European Army
To the total contrary, it is precisely what makes the EU such an essential guarantor of peace and stability for its members. Removing the conditions for hostile competition between the member states and replacing them with incentives for cooperation are exactly why there have been no wars whatsoever between any member states since it was created.
As a wise man once said (well, Boris Johnson actually, but every clock is right twice a day), "If the EU didn't exist, we would have to invent it!"
As a wise man once said (well, Boris Johnson actually, but every clock is right twice a day), "If the EU didn't exist, we would have to invent it!"
The reason there have been no wars in Western Europe since the war was because it faced an external threat from the USSR. Hence NATO. It again faces an external threat from Moscow but is too busy contemplating its own navel and the glorious sunny uplands it dreams of. It needs to wake up and smell the coffee. NATO kept the peace since WWII, and is needed to keep it still. The European Army will be there to defend the EU/USE from internal threat, just like the armies of other newly formed Unions.
Johnson said that? You learn something new every day! When and where please?
The two Unions you mention, the UK and the USA, were both secured and retained in bloodshed (the USA in a rather shorter timescale than the UK). There is nothing special about the 21st Century, or any other century for that matter. We are a warlike species that has developed its technology, its culture, its extent, at the cost of those stood in our way. When we boldly go where no man has gone before no doubt the same will apply, the Prime Directive not withstanding.
That is what makes the EU so dangerous. It's proponents sincerely believe that it will prevent future European Wars. I fear that it could well be the cause of the next one, when those who get in its way try to resist ever closer unity. As to Russia, how do you do "without Russia"? That certainly sounds intriguing!
That is what makes the EU so dangerous. It's proponents sincerely believe that it will prevent future European Wars. I fear that it could well be the cause of the next one, when those who get in its way try to resist ever closer unity. As to Russia, how do you do "without Russia"? That certainly sounds intriguing!
The only thing that removes possible hostility is the injection of very large amounts of monetary contributions from the successful economies into those economies dependent upon those injections. Pre the Euro, those economies got by with regular devaluations of their own currencies, which worked well enough unless you were foolish enough to try to save. Now they have to cope with the Deutschmark in all but name. They are not Germans and the result has been a disaster for them. Once the injections dry up (Germany is teetering on recession and we are pulling the plug, though ever so slowly!) things will get worse, much worse! Never mind hostile competition, more like the making of insurrection I'd say.
The reason there have been no wars in Western Europe since the war was because it faced an external threat from the USSR. Hence NATO. It again faces an external threat from Moscow but is too busy contemplating its own navel and the glorious sunny uplands it dreams of. It needs to wake up and smell the coffee. NATO kept the peace since WWII, and is needed to keep it still. The European Army will be there to defend the EU/USE from internal threat, just like the armies of other newly formed Unions.
Johnson said that? You learn something new every day! When and where please?
The reason there have been no wars in Western Europe since the war was because it faced an external threat from the USSR. Hence NATO. It again faces an external threat from Moscow but is too busy contemplating its own navel and the glorious sunny uplands it dreams of. It needs to wake up and smell the coffee. NATO kept the peace since WWII, and is needed to keep it still. The European Army will be there to defend the EU/USE from internal threat, just like the armies of other newly formed Unions.
Johnson said that? You learn something new every day! When and where please?
I think you'll find that "the Russians" have already done a big grouping and had a big war. 20 million of them died. Does that satisfy me? No, why should it? It did help free Europe of one tyranny though, but only to replace half of it with another. The trick now is to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself, which it has a nasty habit of doing.
I think you'll find that "the Russians" have already done a big grouping and had a big war. 20 million of them died. Does that satisfy me? No, why should it? It did help free Europe of one tyranny though, but only to replace half of it with another. The trick now is to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself, which it has a nasty habit of doing.
History is that the entities we can manage get bigger so there probably will be a grouping of states and it's just a matter of whether it's created by war or by agreement - makes me think eventually we have to learn to do it peacefully as we have learned not to keep our latrines near our wells.
My feeling is that such unions create tensions between other such blocks which the looser arrangements of treaties tend to avoid. History can provide examples of both arrangements leading to war rather than peace. I would only say that the threats to blocks come from both within and without. Look at Hong Kong, Catalonia, Scotland, and Wales! We might try to resolve such tensions democratically, but the other ways are shown on our TV screens nightly. You pays your money and you makes your choice...
"History can provide examples of both arrangements leading to war rather than peace"
And of course vice-versa - the US has not had a war between States in 18565, England has not fought Scotland since the 1500's, the Italian States have not fought each other since the 19th Century.
And of course vice-versa - the US has not had a war between States in 18565, England has not fought Scotland since the 1500's, the Italian States have not fought each other since the 19th Century.
