So what's wrong with an EU army?

>>71188695

we don't need it, he just have to send our US lackey to die for us.

>>71188695
Absolutely nothing. Hopefully it'll happen now that you have an extremely unpredictable and volatile president that could screw over NATO any moment

>this guy

File: Törni.jpg (33KB, 404x396px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 404x396px

Nothing in the grand scheme of things if Nato wouldn't have such a strong grip on many EU countries since they have taken the easy way out and become extremely dependent of Nato.

File: austro-hungarian postcard, wwi.jpg (112KB, 600x378px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 600x378px

>>71188695
because we already have documented historical evidence of such a thing being a catastrophic, dysfunctional mess during real conflicts.

also fuck globalists

why?

isn't the EU and economic union?
an army to defend economic interests seems pretty evil.

>>71188695
That they will mobilise it against countries or people that want to get out of the EU

>>71188695
Nobody will pay for it

>>71188868
EU isn't only economic, it's a political, economical and social union of european states. An EU army would be a massive step towards federalization, but that's just a pipe dream. Defending economic interests is also pretty much the only reason armies get deployed nowadays.

That belgian is my favorite euro.
That sort of idealism is hard to find these days.

File: 1484097291053.jpg (55KB, 258x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 258x360px

>>71188904
>An EU army would be a massive step towards federalization, but that's just a pipe dream.
>dream
>Romanians dream of being annexed by Germans

French Army with German generals.

>Austria has conscription
>get drafted into the EU army led by some incompetent belgian
>France wants cheaper Uranium so some central african shithole needs to be invaded
>spend a few months in a hole in the sand and defend yourself against daily attacks from child soliders and giant mosquitos carrying a dozen exotic diseases
>get home afflicted with ebola
>"here are your 300 Euro damage compensation, thank you for your service to europe!"

Hell no.
If that ever happens I'll move to NZ.

No thank ou

>>71188904
yeah, but the EU is de jure an economic union.
de jure economic unions don't need de facto armies.

deploying armies to defend economic interests might be what's being done nowadays, it doesn't make it good.

if you want a separate alliance of European countries, a sort of NATO but just ETO, it's debatable, but a "EU army" is a bad idea.

>>71188695
Nothing

>>71189120
wouldn't the EU becoming a military alliance mean Austria would constitutionally have to leave it?

>>71188970
>Brits don't know how the limits of power projection
With federalization the German influence would decrease. Formal, constitutionalized power would mean that Germany has around 20% of the votes. Not really a dominating influence as Prussia had in Germany or England in the UK.

>>71188695
>implying there isn't already an EU army

https://youtu.be/kmu0D_pca1Q

>>71188695
Inherently nothing, but autistic people don't like the idea of the future being different so they outright oppose an EU superstate and would rather be a small irrelevant country in the future

>>71189148
It's not. You are talking about the EC, not the EU.

>>71189174
It was already against the constitution to even join the EU. So take a wild guess how much politicians care about our neutrality.

>>71189120
>EU will manage to agree on which country to invade
you know by the time they pass it the African country in question would have changed it's name due to a coup and the vote would be invalid

>>71189174

nein

>>71189183
that would be very true if the EU was a democratic institution

Nothing

>>71189283
>Brits saying the EU is undemocratic while being the main opponents of democracy in the form of an EU government elected and controlled by the EU parliament
It's good you will be gone if that's how you argue

>>71189283
enlighten me - what's so undemocratic about the eu?

I wouldn't be opposed to a federalized army if the people in parlement like Verhofstadt weren't evil maniacs.

File: 98217489459.png (584KB, 475x637px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 475x637px

>>71189242
let me guess, if it weren't for nationalism we'd all already be living on Mars as well, right?

I can already see it:
Francois, Hans and Sven guarding Mohammad and M'Otumbu while they impregnate their wives and sisters.

>>71189389
Elect other people if you don't like your current representatives

>>71189375
There are other way to be antidemocratic. For exemple, our government went against the results of the referendum on the european constitution in 2005 to which the French voted "no". In that sense, constitionally speaking, France to be part of the E.U and we should leave.

>>71188695
For starters brexit would not happen if there was eu army.

>>71189375
I don't consider representatives elected by foreign voters determining British laws to be democratic. The only way this hypothetical system becomes anything other than different countries imposing alien laws on each other would be if European countries were provinces and not nations with thousands of years of history. I know that's your endgame anyway, but don't be surprised if people aren't thrilled with it.

