Outline the legal mechanism by which a member state can be forced to participate in an EU army against its will, with reference to the relevant EU legislation.
In Step 1, Member States would agree to move to QMV decision-making when it comes to measures that improve cooperation and mutual assistance between Member States in military procurement, and harmonised reporting obligations. These measures are usually welcomed by all Member States but are prone to being blocked for reasons unrelated to the issues at hand.
In the same vein, Step 2 would introduce QMV as a useful tool to progress measures in which military resources supports other policy goals, e.g. search and rescue, fighting climate change, protecting the environment, anti-terrorism etc
The use of QMV under Step 3 would help to modernise already harmonised EU rules such as immigration and military intelligence. Faster decision-making in these areas would allow Member States to keep up with the latest technological developments and political developments
Step 4 would allow a shift to QMV for major military commitments such as sharing overseas bases and preparing for cyber warfare that are urgently needed to protect the EU.
’The Commission is not proposing any change in EU competences in the field of taxation, or to the rights of Member States to set personal or corporate tax rates as they see fit’
Let me be clear: I want an EU army. Relying on the US and UK would be plain daft. We part ways now, The British insist on it. Ok then, but why are you surprised we wanna do our own thing?
the minister that has run down the German army to its worst state ever is suddenly the big scary bogeyman that's gonna create an EU army to...... errr..... to what? Start a second scramble for Africa?
Even for a simple physical model of a pendulum, for predictions of future position one has vagaries of temperature and air currents let alone the effect off HGV vehicles on the road outside and earth tremors, despite the precision of the law of gravity.
Systems with multiple elements and interactions are much more difficult to predict.
And when one comes to systems involving people and emotions and miscommunications prediction is even more difficult.
What to do? No simple model of trends or cause and effect is useful. What may have happened in the past in different circumstances is hardly a reliable guide. We are reduced to relying on expert opinion ...
So in the case of ‘Europe’s army is already taking place’, shall we rely on the amateur claims of ROF remainers whose bubble’s narrative is that the status quo is sustainable and the Irish can maintain military neutrality, that the U.K. can keep its own nuclear deterrent, and that military forces throughout the EU will remain committed to NATO, or shall we hear the professional, informed voice of the minister of defence for Germany who is about to be President of the EU Commission.
Call me credulous if you like. But look in the mirror.
Art 87a German constitution: (1) the federation shall establish armed forces for purposes of defence. Their numerical strength and general Organisational structure must be shown in the budget.
Well ok maybe that is not entirely true, I hate brexiters a little bit. But as long as they don’t interfere with my business it’s fine. When Farage and co will have fooked off from Brussels my hatred will decrease
and if you look at what they want they are wildly different things
France wants europe to fit the bill for it's post colonial adventures in Africa and ME and to provide a buyer for French arms instead of American arms.
Germany wants closer political union, i.e. nato lite rather than actual EU regiments (because it would be footing the bill)
an at any rate, there has been a fooking Euro Corp since the 80s, Nato HQ is in Brussels and despite the frothing Brazis of the Farage Korp tellings us every single fooking day on rof that "woooo! an EU army is coming to get you (I mean FFS! excluding the UK the top 7 in the EU out gun fooking Russia as it is)" and yet it is no bluddy nearer
that'll be the Germany with half a dozen nuclear reactors and an engineering and science community that would surely struggle to create a nuke in less than an afternoon?
I love how Brexiteers can square in their heads "the EU will collapse in 6 months" and "the EU is long term military super power threat that will, errr, do something at some point but we're not sure what?"
I think that the discourse above is missing a major point, which is this: who makes the decision to deploy the army in anger? Presumably all those who contribute forces would have to vote. but if the Baltic states and ex-Eastern Bloc countries contribute, there would be major reservations about declaring war on Russia, due to the fact that Gazprom (or its associates) supply fuel to many of them. Even Germany is now dependent on Russian gas, ffs.
It seems to me that there is a pretty fundamental flaw in this reasoning.
Plus there is a vast difference in the quality of troops. Britain employs a professional soldier model (mercenary model), whilst quite a few European states still make up their forces from young lads doing national service (the draft model). If you were a squaddie from a professional army, would you want to rely upon a spotty Greek teenager to back you up?
