HH, what I don't understand is how one can commit to something that was never spelled out but devised and revised behind closed doors. That may suit the "Continental System" way of thinking but is hardly conducive to inspiring democratic confidence, and will only work as long as it works. Every time there is a major woopsie like the Ukraine, like Greek default, the fault lines become only too apparent. Eventually they'll run out of filler...


As for 65 years of forecasting the imminent collapse of something that wasn't around then, how does that work?

The Iron & Steel Community - the precursor to the EU - statred in 1951 with the Treaty of Paris and had been under discusion since 1950

The aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible" which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step. The Treaty would create a common market for coal & steel among its member states which served to neutralise competition between European nations over natural resources, particularly in the Ruhr.

IIRC Churchill approved but said it was not for us - we after all had the Empire & Commonwealth............

I've never really liked the EU set up - but it survives and prospers in spite of everything - and we continually misunderstand the commitment of other people to it. The British always saw it as a Common Market whereas Europeans saw it as something much bigger. Amazing that both sides can still misread the runes after all this time...............

I'm not convinced that Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Belgium are prospering. I wonder when how they are going to fund this new found enthusiasm for military commitment?

HH:-
So how does that work then, given that civil wars are the most bitter and the most divisive of all wars? Doesn't ever closer unity and a European Army make war more thinkable and more materially possible?

Don't ask me but I'd guess they say they've had 65 years without a war in W Europe and in the period before we'd had two that wrecked vast swathes of the place..................

All I know is that if I had moved the whole of the vast Harry fortune from pounds into euro when they started in 1999 I'd be 25% richer.....

and worse there are only 2 years the 18 since when staying in pounds was better than converting to euros

HH:-
Shouldn't that read that they had two that wrecked the place, both of which started in Europe? Of course one must add that the EU received the Nobel Peace Prize for not starting a third one...yet.

Speaking as that most contemptible of all military species, a Cold War warrior, didn't NATO have something to do with that? When does it get its prize?

You are assuming that you would have had a job for all that time which vast swathes of the EU didn't.

I think Chugalug covered the other bit

Isn't the British Army an example why an EU army actually might work. I mean, there are Welsh, Scotts and even some lost Irish in the armed forces...

Personally, I believe that an EU army is far away. Further cooperation between EU member states will happen more and more, but Juncker as Commander in Chief? hahahaha

TG:-
Well it might be, but perhaps not an ideal example. The British Army started out as various English Armies which over some hundreds of years dominated and defeated the armies of the nations that you mention.

That process has been part of European history as well of course, but every empire so formed has fallen in due course. That might be seen as more of a warning to the United Kingdom rather than a justification for a European Army...

Well according to the conspiracy theorists on social media the EU Army already exists and it's HQ is at RAF St Mawgan. Funny as I haven't noticed one lying around. We did have a bilateral exercise with 3 Div and the French 4 years ago, so perhaps they got the wrong idea?

Before the EU attempts to create a parallel military organisation to NATO, why don't they first cut their teeth on solving the human tragedy that's happening in the Med? The EU has a shameful policy vacuum regarding the migrant drownings.
This drive for an EU Army is another piece of vainglorious window-dressing by the unelected EU apparatchiks.. useful for parading through Brussels - and little else.
I think some of the Brussels suits actually believed the citation when the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (shorely shome mishtake) in 2012 for "the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights". That Messrs van Rompuy, Barroso and Schulz had the brass neck to accept this award beggars belief.
We are well out of this nonsense.

You are correct, there are many very notable Welsh, Scots and Irish members of the British Army.


However, a look through the annals of history suggests there have been a great many New Zealanders, Australians, South Africans, Canadians, Sikhs, Nepalese and other Commonwealth members of British Forces who have made significant contributions to the defence and security of both the UK and Europe. Not forgetting the Americans under their own flag.


It seems to me that Europeans continually cash cheques in words and deeds which the US, UK and Commonwealth end up guaranteeing with blood.

The one factor they all had in common was that they were Anglophones (I'm including the Scots in there!:E)

I've always had a soft spot for the Irish. Large numbers of them deserted from the Irish Army in WW2 to join the British Army even though I doubt they had much love (if any) for the British. Always up for a fight and good men too have on your side.
Anybody know if there is a memorial to them anywhere? Doubt there is anything in Ireland especially after the persecution they suffered on returning home.

"why don't they first cut their teeth on solving the human tragedy that's happening in the
Med? The EU has a shameful policy vacuum regarding the migrant drownings."

They did - they suggested everyone contribute to the naval releif effor and also take their share of the refugees who made it.................. stoney silence from a lot of places

Accepting unlimited numbers of refugees/migrants into Europe isn't the answer though. They're non-viable in cultural and economic terms.
I think the EU should examine the case for alleviating the causes of their plight in situ.. I'd much prefer that the EU set up humanitarian relief stations in the countries concerned where possible.
The last I heard the EU was paying Turkey 3bn€/year to accept the refugees.
Sorry for thread drift.

For the reasons I've given above I think there is a fair chance a European army will gradually evolve - especially once the British leave

To start with it'll be like a UN force but ever so gradually the weaker countries will become dependent on it (and won't be able to afford modern kit) paying a proportion of the cost. It's a logical extension of the NATO aircraft sharing type arrangement

It'll take 30 years but I think they may well get there

There has not been a demonstration of the necessary will to fund their own defence in the last 65 years, I'm not convinced that the next 30 years will lead to any surprises unless the USA walks away and leaves Europe to it.

Some demonstration of will and unity

Hmmm. Debatable whether that was due to a large existential threat to the East, a large ally to the west, a large functioning military alliance which pre-dates the EU, public reaction to the first two truly industrial wars or a combination of the above. Or the EU.


The rather nasty civil wars in the Balkans were not exactly an advert for the decision-making or military capabilities of the EU either.