Monetary Union-Political Union-What Next?

rumour · 30-09-2009 5:42pm #1

We have created a pan european currency.
We are about to create a political union that can only grow.

Where does Europe go next?

I suggest that at some point it will start flexing its muscles, then are we looking at an Army?

prinz · 30-09-2009 5:44pm

Any reasoning behind your suggestion?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 30-09-2009 5:44pm

rumour wrote: »

We have created a pan european currency.
We are about to create a political union that can only grow.

Where does Europe go next?

I suggest that at some point it will start flexing its muscles, then are we looking at an Army?

We already have a political union.

I imagine at some far off point we'll reach a federal Europe, then the whole thing will implode at some further off point. That's the nature of these things. All states are transitory, history has proven this.

Rb · 30-09-2009 5:44pm

What's wrong with an Army?

rumour · 30-09-2009 5:49pm

prinz wrote: »

Any reasoning behind your suggestion?

Well I do not know any country or state of this size anywhere in recorded history that has not developed an army. I think armies generally develope according a the percieved threat, but like political power once in place military power is very difficult to turn off.

However I was more interested in knowing if there are alternatives or if its just inevitable.

robindch · 30-09-2009 5:50pm

rumour wrote: »

I suggest that at some point it will start flexing its muscles, then are we looking at an Army?

I think a Navy's better.

We can get them to line up just off the cliffs of Moher and have them push Ireland up against the UK, and then the whole lot south a bit for the sun and up against France for the better food and roads.

We'd need to sort out Schengen first though.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 30-09-2009 5:50pm

rumour wrote: »

Well I do not know any country or state of this size anywhere in recorded history that has not developed an army. I think armies generally develope according to the percieved threat, but like political power once in place military power is very difficult to turn off.

However I was more interested in knowing if there are alternatives or if its just inevitable.

There are already 27 armies in the EU.

Why develop a new one?

Diom · 30-09-2009 5:50pm

OP wrote:

Monetary Union-Political Union-What Next?

Sexual union?
Unholy union?

The sky is the limit.

EDIT::
This post is full of "sarcasm". No voters beware.

prinz · 30-09-2009 5:52pm

rumour wrote: »

Well I do not know any country or state of this size anywhere in recorded history that has not developed an army. I think armies generally develope according a the percieved threat, but like political power once in place military power is very difficult to turn off.

However I was more interested in knowing if there are alternatives or if its just inevitable.

There are alternatives, we keep our national armies, but cooperate in some areas. No need to start flexing an 'EU muscle', everyone knows the countries that are in the EU and what their capabilities are. The idea that we need to 'develop' an EU army is redundant.

robindch · 30-09-2009 5:53pm

rumour wrote: »

Well I do not know any country or state of this size anywhere in recorded history that has not developed an army.

Costa Rica has a smaller area than Ireland, but a larger population.

It abolished its army by in 1949 and hasn't had a civil war since.

Diom · 30-09-2009 5:55pm

Also:

Armies develop before politics. Armies are the power of a people. They enable politics and diplomacy.

Having an army gives you a say. Sad but true.

ei.sdraob · 30-09-2009 6:00pm

rumour wrote: »

We have created a pan european currency.
We are about to create a political union that can only grow.

Where does Europe go next?

I suggest that at some point it will start flexing its muscles, then are we looking at an Army?

Microchips in all children

View · 30-09-2009 6:35pm

Diom wrote: »

Sexual union?
Unholy union?

The sky is the limit.

EDIT::
This post is full of "sarcasm". No voters beware.

No, it isn't. Lisbon gives the EU partial competence (with the member states) on Space Policy.

The final frontier here we come...

ei.sdraob · 30-09-2009 6:41pm

View wrote: »

No, it isn't. Lisbon gives the EU partial competence (with the member states) on Space Policy.

The final frontier here we come...

United Federation of Planets

http://i33.tinypic.com/2rbz41h.jpg

:eek:

Judgement Day · 30-09-2009 6:59pm

Rb wrote: »

What's wrong with an Army?

