[Kyle]

News of unusual Russian activity over European airspace is hardly going to constitute a war however I would like the topic to be be discussed anyway.

Basically the topic is

'Should the European Union nations pool resources together and create a unified peacekeeping military at the abolition of each nations standard military?'

Arguments for would probably revolve around safety in numbers/more legitimacy for anti-insurgency activities abroad and internally/money saved for each country having to maintain their own military/a unified European super-power etc.

Arguments against would probably revolve around multiple language barriers/arguments over troop requirements/conflict of interest between nations etc.

Would you welcome this? Do you want less unity with Europe?

Poll included

[joeysteele]

I could be persuaded to fully support such a move so yes.

I think the more the UK does hand in hand with the other European Nations can in the long run, only be a good thing.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I could be persuaded to fully support such a move so yes.

I think the more the UK does hand in hand with the other European Nations can in the long run, only be a good thing.

I am inclined to agree Joey. Just as I support the Union of nations on this Isle I also support a United European alliance of nations. Matters like renewable energy, space exploration, humanitarian issues and also military force I think are better shared out amongst our European brethren. Some of these we already do, but for our interests in our dealings with Russia, China and possibly India in the future I think it's time we abolish our individual armed forces and combine them.

[Livia]

I think you would have to ask the military. Would our soldiers be willing to do away with hundreds of years of history and merge into an international force? No, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. And anyway, the UN already has an international peace keeping force. Furthermore, I'm not willing to hand over my national security to a foreign power. What next? The security services? MI5? MI6?

Britain is currently leading the way (along with the USA) against the ebola outbreak committing hundreds - and eventually thousands - of troops. Our European "brethren" haven't stepped up to the plate at all. If this was ever to be seriously considered the first people who should be consulted is the military. This, like everything else to do with the military, cannot be worked out by civilians

[Kizzy]

I don't think we'll have a choice considering the current threat level.

[JoshBB]

I'm skeptical because I don't know how this would work. Armies could always work together I guess, so I don't see any need tbh. I'm anti-war anyway, so it doesn't make a difference to me.

[MTVN]

Would be too difficult in practice, nations would all be pulling in different directions and be more or less inclined to commit their forces depending on the particular scenario. Europe has a lot in common and can achieve a lot working together but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're some monolithic entity who's interests are always going to be the same. Foreign policy is perhaps the biggest area of government in which there would be most disagreement, so much so that any EU military force would probably be rendered impotent through its inability to reach a consensus on anything.

[Kyle]

History counts for little. If our military didn't change because of tradition they would all be running around wielding bill hooks and wearing chain mail.

We merged fine into a United Kingdom armed forces which has managed to be the envy of the world for years, if it ever becomes necessary to forge a European standard military I'm sure the brass can work it out.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

I'm skeptical because I don't know how this would work. Armies could always work together I guess, so I don't see any need tbh. I'm anti-war anyway, so it doesn't make a difference to me.

You live in a country full of freedoms fought for by the military. No one is "pro-war", but sometimes it is necessary.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Livia

You live in a country full of freedoms fought for by the military. No one is "pro-war", but sometimes it is necessary.

A lot of nationalists and patriots would suggest otherwise. Undoubtedly, there are some instances when war may have been a better option - World War Two for example. If more lives could have been saved with war then it would obviously be the better option. Other methods could have also done the same and much better, but they didn't happen so we wouldn't know.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Would be too difficult in practice, nations would all be pulling in different directions and be more or less inclined to commit their forces depending on the particular scenario. Europe has a lot in common and can achieve a lot working together but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're some monolithic entity who's interests are always going to be the same. Foreign policy is perhaps the biggest area of government in which there would be most disagreement, so much so that any EU military force would probably be rendered impotent through its inability to reach a consensus on anything.

And if a consensus is achieved it can be legitimised by having the full backing of a European coalition of States.

A charter detailing the events and incidents that require the military to intervene in any foreign or internal issue would probably need to be agreed on but it would be a clean slate.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

A lot of nationalists and patriots would suggest otherwise. Undoubtedly, there are some instances when war may have been a better option - World War Two for example. If more lives could have been saved with war then it would obviously be the better option. Other methods could have also done the same and much better, but they didn't happen so we wouldn't know.

You can be as anti-war as you want mate but in this day and age the U.K (or a European superstate as we are exploring here) need a standing army. I'm afraid cannons full of daffodils and hugs aren't a very effective defence method.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kyle

And if a consensus is achieved it can be legitimised by having the full backing of a European coalition of States.

A charter detailing the events and incidents that require the military to intervene in any foreign or internal issue would probably need to be agreed on but it would be a clean slate.

Isn't this essentially the purpose of NATO and the UN though?