I have (in my former life) worked with bits of the Bundeswehr and the US Army. Parts of both are good soldiers but the basic standard is not as good.
We are lucky and we have an advantage insofar as (99%) of our soldiers want to be there. That makes a very big difference when they're patrolling in Helmand or Mogadishu or wherever we send them next.
Nope, the tories significantly reduced the UK's military power and heavily curtailed our power to project power when the scrapped our aircraft carrier forces and decided that 40 year old Tornados and a private air tanker fueling contract that costs as much as and aircraft carrier could do the job.
It is probably true to say that the UK can turn up and kick the living fook out of 90% of the countries in the world (and prevent them doing the same back) but the UK cannot sustain ground forces away from a friendly state.
Tecco, just to be clear ARRC is a NATO structure, as is Eurocorps.
This is not creating an EU army, more of a framework for an undefined C2 structure that they might contribute force elements to as well as a bunch of cooperation on procurement and logistics.
Also Sumoking if you are talking about SDSR10 you clearly don't understand why any of those decisions were made and they actually do make sense.
It's not that it doesn't make sense for there to be an EU army from the UK's point of view. More the fact that it will be hopelessly mired in democracy, and NATO and the UN do exactly the same thing, so why bother?
It's all very well saying "the UK doesn't need to be concerned because there are 12 other countries to roll through before Russia can reach us". The real point is that by not being part of the EU army, the UK takes away one more voice which might delay deployment. But equally, it means that you have one less voice in favour of a deployment if there really were to be a crisis.
Yes, but Trump is a rabid, stupid, dementia-raddled egotistical aunt. Everything he's undone, the next president will have to re-do, and eat crow whilst he's at it.
Yes. Unfortunately for the States (and the rest of the world). But like Brexit, despite the protestations of the bleeding heart liberals (like Anna), the people voted for him, and we have to live with the consequences.
Tom I know what ARRC is of course but from memory the US only provides operational support rather than troops on the ground. There might be some other countries involved too, I think Canada? But primarily it is European in nature, led by the UK as of course I’m sure you are aware.
My point was that it could be very easily just converted directly into a euro army with a few minor tweaks.
it's not so much degradation as having the wrong things and the armed forces are as much to blame as anyone else. Generals love having tanks and admirals love having ships but in reality we don't need lots of ships, just a few of the right sort, i.e. 2 aircraft carriers and a couple of destroyers to protect them.
0
0
Today's exam question is:
Outline the legal mechanism by which a member state can be forced to participate in an EU army against its will, with reference to the relevant EU legislation.
Time allowed: 30 minutes.
0
0
By analogy to the EU’s plan to overcome the member state vetoes over taxes:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-225_en.htm
In Step 1, Member States would agree to move to QMV decision-making when it comes to measures that improve cooperation and mutual assistance between Member States in military procurement, and harmonised reporting obligations. These measures are usually welcomed by all Member States but are prone to being blocked for reasons unrelated to the issues at hand.
In the same vein, Step 2 would introduce QMV as a useful tool to progress measures in which military resources supports other policy goals, e.g. search and rescue, fighting climate change, protecting the environment, anti-terrorism etc
The use of QMV under Step 3 would help to modernise already harmonised EU rules such as immigration and military intelligence. Faster decision-making in these areas would allow Member States to keep up with the latest technological developments and political developments
Step 4 would allow a shift to QMV for major military commitments such as sharing overseas bases and preparing for cyber warfare that are urgently needed to protect the EU.
0
0
This got a heh from me
’The Commission is not proposing any change in EU competences in the field of taxation, or to the rights of Member States to set personal or corporate tax rates as they see fit’
0
0
oh no!! an army containing French people.
Hardly going to strike fear into the likes of China or Russia is it.
0
0
Yes, Order of the Phoenix was my favourite Harry Potter film too.
0
0
elffi happily displaying himself as utterly credulous once again
bizarre. it’s like he’s got no ability to question his dogma at all
0
0
Let me be clear: I want an EU army. Relying on the US and UK would be plain daft. We part ways now, The British insist on it. Ok then, but why are you surprised we wanna do our own thing?