Nothing if you don't mind Irish soldiers being killed to fight wars caused by European imperial legacies and to further the cause of European arms manufacturing. Ireland does not have an indigenous arms industry and therefore has nothing to gain from getting involved in European conflicts.

I would suggest that instead of getting involved in a European army it would be more beneficial to the Irish people if at least 50% of the existing army was transformed into a paramilitary police force to regain control of the asylum at home.

rumour · 30-09-2009 7:24pm

View wrote: »

No, it isn't. Lisbon gives the EU partial competence (with the member states) on Space Policy.

The final frontier here we come...

That certainly would be more productive than an army. I'm in favor of that.

ei.sdraob · 30-09-2009 7:38pm

rumour wrote: »

That certainly would be more productive than an army. I'm in favor of that.

by voting NO to lisbon

you ensure that Ireland does not participate in scientific projects

such as EUROATOMs ITER fusion reactor project which promises cheap unlimited power from water

and if and when this technology is developed we are left behind

/

rumour · 30-09-2009 9:04pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

by voting NO to lisbon

you ensure that Ireland does not participate in scientific projects

such as EUROATOMs ITER fusion reactor project which promises cheap unlimited power from water

and if and when this technology is developed we are left behind

/

This has nothing to do with Lisbon,the premis is that Lisbon is in existence. please canvass somewhere else.

rumour · 30-09-2009 9:10pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

There are already 27 armies in the EU.

Why develop a new one?

Indeed I see no reason, that does not preclude the idea. If your intent was to create a superstate it is the missing link.

All I think it would take is some fear tactics and it comes into existence. We will all need it or at least be convinced that this is the case.

Rather like the invasion of Iraq.

I guess given that Lisbon is almost an inevitability control of where we go next is important.

rumour · 30-09-2009 9:19pm

prinz wrote: »

The idea that we need to 'develop' an EU army is redundant.

Really where is that evident from? Certainly Irelands army is redundant and cannot protect us, that however would be a strange position for the new europe to adopt.

Look what happened in Georgia last year,
look at what's happening in Afghanistan.
Why does Iran feel the need to develope nuclear missiles.
Why was G Bush so keen to get missiles in Poland.

An inter european war does seem inconceivable to me but that does not make an army redundant.

Rb · 30-09-2009 9:20pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

There are already 27 armies in the EU.

Why develop a new one?

I can see quite a few benefits in a fully integrated European army actually

Judgement Day wrote: »

Nothing if you don't mind Irish soldiers being killed to fight wars caused by European imperial legacies and to further the cause of European arms manufacturing. Ireland does not have an indigenous arms industry and therefore has nothing to gain from getting involved in European conflicts.

I would suggest that instead of getting involved in a European army it would be more beneficial to the Irish people if at least 50% of the existing army was transformed into a paramilitary police force to regain control of the asylum at home.

If soldiers don't want to run the risk of being killed, perhaps they should re-consider their position on joining the army in the first place. There's already plenty of Irish soldiers involved in foreign armies, particularly the french foreign legion as far as I understand...does that bother you? That they exercised their free will to join an army and run the risk of being killed?

At the end of the day, if China turned around tomorrow and decided that it was time to invade Ireland, we'd be relying on our fellow member states to step in and protect us. We should all be in it together. Wars do happen and being part of a big European military project could only benefit Ireland imo.

prinz · 30-09-2009 9:24pm

rumour wrote: »

Really where is that evident from?
An inter european war does seem inconceivable to me but that does not make an army redundant.

Because most of the countries are already in organisations like NATO, the WEU etc. Each country has it's own armed forces and would put them to use should the situation arise. The idea of a new created EU "army" is redundant. The creation of battle groups, RRF's etc for deployment in peace keeping etc is not.

truthisfree · 30-09-2009 9:25pm

Rb wrote: »

I can see quite a few benefits in a fully integrated European army actually

If soldiers don't want to run the risk of being killed, perhaps they should re-consider their position on joining the army in the first place. There's already plenty of Irish soldiers involved in foreign armies, particularly the french foreign legion as far as I understand...does that bother you? That they exercised their free will to join an army and run the risk of being killed?

