Unfortunately, the development of the EEC into a supranational EU (and beyond) has become inexorable. As an Irish citizen you will know only too well the ease with which the EU has increasingly ignored (or refused to accept) the democratic will of one of its member states. From the Lisbon Treaty to Corporation Tax, the EU will continue to proceed in whatever way it wants, irrespective of the feelings of the citizens of particular member states.
For many years we were told that an EU Army was just “project fear”. It’s project reality now and there is seemingly nothing that can be done to hold back the tide of a Federal European Superstate. Cultures homogenised, citizens disenfranchised, communities ignored, swept along by this bureaucratic behemoth at the service of unelected officials.
Countries, states, political groupings and entities come about in different ways, joined by different forces. The UK is a collection of countries forced together through violence and subjugation, the British empire through a mixture of trade, diplomacy, violence and religious indoctrination. Why can’t the EU evolve from a trading bloc into an alliance? Why shouldn’t it adapt to the changing world around it? Why should the countries of Europe be forever divided and at the mercy of the great world powers? Why is a united Europe based on ideals of democracy more egregious than Russia, China or the US? Of course it’s far from perfect, but it’s the best of a bad bunch by a distance.
But was it though? Sure the EEC was very economy-centric, but in 1957, economic recovery would have been the focus to avoid a repeat of the political instability caused by the crippling economic sanctions placed on Germany after WWI that was one of the main triggers for WWII.
But even delving into the Treaty of Rome it’s pretty apparent one of the whole points of of EEC was to avoid the wars of the past through integration:
ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and
progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a
continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the
standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it. ¹
I’m not a fan of the idea of a EU military, which I think is overstretching its initial aims, but I also understand the need to defend against threats, particularly cyber, from states like Russia, where smaller states don’t have anywhere close to the capacity. Like Ireland.
Ok
So there is no cogent reason to develop “defence”. Unless Russia decides to launch a cyber attack? Or to defend our future?
Like the addition of war planes and tanks will combat these “threats”…
The idea of a pan European army is not defence.
It is control.
We have:
Economic control, our Apple tax debacle being a primary example.
Social control with the movement of people from non EU countries.
Voting control as witnessed when our lily livered government made us re do Lisbon.
Now military control.
And in the history of bad ideas the creation of monolith armies is surely up there.
Historians better equipped than me might oblige…anyway, nations in the EU are going to be tested on this. We were not afforded a vote, our government just joined…
Everyone is too wrapped up with the idea of defence equalling thanks and troops. Defence will be a much more complex matter than that, but it will need to be coordinated. The whole fuss about an EU army is unhelpful and irrelevant to the challenges which will be faced in the future.
Who knows what the future will bring?
I believe there will be much more than ctber attacks (there’s already loads of stuff going on in the world).
Russia looks like it might like to flex her muscles a bit more.
Where is Turkey going and/or Syria?
North and West Africa?
I think shipping lanes could be a vunerable starting place and certainly piracy (though perhaps not so much in the Irish sea).
Africa isn’t settled and is a theater where ‘we’ have some responsibilty. Some of our African allies might need serious support at some time and without aircraft carriers this might proove difficult.
For me a european defence strategy is more about having viable equipment in sufficient quantity which as I see it just isn’t the case atm.
Of course - and that will require cooperation far beyond individual countries or trade blocs. And, as you say, this has nothing to do with military hardware of tanks, planes etc - so why would the EU be pursuing such hardware capabilities?
I’m not a huge fan of military build ups by anyone, but I can see that a group of small and medium sized nations might want to cooperate on defence. The obvious way to do this is NATO, but as the US under Trump became a less reliable ally, you can see why EU nations might look for an alternative.
Why is that so unreasonable?
The reason why the likes of Macron want a unified EU army is so they can procrastinate on the world stage , and think they are there with the big powers that be, yes France having a nuclear deterrent has that status already, but it’s about actually having the man power to match China /Russia and also to feel they are on America’s footing
And which nation out of this USE will have the greatest influence ? How long before they try to show 3rd world nation not to mess with the newly formed EU army?
If you want to stop threats from other countries throw the establishment out and get people who don’t give two flying fucks that China wants to have a look at your data.
The world would be a better place if we just cut out the bullshit, armies today don’t care for earth shattering events , they exist so corrupt politicians can bomb 3rd world countries and they get a paypacket from them when they retire to sit on some board…