>>71189518
How? The EU oligarchy and their cronies are rich, unelected moguls who keep eachother in power indefinitely.

>>71188695
I like the subject as a discussion piece online, just because the Euro far-right and far-left can't decide whether they value an alternative power structure to US-dominated-NATO as being worth further centralization of the EU Either way, the "globalists" win. Pick your poison, RT comment section.

As for the idea itself, trying to move money around in creative ways won't address the lack of EU defense expenditure. There's only so much shuffling you can do in the ORBAT when there's nothing to work with. And trying to end the trend of European "bonsai" militaries will put all of your eggs completely in the collective basket. It's do or die at that point.

tl;dr Europe needs to spend more money on defense.

If we had a European army, we should use it only for inner defense.
For outside missions (middle east, africa, etc.), there is too many political differences in Europe. France and UK might be eager to attack, but Germany and Austria might say no, and then you have to argue for weeks whether you should attack, and nothing gets done.
For inner defense though, it could totally work.

>>71189528
Your parliament was democratically elected and made a democratic decision. There was apparently no need for a popular vote on the issue in the French constitution. That flaw in democracy therefore derives from your own decisions before and not from the EU itself.

>>71189650
>As for the idea itself, trying to move money around in creative ways won't address the lack of EU defense expenditure.
This is also one of the things that bothers me about it, it's just so fucking lazy. Instead of possibly curtailing the social state even just a little bit to have respectable militaries, they'd rather just haphazardly duct tape all of their shitty, underfunded, laughable current militaries together and pretend it gives them more leverage in the world.

>>71189693
>a democratic decision
For a totalitarian maybe, they went against the decision of the people.

>That flaw in democracy therefore derives from your own decisions before and not from the EU itself.
I never blamed it on the E.U. I was just trying to show you how there are several ways to be anticonstitutionally in the E.U. Which is the case of France, and shouldn't be.

>>71189632
But the Scots have to accept the Britsh vote?
You can obviously be a nation and still have a higher ranking government. Lots of countries work that way al over the world.

>>71189653
If we get an EU army we obviously need an EU government that answers to the parliament and can represent the EUs interests and not national interests.
>>71189643
How are they unelected? Can you make an example of a certain position or person? General accusations aren't very helpful

>>71189801
If the vote wasn't binding it's nothing more than an opinion poll. Governments make decisions against the national consensus all the time. Sometimes for greater good, sometimes for personal benefits or special interest. That doesn't mean they are unconstitutional.

>>71189903
It was a nation-wide referedum, not an opinion poll, to which they are bound obey.
And this decision was only for the great good of their bank accounts.

>>71189903
uh, yes? They voted to remain a part of the UK and therefore be subject to the results of any future national referendums. They've been promised a referendum on independence once in a generation, not whenever they're mildly displeased about something.

>>71189903
>You can obviously be a nation and still have a higher ranking government. Lots of countries work that way al over the world.
no, because those aren't nations, those are states, provinces, and federal subjects, none of which any sane person wants their country to be.

>>71189990
You just said that representatives elected by others countries that make decisions over yours in undemocratic. But that is not different from Scotland, who have to accept English representatives. Countries weren't forced to join the EU, so they are as freely a part of it as is Scotland part of the UK.

>>71190089
Scotland is a country. There are obviously different levels of federal integration. A state is not the highest possible level of freedom within a federation.
>>71189967
If there was a law that made the vote binding you should have gone to court. If there was none, you held an opinion poll.

>>71190230
>But that is not different from Scotland, who have to accept English representatives. Countries weren't forced to join the EU, so they are as freely a part of it as is Scotland part of the UK.
Actually, Scots have their own parliament, which England does not. English representatives are not allowed to vote on most Scottish issues, whereas MPs from Scotland are able to freely vote on English issues.
>countries weren't forced to join the EU
most were forced into the Lisbon Treaty and UK voters never had a single say in our membership until the referendum last year.

>>71189653
Don't bother. We all know the instant you feel like it you'll sign a bill and our "inner defense army" is now in Laos.

Sweden raised an army solely for defense once. It ended with 10,000 of us dying in Poltava.

>>71190352
Again, you don't need to ask voters directly for it being a free choice. And how exactly were the countries forced? Saying that they have to join or leave is not pressuring to join, just to make a decision.

Does Scotland have a separate vote on foreign policy, the use of your military or any other grand issue?