0
0
yeah it's so weird
the minister that has run down the German army to its worst state ever is suddenly the big scary bogeyman that's gonna create an EU army to...... errr..... to what? Start a second scramble for Africa?
0
0
Forecasting is difficult.
Even for a simple physical model of a pendulum, for predictions of future position one has vagaries of temperature and air currents let alone the effect off HGV vehicles on the road outside and earth tremors, despite the precision of the law of gravity.
Systems with multiple elements and interactions are much more difficult to predict.
And when one comes to systems involving people and emotions and miscommunications prediction is even more difficult.
What to do? No simple model of trends or cause and effect is useful. What may have happened in the past in different circumstances is hardly a reliable guide. We are reduced to relying on expert opinion ...
So in the case of ‘Europe’s army is already taking place’, shall we rely on the amateur claims of ROF remainers whose bubble’s narrative is that the status quo is sustainable and the Irish can maintain military neutrality, that the U.K. can keep its own nuclear deterrent, and that military forces throughout the EU will remain committed to NATO, or shall we hear the professional, informed voice of the minister of defence for Germany who is about to be President of the EU Commission.
Call me credulous if you like. But look in the mirror.
0
0
heh @ elfffi of all ppl accusing anyone else of adhering to a “bubble narrative”
the hypocrisy is too much
never has a man so eagerly allowed himself to be manipulated into believing anything that suits his agenda
elffi m7, gr7est respect n all, but u’d be best off accepting u r just an unquestioning stooge
0
0
There are no constitutional limits you epic shyte talker. There is just no appetite in Germany for a big German military apparatus
0
0
DD King03 Jul 19 09:22
Reply | Report
Let me be clear: I want an EU army
Crazy German filled with hate wants as Army. Oh cool, what could possibly go wrong.
0
0
Art 87a German constitution: (1) the federation shall establish armed forces for purposes of defence. Their numerical strength and general Organisational structure must be shown in the budget.
0
0
I don’t hate you or the U.K., I just want you to leave the EU
0
0
Well ok maybe that is not entirely true, I hate brexiters a little bit. But as long as they don’t interfere with my business it’s fine. When Farage and co will have fooked off from Brussels my hatred will decrease
0
0
if we leave the EU it will take decisions we don't like
that's a reason to stay, not leave
0
0
Yes good point Heff, better being in the tent filled with shit and pissing out of the door rather than being out in the fresh air pissing in.
0
0
???03 Jul 19 10:35
Merkle has said she wants an EU army
Macron has said he wants an EU army
___________________________________________________________________________
and if you look at what they want they are wildly different things
France wants europe to fit the bill for it's post colonial adventures in Africa and ME and to provide a buyer for French arms instead of American arms.
Germany wants closer political union, i.e. nato lite rather than actual EU regiments (because it would be footing the bill)
an at any rate, there has been a fooking Euro Corp since the 80s, Nato HQ is in Brussels and despite the frothing Brazis of the Farage Korp tellings us every single fooking day on rof that "woooo! an EU army is coming to get you (I mean FFS! excluding the UK the top 7 in the EU out gun fooking Russia as it is)" and yet it is no bluddy nearer
0
0
I think it’s more your tent that is filled with shyte and you keep adding more shyte by the day
0
0
So you want to piss in my tent yeah? And then you wonder why I hate Brexiters?
0
0
Cunning and patient- what bullshit. No one in Germany has their mind on becoming a nuclear power. What for? Typical British bullshit.
0
0
that'll be the Germany with half a dozen nuclear reactors and an engineering and science community that would surely struggle to create a nuke in less than an afternoon?
I love how Brexiteers can square in their heads "the EU will collapse in 6 months" and "the EU is long term military super power threat that will, errr, do something at some point but we're not sure what?"
0
0
^wot he sed
0
0
I wonder how long we will be keeping our own permanent position on the sec council without EU support
we will be wholly dependent on the US
0
0
Heh @ the idea of an EU army being introduced and imposed on member states by QMV.
That paper would get a fail from me.
0
0
I think that the discourse above is missing a major point, which is this: who makes the decision to deploy the army in anger? Presumably all those who contribute forces would have to vote. but if the Baltic states and ex-Eastern Bloc countries contribute, there would be major reservations about declaring war on Russia, due to the fact that Gazprom (or its associates) supply fuel to many of them. Even Germany is now dependent on Russian gas, ffs.
