that for a fact because they have publicly said so, so ask them for the details.

When you say "EU army", portraying it in a negative manner, yet at the same time suggesting it will be different than NATO, implies you think that the "EU" will control UK troops against the wishes of the UK government. Yet the "EU" has no competency whatsoever over defence issues. This is entirely in the realm of the nation state - do you honestly think that the UK, or France, or some of the traditional Atlanticist EU member states would ever allow the Commission any kind of control over their militaries?!

I never implied any such thing. (Indeed I'm sure I must have made clear in previous threads that I don't trust senior British politicians to even want keep control over any policy, and defence is no exception. If I haven't made that clear so far, I hope I'm doing so now!) Please note; it's Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy et al, who are talking about an EU army, and it's that talk which prompted me to contribute here.

At present the EU cannot compel its member states to contribute to any EU military operation. That's not in dispute, OK?

<snipped because the current affairs lesson was unnecessary>

This plan then changed from being within NATO to being within the EU, yet effectively the plan was the same and would operate the same as it would have done under NATO. In fact, it already is operational and undertaking military operations.

What like EUFOR in Chad? Perhaps that's aka Mary-Ann, and possibly the EU Battle Groups (Margaret?) that EU member states, including Britain, (and when did they ever obtain a democratic mandate for that!) have been busily signing up for.

Good article. I suggest you read it again, then another time, and as many times as needed until the information contained finally sinks in (clue: the title is "Minister denies Euro army move"). Btw, where does the IPPR say there should be a harmonised EU army under the command of the Commission?

I did read the article before I posted the link. Perhaps you missed the date at the beginning? (Clue: Geoff Hoon has not been Minister for Defence for several years). Events, dear boy, have moved on. Where did I say it did? I think these things will remain under the Council's command for the forseeable future at least. I included the link only to illustrate that plans for ideas for an EU army have been in the public arena for years.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Semi-relevant to this, there was a fascinating discussion a year or two ago about what a purely defensive UK military might look like. Start with Violent Panda's post 257. thread

 

[goneforlunch]

Thanks, I'll read it tomorrow.

 

[CyberRose]

FCOL, it isn't me who is proposing an EU army, but European leaders most definitely are. We know that for a fact because they have publicly said so, so ask them for the details.

But without the details you don't know anything about what they have in mind, do you? It's pure speculation on your part (and I'd also like to see Sarkozy's quote if you have it?). How do you know Merkel is referring to a standing army and not the rapid reaction forces? Answer: You don't

I never implied any such thing. (Indeed I'm sure I must have made clear in previous threads that I don't trust senior British politicians to even want keep control over any policy, and defence is no exception. If I haven't made that clear so far, I hope I'm doing so now!)

Eh? You've just contradicted yourself haven't you? I said you were trying to make out that the "EU" (whatever you mean by that) will command UK military forces, and the UK will have no say in the matter - then you say that's not what you meant by saying you don't think the UK government want to retain control over defence policy (leaving aside how utterly ridiculous that notion is!)

Please note; it's Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy et al, who are talking about an EU army, and it's that talk which prompted me to contribute here.

Unless you can provide me with any plans on what Merkel's "EU army" will look like - standing army or NATOesque - then I'm afraid you really have nothing to debate...

At present the EU cannot compel its member states to contribute to any EU military operation. That's not in dispute, OK?

No and it never will be in a position to do so

I did read the article before I posted the link. Perhaps you missed the date at the beginning? (Clue: Geoff Hoon has not been Minister for Defence for several years). Events, dear boy, have moved on.

Er no I didn't miss the date, I just found it amusing that you posted an article completely disputing your argument as if it were to somehow convince me of the merits of what you were saying!

Where did I say it did?

When you say "EU army" you mean that the UK will lose control over its armed forces, who in turn will be sent into battle by the EU (which would have to be the Commission because that couldn't happen in the Council). The IPPR, do not appear to favour your type of army, rather the NATO style command structures and capability specialisations that are currently planned/operational. And before you start asking "where did I say that" again - you didn't. It's what you're implying especially when you acknowledge that NATO has no army which suggests you believe this "EU army" (which you claim there are plans for) will be a standing army not under national control but under "EU" control

I think these things will remain under the Council's command for the forseeable future at least. I included the link only to illustrate that plans for ideas for an EU army have been in the public arena for years.

But that article didn't refer to an EU army at all other than the journo writing it! Christ almighty!

 

[goneforlunch]

But without the details you don't know anything about what they have in mind, do you? It's pure speculation on your part (and I'd also like to see Sarkozy's quote if you have it?). How do you know Merkel is referring to a standing army and not the rapid reaction forces? Answer: You don't

“As it presides over the EU in the second half of 2008, France, if it is willing, must show persuasion and energy in order to encourage its partners – most of whom are satisfied with the security umbrella offered by NATO – to re-launch European defence. France will have the new tool of reinforced cooperation at its disposal, which allows a group of countries to create an avant-garde. It will therefore be a test of the conviction expressed by Nicolas Sarkozy to make defence the condition and the lever for the re-launch of political Europe. Perhaps one day it will dare to speak of a ‘European army’.”

- Le Monde, 16 July 2007

Less than 12 months later, 'it' was indeed speaking of a European army.

Eh? You've just contradicted yourself haven't you? I said you were trying to make out that the "EU" (whatever you mean by that) will command UK military forces, and the UK will have no say in the matter - then you say that's not what you meant by saying you don't think the UK government want to retain control over defence policy (leaving aside how utterly ridiculous that notion is!)