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Kyle

You can be as anti-war as you want mate but in this day and age the U.K (or a European superstate as we are exploring here) need a standing army. I'm afraid cannons full of daffodils and hugs aren't a very effective defence method.

No, but boycotts & cutting supplies are. Preventing overseas electricity and blocking tourists from entering the country would also damage business.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Would be too difficult in practice, nations would all be pulling in different directions and be more or less inclined to commit their forces depending on the particular scenario. Europe has a lot in common and can achieve a lot working together but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're some monolithic entity who's interests are always going to be the same. Foreign policy is perhaps the biggest area of government in which there would be most disagreement, so much so that any EU military force would probably be rendered impotent through its inability to reach a consensus on anything.

Completely agree with that.

As a matter of interest, has anyone on this thread so far ever served in any of the armed forces?

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Isn't this essentially the purpose of NATO and the UN though?

Nope. We are talking about a United European standing army, not a coalition of individual nations and their own forces. NATO can still exist outwith the European countries who would become a singular entity.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Livia

Completely agree with that.

As a matter of interest, has anyone on this thread so far ever served in any of the armed forces?

If the point of that comment is that only military personnel can comment on this then are you a former or current member of her majesty's armed forces yourself?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kyle

If the point of that comment is that only military personnel can comment on this then are you a former or current member of her majesty's armed forces yourself?

Get off your box, Kyle. I was asking because I would be interested to know how people's opinions differ when they've served. And no, I am not a former or current member of the armed forces, but I am the daughter of a soldier, a military widow, and part of my work is with the MOD. Not that I think that makes my opinion more valid.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Livia

Get off your box, Kyle. I was asking because I would be interested to know how people's opinions differ when they've served. And no, I am not a former or current member of the armed forces, but I am the daughter of a soldier, a military widow, and part of my work is with the MOD. Not that I think that makes my opinion more valid.

And my father is ex Royal Signals if you want to go down that road.

And i think I get the gist of what your saying when your very first post on here is essentially 'it's a military matter, civilians can't say' and now you are asking if anyone currently on this thread is military despite knowing full well they aren't or haven't been.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kyle

Nope. We are talking about a United European standing army, not a coalition of individual nations and their own forces. NATO can still exist outwith the European countries who would become a singular entity.

Europe as a single entity and a nation state in its own right is a pipe dream imo. It would neither be sensible or wanted by the vast majority of European countries and their inhabitants

We're at a bit of a strange point in history really, while its true that global organisations have developed into quite sophisticated frameworks nobody actually wants these organisations to become a singular country. If anything there is a drive for more nations not less; look at the way the ex-USSR and Yugoslav states have broken up, most recently Kosovo, and the way that the independence support has gathered speed in Scotland while there are also separatist movements in Ukraine. Ever more regions want independence to govern affairs but also want to be part of global networks for the trade and movement etc. advantages gained from that. It's an interesting paradox.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kyle

And my father is ex Royal Signals if you want to go down that road.

And i think I get the gist of what your saying when your very first post on here is essentially 'it's a military matter, civilians can't say' and now you are asking if anyone currently on this thread is military despite knowing full well they aren't or haven't been.

Go down what road? Stop trying to turn a discussion into an argument.

I asked whether anyone had served because I would be genuinely interested in a "service" opinion... I had no idea whether you had served or not, how would I? I don't know anything about you. I'd be interested in your father's opinion to be honest. And yes, I do think its a military matter and that civilians really shouldn't have a say in military matters, and I include myself in that.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kyle

You can be as anti-war as you want mate but in this day and age the U.K (or a European superstate as we are exploring here) need a standing army. I'm afraid cannons full of daffodils and hugs aren't a very effective defence method.

What an image this conjured up.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Livia

Go down what road? Stop trying to turn a discussion into an argument.

I asked whether anyone had served because I would be genuinely interested in a "service" opinion... I had no idea whether you had served or not, how would I? I don't know anything about you. I'd be interested in your father's opinion to be honest. And yes, I do think its a military matter and that civilians really shouldn't have a say in military matters, and I include myself in that.

Course I've never served and it's plainly obvious I haven't. Just as I can tell you that I'm damn sure a pacifist in JoeySteele hasn't served, a super liberal Kizzy hasn't served, a student or former student MTVN hasn't served and an anti-war activist in Josh hasn't served. And yes, I know you haven't served either although I knew about your military ties. Now if a ****** like me with less posts per day can work that out from what people's say on here then I'm damn sure someone with the brains you have can.

[Kyle]

And also Livia, I love your passion can I marry you?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

No, but boycotts & cutting supplies are. Preventing overseas electricity and blocking tourists from entering the country would also damage business.

Very valid points. Thought provoking.