At the end of the day, if China turned around tomorrow and decided that it was time to invade Ireland, we'd be relying on our fellow member states to step in and protect us. We should all be in it together. Wars do happen and being part of a big European military project could only benefit Ireland imo.

You got me in stitches with that one, China invade Ireland? :pac:
I think China has it's eye on somewhere else!

rumour · 30-09-2009 9:26pm

Diom wrote: »

Also:

Armies develop before politics. Armies are the power of a people. They enable politics and diplomacy.

Having an army gives you a say. Sad but true.

That is why I started the thread, it appears to be the missing link if Europe is to deliver on its new constitution. Europe is a big market but it is also pretty low on much needed natural resources which other makes us bottom of the list in terms of pecking order.

We will carry no economical weight with the likes of Russia, China or USA if we are not prepared to arm ourselves.

It would be preferable if we could avoid this but does anyone see a way around this?

phantom_lord · 30-09-2009 9:31pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Ireland does not have an indigenous arms industry and therefore has nothing to gain from getting involved in European conflicts.

Ireland actually has a number of firms that rely on the arms industry for a significant part of their turnover.

Judgement Day wrote: »

I would suggest that instead of getting involved in a European army it would be more beneficial to the Irish people if at least 50% of the existing army was transformed into a paramilitary police force to regain control of the asylum at home.

lol wut

moogester · 30-09-2009 9:32pm

It seems others are also thinking along the lines of a European Army

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/4689736/Blueprint-for-EU-army-to-be-agreed.html

It may well happen & if it does i'd imagine Ireland will be expected to play its part.

rumour · 30-09-2009 9:35pm

prinz wrote: »

Because most of the countries are already in organisations like NATO, the WEU etc. Each country has it's own armed forces and would put them to use should the situation arise. The idea of a new created EU "army" is redundant. The creation of battle groups, RRF's etc for deployment in peace keeping etc is not.

Those groups NATO etc are disfragmenting extensions of an older order established after the second world war. Those institutions protected the security interests of the United States first, Europe second.

Who will defend this new Europe, are we to call on the USA again? Ireland does not of course think on these sort of strategic terms, hell this country can't even see 18 months in front of its nose, but the UK France Germany Spain Italy have collectively thousands of years of strategic thinking and i expect they will be called upon to deal with these questions when the economics get difficult. I doubt they will call on Ireland:pac:

But I guess they'll all be sold as peace keeping forces which of course are not redundant, sounds much better than an army.

Rb · 30-09-2009 9:35pm

truthisfree wrote: »

You got me in stitches with that one, China invade Ireland? :pac:
I think China has it's eye on somewhere else!

China was just an example, plucked from the air. The island is a good resource for attacking other countries from though.

truthisfree · 30-09-2009 9:38pm

Sarrkozy has already called for a 360,000 strong army for the EU that will have an intervention stratgedy as part of their make-up.

I honestly do not want us to end up like the US with "our" troops in a war like Iraq or Afghanistan.

rumour · 30-09-2009 9:41pm

moogester wrote: »

It seems others are also thinking along the lines of a European Army

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/4689736/Blueprint-for-EU-army-to-be-agreed.html

It may well happen & if it does i'd imagine Ireland will be expected to play its part.

Well another piece of timely information from the telegraph who are of course not aware that a referendum is happening here. Anyway much of that is common knowledge but you won't hear it reported in Ireland. Personally I think its inevitable because we now have created the european superstate with a constitution.

prinz · 30-09-2009 9:41pm

rumour wrote: »

Who will defend this new Europe...

The armies we have

How long does it take for this to sink in?

Monetary Union-Political Union-What Next?

Comments