File: 1486596204589.gif (40KB, 137x178px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 137x178px

>>71188864
>>71188970
>>71189174
>>71189242
>>71189283
>>71189430
>>71189632
>>71189752
>>71189990
>>71190089
>>71190352
>Thread discussing the inside politics of EU
>Brits flood the thread pretending they're still a part of it
What did they mean by this?

>>71188695
why are americans so scared of an eu army?

>>71188695
We need one European federation ! I mean look at some multi-ethnic countries like Yugoslavia, the Soviet union, Austria-Hungary, South Africa... They all looks fine don't they ?

File: Untitled.jpg (45KB, 400x274px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x274px

>>71190510
;-)

>>71190541
Or USA

>>71188808
This.
Realistically Europa is currently surrounded by 4 blocks for potential invasion:
Turkey/Arabia
Africa into Spain
Russia
And USA via sea.

We need a plan.

File: ota hintti.jpg (68KB, 566x798px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 566x798px

>ITT people who haven't been in army discussing about fates of people who have.

>>71189430
I didn't even mention nationalism

>>71190627
is this bait?

>>71190519
Where did you get that impression?

>>71190519
Why do European federalists continue to portray themselves as somehow sticking it to the USA by being cancerous globalist traitors to their own nations? You realise that until Trump's inauguration support for EU expansion/federalism has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy in Europe for like 25 years, right? You realize that Obama personally flew here to threaten us to remain in the EU during the independence referendum campaign? God you people are so delusional.

>>71190830
t. American fuccboy

>>71190830
the USA no, the Trump supporters that infest 4chan, yes

File: gösta.jpg (29KB, 658x369px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 658x369px

>>71190830
t: I like it in the ass from US though Eu was more beneficial.


Well atleast you britons are starting to resemble your friends from US when ti comes to general intelligence.

>>71190883
>>71190940
>>71190969
none of these posts even remotely make sense in the context of what I actually wrote in that post. Your lack of English skills isn't exactly making a great case for why you should all be in a trench fighting together.

>>71190703
No, this is ignoring the current geopolitical situation.
I.E 100 years from now.

That said, if USA leaves NATO, NATO is most likely going to remain, because deep down we know its better to have a cool defence cooperation than to risk getting invaded by a Bydlo Russian Putin successor.

>>71190969
I remember doing some homework on Britain and suddenly realizing they were fat idiots instead of european. Big shock tbqh

>>71191057
It's not a question of risk, but time

That being said NATO only serves America's interests and those stupid enough to actually trust Americans should eave that cancer as soon as possible

>>71190639
I was two years in the Germany Air Force and am still a reserve officer, currently in the rank of Leutnant d.R. (OF-1)

>>71190830
The US wants a loose assembly that follows their leadership, not a united force that challenges their leadership.

With brits leaving, we're the only decent force Europe has. EU army would mean a french one dying for euroniggers. Fuck that, build your own nukes and your own planes that are not shitty eurofighters you fucking cucks

File: 1485034509001.jpg (46KB, 517x488px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 517x488px

Because under the rule of current EU leadership it would be an army made solely for the purpose of helping importing africans and rapefugees. No guns, no armoured vehicles, just welcome packages.

And if the army fell under polish command, there would be immediately a WW3 against Russia.

>>71191207
no, they openly support every form of European integration, they are extremely open about this. Every President I can remember back to Bill Clinton has been an ardent EU supporter. You are lying if you say otherwise. A bunch of countries artificially attaching themselves to each other doesn't make a superpower.

It is completely fucking laughable that you think you are opposing the global corporate elite that controls the US by handing more power to that same global corporate elite here and doing their job of killing your nation for them in the process. Get a clue.

>>71191281
>French backing down from a fight

Could you at least wait until the war's started before you surrender?

>>71191368
>no, they openly support every form of European integration

Outright lie. Many many regulations are left to each nation to decide, following the principle of proportionality which is, you know, the EU's cornerstone.

You are an idiot and you left the union based on false information. But thanks for serving as an example of what not to do, I guess.

>>71191432
I'm talking about US foreign policy, not EU internal laws. read the fucking thread, Sven.

>>71191432
>20%
>Many
We want all of it back. cuck.