There have certainly been wars in the name of Scotland since 1500, the Jacobite Rebellion being the prime example. A classic case of a Union suppressing an uprising. Ditto the Easter Rebellion. The constituent states may not have rebelled, but such uprisings are usually in their name. When the states themselves rebel it means civil war of course, witness the bloodletting of the US one.
I take your point though. Usually these uprisings occur in the early years of Unions. Hence they need the means to supress them from day one. The Red Army and the PLA were thus in place in good time to ensure and defend their respective regimes.
I take your point though. Usually these uprisings occur in the early years of Unions. Hence they need the means to supress them from day one. The Red Army and the PLA were thus in place in good time to ensure and defend their respective regimes.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An EU army will truly be a sight to behold. Some of that European marching is wonderful.
as for it’s military effectiveness. I can’t see what’s left of the Russian army quaking in its boots. ..
the us marine corp trainees could probably dispatch it in acouple of days..... 2 para in an afternoon. As long as there wasn’t a decent match on telly
as for it’s military effectiveness. I can’t see what’s left of the Russian army quaking in its boots. ..
the us marine corp trainees could probably dispatch it in acouple of days..... 2 para in an afternoon. As long as there wasn’t a decent match on telly
"wars in the name of Scotland since 1500, the Jacobite Rebellion being the prime example."
Chug I hate to tell you but that was 1745 - you can put away your pitchfork and blunderbuss and sleep easy tonight.
Chug I hate to tell you but that was 1745 - you can put away your pitchfork and blunderbuss and sleep easy tonight.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Sophistry - it is has had an uprising - exclude it from your definition of Europe.
So the Baltic States, Hungary, Poland etc are in.....
But Exclude Armenia (Nagorno-Karabakh); Georgia (South Ossetia); Ukraine (Donbas); and Moldova (Transdniestria).
So the Baltic States, Hungary, Poland etc are in.....
But Exclude Armenia (Nagorno-Karabakh); Georgia (South Ossetia); Ukraine (Donbas); and Moldova (Transdniestria).
But even countries that can be described as Nation States have "Uprisings" ORAC - most famously the USA but just about every country has had to resort to armed reaction to keep the state intact at one time or another. Spain fought a Civil War in living memory and is still not settled but that's been a Nation State for over 500 years.
But even countries that can be described as Nation States have "Uprisings" ORAC - most famously the USA but just about every country has had to resort to armed reaction to keep the state intact at one time or another. Spain fought a Civil War in living memory and is still not settled but that's been a Nation State for over 500 years.
Yes, nations can have civil wars of course, but Unions are more likely to because of the sharp divisions within the population. Again these tensions are more likely to erupt in the early years but they are there forever. A mature Union should recognise that and have some form of democratic process to provide for secession if the majority so wish.
A rose by any other name. Unions try to assume the form of being a nation ASAP. In hardening their identity they simultaneously reduce the identity of their component states. Even if they don't formally declare themselves as Unions, if their "nation" is composed of previously separate cultures with their own language and traditions then they are in effect a Union. Go ask the Basques and Catalonians.
Yes, nations can have civil wars of course, but Unions are more likely to because of the sharp divisions within the population. Again these tensions are more likely to erupt in the early years but they are there forever. A mature Union should recognise that and have some form of democratic process to provide for secession if the majority so wish.
Yes, nations can have civil wars of course, but Unions are more likely to because of the sharp divisions within the population. Again these tensions are more likely to erupt in the early years but they are there forever. A mature Union should recognise that and have some form of democratic process to provide for secession if the majority so wish.
I'm pretty certain that in a hundred years time historians will still be discussing the whys and wherefores of us not leaving after some three and a half years and counting. After all, leave means leave! Or does it?
But even countries that can be described as Nation States have "Uprisings" ORAC - most famously the USA but just about every country has had to resort to armed reaction to keep the state intact at one time or another. Spain fought a Civil War in living memory and is still not settled but that's been a Nation State for over 500 years.
Obviously this Euro army is notional and its charter is but a dream, but NATO doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to showing initiative to countering violence in Europe until forced.
What would NATO do in the event of an internal domestic dispute in a member state that threatened to topple the government?
Obviously this Euro army is notional and its charter is but a dream, but NATO doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to showing initiative to countering violence in Europe until forced.
Obviously this Euro army is notional and its charter is but a dream, but NATO doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to showing initiative to countering violence in Europe until forced.
"What would NATO do in the event of an internal domestic dispute in a member state that threatened to topple the government?"
depends on the political hue of the insurgents:-
Left Wing - "police action and intervention"
Right Wing - "the next NATO meeting is a week on Sunday - dress informal"
depends on the political hue of the insurgents:-
Left Wing - "police action and intervention"
Right Wing - "the next NATO meeting is a week on Sunday - dress informal"