No, I haven't contradicted myself. I just don't see this in the simplistic black and white terms portrayed by you - nation state v Europe. [Isn't it also a ridiculous idea that the British government would give up control of a whole host of other policies? But that is exactly what past and present governments have done. I know you don't think that is ridiculous I would bet my house that you'd be in a minority of the British public.] And, given that British politicians have given up control of most other policies, ie allowed them to be decided in EU institutions, what makes you think that defence policy would be an exception?

Unless you can provide me with any plans on what Merkel's "EU army" will look like - standing army or NATOesque - then I'm afraid you really have nothing to debate...

I disagree. I don't know what this EU army will look like, but European leaders are hardly likely to tell the public, are they? They know it will be unpopular especially in some quarters like Ireland with its neutral stance.

No and it never will be in a position to do so

You don't have an inside track on what goes on inside Council meetings, do you? If the answer is no, then you are guilty of speculation, and an unhealthy dose of trust in our leaders.

Er no I didn't miss the date, I just found it amusing that you posted an article completely disputing your argument as if it were to somehow convince me of the merits of what you were saying!

You're 'amused' because it suits you because the article did not dispute my argument in any way.

When you say "EU army" you mean that the UK will lose control over its armed forces, who in turn will be sent into battle by the EU (which would have to be the Commission because that couldn't happen in the Council).

Please don't try to second guess what I think. (I think we've been through that before. )

The IPPR, do not appear to favour your type of army, rather the NATO style command structures and capability specialisations that are currently planned/operational. And before you start asking "where did I say that" again - you didn't. It's what you're implying especially when you acknowledge that NATO has no army which suggests you believe this "EU army" (which you claim there are plans for) will be a standing army not under national control but under "EU" control

I don't favour any type of EU army, but let's wait for Sarkozy to lay out his plans over the next few weeks, to avoid more speculation, shall we?

But that article didn't refer to an EU army at all other than the journo writing it! Christ almighty!

But that article is several years old, and Christ almighty, European leaders and second string politicians are now openly referring to an EU army.

 

[CyberRose]

Less than 12 months later, 'it' was indeed speaking of a European army.

Is that a quote from Sarkozy, or just the words of the journo?

what makes you think that defence policy would be an exception?

Because it's defence!

I disagree. I don't know what this EU army will look like, but European leaders are hardly likely to tell the public, are they? They know it will be unpopular especially in some quarters like Ireland with its neutral stance.

You don't know what the "EU army" will look like, yet you somehow manage to come to the conclusion that you oppose it!? Ok, so tell me, what do you think the EU army will look like

You don't have an inside track on what goes on inside Council meetings, do you? If the answer is no, then you are guilty of speculation, and an unhealthy dose of trust in our leaders.

I know that no country would let another country have control over its armed forces, especially the neutral states and the traditional Altanticist states (including the UK) and it only takes one country to veto anything related to defence issues and that will not change (unless 27 countries agree - ain't gonna happen)

You're 'amused' because it suits you because the article did not dispute my argument in any way.

Everyone quoted in the article disputes there will be an "EU army", and gives the reasons why. You also falsely claimed the IPPR support an "EU army". Please tell me what exactly in that article backs up anything you've said?

Please don't try to second guess what I think. (I think we've been through that before.)

You could help by telling me what you think no? You can start by answering the question above (if you haven't already): What do you mean by "EU army"? What will it 'look' like?

I don't favour any type of EU army, but let's wait for Sarkozy to lay out his plans over the next few weeks, to avoid more speculation, shall we?

I doubt Sarkozy's plans are any different to what France and Britain agreed in St Malo in 1999, but we shall see won't we?

But that article is several years old, and Christ almighty, European leaders and second string politicians are now openly referring to an EU army.

Not sure how someone who admits they don't know what those leaders are referring is in any position to comment on it?

 

[gosub]

The trouble with ignore is, whilst I don't have to read all the bullshit cyberrose posts I see some of it when it is quoted by anybody else (nine years on this site only 1 person on ignore) so I'll start by acknowledging that there is the possibility of context that remains hidden from me. Anyway whilst I was somewhat amused in reading of the need of democratic reform of an organisation that is apparently already democratic and pushing through the constitution in a democratic manner(see other threads), various court cases not withstanding, this feels somewhat of a pyrrhic victory -public contempt of this power grab is for nothing if as I am sure, the public is rendered powerless by the treaty.. I mention that treaty again because I started a thread at the point when the all the "evidence" was in place and even when pressed, stated something I thought the treaty needed :an exit mechanism from the EUro (a constitutional necessity for the UK to join according to 2 former speakers of the House of Commons). It was a futile thread (not because of the posts) but because mainstream politics dummied and side stepped like they were Barry John to close down debate and by pass their manifesto commitments and the wider electorate.
If the wider electorate want to input on the debate they have to get there earlier than that, that means means taking people on cyberrose's ever growing list of contemptibles seriously; be they MEP's charged with projecting on the future of Foreign Policy (foreign policy can involve the military e.g Iraq & Afghanistan or the BBC's European Editor for example.


Back to the EUro Army, I stick with my earlier analysis the recent French white paper on defense spending and moves to rejoin NATO don't chime with a EUro standing army and the UK lead EU battle group exercise could not have been more "interestingly" timed ahead of the Irish referendum and confirmation of both US presidential candidates - its posturing but not posturing I am particularly comfortable with.


I won't be able to read any reply cyberose (not that I think that will make any difference) had a wonderful time on the Thames, off down the Kennet now in search of cheaper beer (worst was Weybridge £3:70 a pint!)