European Politics Thread:

Total posts: [6,648]
1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 266
Long Story
Spinned off from the British Politics Thread. Basically a thread where we talk about news and politics that affect Europe as a whole rather than certain countries in it.

Anyway BBC News section for Europe Based news.
2 Inhopelessguy3rd Jul 2011 02:51:55 PM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
Does Europe need a standing army? The Council of Europe (Which is where the flag comes from) represents all but two European nations, so surely, as an economic (1st or 2nd depending on where you get your facts), and a big political force (The EU has its own G20 seat, AND the seats reserved for the UK, France, Germany), should it have a military force? A European Army?


3 TheBatPencil3rd Jul 2011 02:55:18 PM from Glasgow, Scotland , Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
NATO rather serves that purpose, no?
And let us pray that come it may
(As come it will for a' that)
4 Inhopelessguy3rd Jul 2011 02:58:29 PM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
I guess. But NATO is an American thing left over from the Cold War. I'm talking about a totally European thing. NATO is mostly Europe anyway. Its not as if America is contributing much to Libya anyway.


Statistical Unlikeliness
Is there something like European Politics, now? :-P

Anyway, as of now, is it relevant to compare Euro politics to British, since EU isn't really a democratic body, with most of the decision taken by technocrats noone ever heard about?

[up]I wouldn't say that the U.S. aren't doing a lot. Without their air refueling and logistics, the RAF and our Air Force would have a lot more on their mind than what they already have. They're not bombing, but they're giving a good help for sure.
As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
An EU army? Why?

IIRC, all EU countries are NATO members. Why not just use NATO?
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
7 pagad3rd Jul 2011 03:43:31 PM from perfidious Albion , Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Sneering Imperialist
NATO's a Cold War relic long past its sell-by. In any case, the US military has expressed concern over the fact that it shoulders a disproportionate amount of the burden, and it's got a point - it's not like Europe is in danger of being invaded by Russia anymore. A dedicated EU military force, on the other hand, would be exactly that and in my view preferable. By themselves, I think the British, German and French militaries are not that impressive. Integrate them more closely and it's a different story altogether.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.
8 Inhopelessguy3rd Jul 2011 03:55:07 PM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
[up]Exactly my point. Britain and France share military equipment already. We might as well share it with the Germans and the Scandinavians, and vice versa.


9 GameChainsaw3rd Jul 2011 03:58:17 PM from sunshine and rainbows!
The Shadows Devour You.
Individual European armies can already kick arse and take names anyway, for the purposes of anything the continent is liable to get involved in. I'm not sure we need that level of organisation and expenditure.

On the other hand, given Georgia, we might want to organise ourselves to stop Russia of the future from pinching its neighbours. The days of Russia invading Europe proper are over, but I don't trust them to keep their paws off the states around them.

So alright, count me in on the unified army front. Aside from anything else it would let Eastern Europe get the benefit of Western tech and finally standardise the continents armies. Right now European armies, in comparison to American ones, are something of a mix.

I'm not talking about world war, but I think there are places where Russia still needs to be told to back off. And China too, potentially, in the future if they drop the scales and decide to start bullying their neighbours.

One of the reasons Hitler was so bold was because Britain and France were so incredibly weak. There's truth to the statement "if you would have peace, prepare for war."

The one disadvantage of a unified European army (and this may not be a disadvantage to many people) is that it would spell an end to unilateral engagements. Which means that there might be a time where the normally more bellicose powers like Britain and France really are needed somewhere, and there's no will to mobilise their forces.
10 Inhopelessguy3rd Jul 2011 04:07:29 PM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
[up] He also ignored the League of Nations. Which was undermined by... yeah.

An European Military would definitely be useful in case someone tries a move. Like you said, it would also decrease the burden of military spending in each individual nation, so if anything goes down, BOOM! Also, there's no point in having a British army, and a French army and a German army. We're too economically and politically involved in each other to blow each other up.


11 GameChainsaw3rd Jul 2011 04:09:05 PM from sunshine and rainbows!
The Shadows Devour You.
Yes, but we do sometimes disagree on when its time to intervene somewhere else. The British are a bit too bellicose (look at Iraq) while the Germans, I think, are too hesitant. I think the French have been the wisest with their application of force these past two decades.

Makes a refreshing change...
12 Inhopelessguy3rd Jul 2011 04:13:05 PM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
Well, the French have won more wars against Britain then we have against them. They know a bit.

Well, if the European Army (name in progress) needs to intervene, say, Beijing tries to 'influence' Prague or something, we should have a 75% vote or something of all the Council of Europe or the European Union nations, depending on whatever jurisdiction the Euroarmy comes under.


Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Meddling in Russia's back yard is not a good idea. The EU can't intervene in Central Asia without causing a major conflict with the Russians.

Germans are hesitant to use the Bundeswehr, 'cause the Bundeswehr is there to protect Europe. It's probably the EU's largest army: Deploying it anywhere else jeopardizes that goal. Them Krauts need it fully operational and straight there on their home turf, in case Europe is invaded.

edited 3rd Jul '11 4:30:22 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
14 Inhopelessguy3rd Jul 2011 04:30:44 PM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
[up]Well, the Euroarmy would be there for European interests. Central Asia is just that - Asia. Unless they managed to stage an attack on some place within the borders of Europe, they are of no concern.