It seems to me that there is a pretty fundamental flaw in this reasoning.
0
0
Plus there is a vast difference in the quality of troops. Britain employs a professional soldier model (mercenary model), whilst quite a few European states still make up their forces from young lads doing national service (the draft model). If you were a squaddie from a professional army, would you want to rely upon a spotty Greek teenager to back you up?
0
0
Exactly.
0
0
Wot Badders said (for once)
I have (in my former life) worked with bits of the Bundeswehr and the US Army. Parts of both are good soldiers but the basic standard is not as good.
We are lucky and we have an advantage insofar as (99%) of our soldiers want to be there. That makes a very big difference when they're patrolling in Helmand or Mogadishu or wherever we send them next.
0
0
all you are saying is that it doesn't make much sense for the UK for there to be an EU army
we know that, and that's why we have prevented there from being one
it makes much more sense for other EU members and I expect that if we leave they will create one of some nature reasonably soon
0
0
It’s been there for decades ffs. Ask Jorrocks about ARRC under ACE. God I hate it when people with absolutely no clue start blathering on about stuff.
0
0
I would be totally happy to piss on u DDK. Unless you were on fire, like.
(heh @ tecco's second line above and another heh.)
0
0
Cheesetoastie03 Jul 19 11:23
It is fashionable to pretend that the UK is pathetic at absolutely everything, but few nations have the land, sea and air capability that the UK has.
__________________________________________________________________________
Nope, the tories significantly reduced the UK's military power and heavily curtailed our power to project power when the scrapped our aircraft carrier forces and decided that 40 year old Tornados and a private air tanker fueling contract that costs as much as and aircraft carrier could do the job.
It is probably true to say that the UK can turn up and kick the living fook out of 90% of the countries in the world (and prevent them doing the same back) but the UK cannot sustain ground forces away from a friendly state.
0
0
Tecco, just to be clear ARRC is a NATO structure, as is Eurocorps.
This is not creating an EU army, more of a framework for an undefined C2 structure that they might contribute force elements to as well as a bunch of cooperation on procurement and logistics.
Also Sumoking if you are talking about SDSR10 you clearly don't understand why any of those decisions were made and they actually do make sense.
0
0
It's not that it doesn't make sense for there to be an EU army from the UK's point of view. More the fact that it will be hopelessly mired in democracy, and NATO and the UN do exactly the same thing, so why bother?
It's all very well saying "the UK doesn't need to be concerned because there are 12 other countries to roll through before Russia can reach us". The real point is that by not being part of the EU army, the UK takes away one more voice which might delay deployment. But equally, it means that you have one less voice in favour of a deployment if there really were to be a crisis.
0
0
Trump said he wants to move away from NATO
0
0
Yes, but Trump is a rabid, stupid, dementia-raddled egotistical aunt. Everything he's undone, the next president will have to re-do, and eat crow whilst he's at it.
0
0
Like it or not he’s the POTUS
0
0
Yes. Unfortunately for the States (and the rest of the world). But like Brexit, despite the protestations of the bleeding heart liberals (like Anna), the people voted for him, and we have to live with the consequences.
0
0
I think we should consider military intervention if the krauts start to properly remilitarise. Let’s level Berlin to teach them a lesson.
0
0
unheh@teclis
0
0
How am I any different from all the other millions of people who think Trump is an ocean going bellend, Badders?
0
0
Tom I know what ARRC is of course but from memory the US only provides operational support rather than troops on the ground. There might be some other countries involved too, I think Canada? But primarily it is European in nature, led by the UK as of course I’m sure you are aware.
My point was that it could be very easily just converted directly into a euro army with a few minor tweaks.
0
0
Cheesetoastie03 Jul 19 14:22
@Sumoking, good points though I think the degradation of UK forces is exaggerated a bit.
___________________________________________________________________________
it's not so much degradation as having the wrong things and the armed forces are as much to blame as anyone else. Generals love having tanks and admirals love having ships but in reality we don't need lots of ships, just a few of the right sort, i.e. 2 aircraft carriers and a couple of destroyers to protect them.
0
0
I'm loving how many of you actually think you have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Join the discussion