Juncker proposes EU military headquarters


#1

bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196

**The European Union needs a military headquarters to work towards a common military force, the Commission president has told MEPs in Strasbourg.

Jean-Claude Juncker said the lack of a “permanent structure” resulted in money being wasted on missions.

Part of his annual State of the Union Address was devoted to the UK’s unexpected vote to leave the EU.

He insisted that the bloc was not at risk but called for Brexit negotiations to take place as quickly as possible.

Modelled on the State of the Union Address by the US president, the Commission president’s annual speech was introduced in 2010 to detail the state of the EU and future legislative plans.**

Won’t a common military force interfere with Nato?

The Brexit vote has given added impetus to plans for greater defence co-operation, because the UK has always objected to the potential conflict of interest with Nato.
But Mr Juncker said a common military force “should be in complement to Nato”.

“More defence in Europe doesn’t mean less transatlantic solidarity.”

A European Defence Fund would stimulate military research and development, he said.


#2

What was intended to be a free association of independent countries is turning into a super-government. Eventually they will scale down any military forces of its member governments, and their own standing army will be the strongest, maybe the only military allowed. Whoever controls the military, and the money system, in the long run controls Europe.


#3

Yes! And my understanding is the EU officials are not elected to their position, that screams watch out to me.


#4

Sounds good to me.

If they are inextricably enmeshed in a common military enterprise, it will be far harder for them ever to come to conflict with each other again.

And should the Russians get too playful with them, they will have options other than “Call London and Washington to save our coccyx”.

ICXC NIKA


#5

Haven’t the European Socialists tried this before? How did that work out?


#6

Increased military cohesion should have been first on their list, not behind setting power levels on hair dryers and vacuums. They should build up adequate capabilities to defend themselves


#7

Britain always blocked it.

That’s why their only suggesting it now.


#8

To me the EU right now is rather analogous to America under the Articles of Confederation and soon they will have to decide whether to go on that way with all its disadvantages or move towards a true United States of Europe in which member states give up most of their sovereignty.

A currency union is already in place but it certainly caused problems here in the US since the South and West feeling they were being manipulated by Eastern bankers.

An EU-wide military is a more interesting question. NATO binds Europe but what if in future feels that its interests are more aligned with China?


#9

Perhaps the future interests/needs/policies of the United States are even more significant in this context.


#10

I think people miss the fact that the EU was founded in 1957 upon the keystone principle of “ever - closer union”, a bit like the nascent United States’ aspiration for a more “perfect union”.

It was not created to be some abstract, loose trade bloc like NAFTA.

The EU has its own supranational executive (the Commission ), court (the ECJ), parliament and legislature (Council of the EU) and these institutions have existed in some form, albeit gradually developing in the scope of their powers, for decades. Unlike other transnational treaty - based organizations the EU was never purely intergovernmental but had supranational authorities with genuine supremacy in law over the Member States that had agreed to join from the very start - albeit limited to certain areas or competences. The EU is not like the UN or ASEAN, not in the least.

So I think it’s misguided to suggest that the EU has turned into something else from what it was at the beginning. Quite the opposite, it has gradually been built into a more sophisticated realization of the vision foreseen by its founders - who were mostly Catholics acting under the guidance of Pope Pius XII, I must add, as strange as that fact might seem to many. The Pope wanted a European Federation.


#11

If the Russkies get frisky, they EU military will be calling Washington, London and Toronto, no matter what.

I could be wrong about this, but I suspect this will amount to setting up some lavish headquarters run by people with lavish salaries, directing military hardware contracts to German and French manufacturers. But the truly most important piece of hardware will be the telephone that connects the EU military establishment to Washington, London and Toronto.

NATO IS the U.S., Britain and Canada, with Poland possibly taking a more significant role eventually, as it grows economically.


#12

Good question.

I’d imagine that NATO would either be renegotiated to include the EU force along with Britain (or England/Scotland, as the case may be), or simply allowed to lapse, as the EU force would ultimately make US garrisons on the European mainland an anachronism.

ICXC NIKA


#13

I think you meant Ottawa?

:):slight_smile:

ICXC NIKA


#14

To me the EU right now is rather analogous to America under the Articles of Confederation and soon they will have to decide whether to go on that way with all its disadvantages or move towards a true United States of Europe in which member states give up most of their sovereignty.

Or give up and return to 1900s Europa, which seems to be the way they are heading. Goodbye Euro and Schegen, hello exchange offices, fence lines, visas, and in a few decades, trench lines.

I hope cooler heads prevail, the ancient, battle-scarred continent and its citizens deserve better.

ICXC NIKA


#15

Ha! Guess so! :blush: But while it’s no real excuse for my error, to me the Arctic Circle runs, oh, perhaps 50 miles north of Springfield, Missouri, and Canada is largely terra incognita populated mostly by polar bears. But Canadians are among the world’s finest soldiers all the same.

Ottawa, Ottawa, Ottawa.


#16

Trench lines? Is that really likely other than somewhere in Ukraine or perhaps on Nova Rossiya’s possible future border with Poland?

Besides, what is the reason to think the EU can’t go on without Britain? I don’t think it needs Britain in order to disarm and allow the Middle East to resettle on the European Continent.


#17

Hey, no-one in 1895 thought that transcontinental trench lines were going to happen, certainly not within a generation. Internationalism was in! They were recreating the Olympics!!! Major wars were so 1871!!!

The rest is history.

I’ve no doubt that a Brit-free EU could do quite well. But was exit fever limited to Britain?

The EU military scheme is precisely so that they can protect their perimeter without all member nations having to go it alone. I say Bravo EU!

ICXC NIKA


#18

In many ways I perceive the EU to already be more restrictive than what we see in the US. EU regulations are overwhelming and stifling IMHO

An EU-wide military is a more interesting question. NATO binds Europe but what if in future feels that its interests are more aligned with China?

Is that a bad thing? There should be some flexibility so that alliances adapt to changing needs, they should be treated more as partners than US vassal states when it comes to defense. Currently they are not carrying their weight.


#19

What percent of their GDP does the EU spend on military?


#20

The question would produce a wide a range of answers as some states spend very little like my home country which spends way under 1 percent (ireland) but the average for 2014 which is the last year I could find was just short of 200 billion dollars which was roughly 1.4 percent of GDP on average.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.