Pro-Freedom Fanatic
I was replying to Chainsaw. Apparently, he thinks stopping the Russians from slapping around their Southern neighbors is a good idea. (It ain't, BTW).

Georgians, Uzbeks, et al. are simply not worth pissing off the Rusians over.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
16 Inhopelessguy3rd Jul 2011 04:33:30 PM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
Unless they are part of the Euroarmy. In which case, we have a vested interest.


Pro-Freedom Fanatic
And that's why the EU can't take in Ukraine before it takes in Turkey.

If the Russians object, defending Ukraine would be a nightmare. If you don't have the Turks to help deal with the mess... Well, it ain't pretty. wink
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
18 Inhopelessguy3rd Jul 2011 04:37:20 PM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
The Euroarmy could be outside of the EU. Like ESA or the Council of Europe is outside of the EU. I'm just suggesting that the Euroarmy (seriously, it needs a better name) could be the military wing of the EU. Turkey and the Ukraine just needs to be a member of the Euroarmy (and may not need to be part of the EU) to get the collective protection.


19 BestOf3rd Jul 2011 05:01:50 PM from Finland , Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
IIRC, all EU countries are NATO members. Why not just use NATO?

EU countries that are not members of NATO:

  • Ireland
  • Sweden
  • Finland
  • Austria
  • Malta
  • Cyprus


NATO countries that are not EU members:

  • Croatia
  • Norway
  • Iceland
  • Turkey
  • Albania

edited 3rd Jul '11 5:03:18 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
So Standard and Poor have said that they would consider another Greek bailout package as basically equivalent to a default. France and Germany are going "Oh no! Well...since we're the people they owe money too, maybe we just get our banks to ease up on the terms of repayment".

In happier news, the EU is also trying to do something to get rid of roaming charges for your phone. Something involving temporary contracts with local providers perhaps.
Don't just tell us the facts; tell us the memes, tell us the archetypes, tell us the catchy ideas and symbolic roles that get planted in pe
21 Inhopelessguy4th Jul 2011 04:55:51 AM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
[up] Have. A call inside the EU roaming costs 30c, and data charges are about 40c per megabyte.

See? See? Stupid Europhobes miss out on cheap roaming charges.


Incidentally, what is the point of roaming charges? I mean, I can send messages to the other side of the world for "free" (as I'm doing now), so...
23 Inhopelessguy4th Jul 2011 05:36:08 AM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
Phone my dear. Phone. It's now much cheaper to send an internet message on your phone with a 40c/MB charge than at most hotels or internet cafes in certain EU nations.


24 USAF7134th Jul 2011 05:40:00 AM from the United States
I changed accounts.
You'd have to kill NATO, which presents a significant problem for Euro-American Relations (sure, at this point, it's symbolic, but still, it's very symbolic) because under NATO rules, if one NATO member is attacked in warfare, all of them have to attack. Unlike the League of Nations, this would probably be actually enforced.

That would be why when Russia invaded Georgia we here in the States were breathing sighs of relief that Georgia wasn't admitted to NATO yet, because otherwise World War III might have started over (not meaning to insult, but really, it's true) a backwater nation that, in all honesty, really wasn't worth that level of trouble (and which, ironically has the same name as a US state, though that may or may not need to be reversed as a statement to make sense historically, I'm not sure).

It would be nice to not have to pay for the defense of Europe anymore... from nothing, really. It would also be nice to have someone else to turn to and say, "Ha, China, we're not the only people with proper, large-scale military forces who you should be afraid of!"

It would also be nice for Russia and the rest of Europe to get along better. There's always fun debates here in the US over whether Russia should ever "really" get to be a part of the West... like we get to decide that, but, w/e... (really, normally when we hear the "with Europe but not of it" nonsense with the UK, we laugh and go, hey, that's more Russia, no?)... anyhow, if Russia's myriad economic issues (well, and issues in general) could be helped and the nation properly integrated with Europe, it would go along way to stabilizing the region, making a "European Army" credible, and shifting focus from "Russian imperialism" to other things, like, say, Libya and the other African dictatorships.

Lol, it's endlessly amusing how here it's talked about how the US isn't doing enough in Libya, while tons of people over here were like, "thank God, Europe is dealing with the next shitstorm, because damn are we tired of it." Not a universal opinion, naturally, but an oft-heard one. Besides, if you want American intervention, we're just going to send carrier battle groups and do what we did in Iraq, and and that certainly went perfectly well, didn't it?

It could be called the Army of the Union? It sounds very science fiction-y, doesn't it? Or the European Union Expeditionary Forces, like the naming scheme they had in World War One (which I thought was awesome, but that's just me, maybe). Not really sure, naming it while keeping "Europe" in the title makes it sound awkward, on a grammatical basis...

edited 4th Jul '11 5:43:13 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.
25 Inhopelessguy4th Jul 2011 05:43:27 AM from Birmingham Ctl, UK , Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
We could use the Latin name... which is Europa...

There we go! EuropA. A for army.

edited 4th Jul '11 5:43:36 AM by Inhopelessguy


Total posts: 6,648
1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 266