>>71191281
the Eurofighter Typhoon is better than a Rafale

>>71191368
American Attitudes on European Political Integration
The Nixon-Kissinger Legacy
2 / 2007
Youri Devuyst
Abstract

This paper concentrates on the Nixon-Kissinger view of European political integration. In contrast with the mainstream position of the American Administrations during the 1950s and 1960s, Kissinger was convinced that by encouraging European unity, the United States was in fact creating its own rival. The start of a new system of European foreign policy cooperation in 1970 was seen by Kissinger as a particularly important example of Europe’s attempt to challenge the American hegemony. Kissinger emphasized the need to maintain Western Europe in a subordinate role. Three main lines of action were pursued to keep the development of the European Community under control: maintaining bilateral contacts with key European allies, requesting a seat at the Community's decision-making table, and linking "obedient" European behavior to American military presence in Europe. The legacy of this policy still seems to influence the current American policy on the European Union. The Nixon-Kissinger term was, however, detrimental to rather than conducive of harmonious transatlantic relations. Tendencies to emulate it should therefore be discouraged.

>>71191369
Funny post coming from an irrelevant country soon to be third world

>>71191510
You can't, they're decided by global policies. You'll just be America's cuck instead of ours and let's face it, America doesn't give a shit about you.

>>71191558
Funny post coming from an irrelevant country currently third world

>>71191558
Sweden will be fine, France is fucked.

File: cameron grin.jpg (211KB, 2197x1463px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 2197x1463px

>>71191368
>>71191207
The US supports the EU for three main reasons

1) it's easier to deal with a single institution rather than dozens of countries.
2) it guarantees stability on the continent, which is better for trade and makes life harder for Russia
3) by virtue of its structure the EU cannot act decisively on any important issue and everyone knows this. The main reason why is...

>>71191432
... what this poster mentions:
>the principle of proportionality which is, you know, the EU's cornerstone.

It should be obvious to understand

>You are an idiot and you left the union based on false information. But thanks for serving as an example of what not to do, I guess.

I wonder what people like you will be saying if the UK prospers outside the EU.

>>71188695
portugese don't need one
spaniards don't need one as long as they can make deals with morroco
french would only want to use it to babysit niggers in africa
italians would only want to use it to abduct niggers of the coast of africa
belgians and dutch it would only serve as a way to get rid of the 2% gpd nato requitement
germans would start their jewy talk 'durr hurr we pay the most so we should dictate what the army does and everyone else should just listen to us'

that's what's wrong with an eu army

>>71191650
I'd have sex with Marylin Monroe before I wake up

>>71191537
Also something new:
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/opinion/ted-malloch-us-view-european-integration

>>71191650
That's why the EU needs further integration as I've written countless times in this thread now. A unified government that acts in the interests of the EU as a whole.

The US was interested in the EU as it was until recently. An indecisive tool for their own power projection. A EU that can act alone is not and never was in the US interests.

>>71191631
Desilusion. But I appreciate their sacrifice, they're showing the world the real deal.

>>71191593
t. Sven wifesson

>>71191744
Why are you so sure the UK cannot be successful outside the EU? I'll be interested to hear your reasoning

>>71191760
>That's why the EU needs further integration
Easy to say, not so easy to do. Further integration means German savers agreeing to underwrite the liabilities of Greeks and Italians, in some sort of direct transfer Eurobond scheme. How likely do you think that is?

>>71191829
>Why are you so sure the UK cannot be successful outside the EU? I'll be interested to hear your reasoning

Why do you think the UK wasn't successful inside the EU? Every single nation in the EU has been getting richer in the past 10 years.

https://qz.com/909088/for-the-first-time-in-a-long-time-every-eu-economy-is-growing-at-the-same-time/

>>71191829
>How likely do you think that is?
That's just what mister MEGA, Schulz, is advocating for. So it's not as unlikely as you might think. Voting Schulz means voting to pay for the United States of Europe and buy yourself security in an ever more unstable world. It seems a majority of people are willing to do this.

>>71191537
Wow, Henry Kissinger? You mean the guy who was Secretary of State nearly 20 years before the EU was even created? This is your evidence that you are fighting the big bad Yank boogeyman by voting for pro-EU parties that are usually wholeheartedly supported by American administrations?

I don't give a fuck about Kissinger, I care about Obama being sent here by his masters and telling us that if we're not good boys and decide that in the future we don't want to just be generic "Europeans" living in some corporate pawn superstate we'll go to the back of Madame President's "queue" in the future.

>>71191760
>the US supports the EU so the EU needs to integrate more
stop making stupid arguments then. It's plainly obvious that you just want your country to be in the position that the US is in now, because the US is basically what Germany could have been if its people weren't the most easily baited toward extreme political ideologies in the entire world.

>>71191957
go back to /r/the_schulz and stop trying to raid here

>>71188695
>having an army at all
fucking barbarians

File: current account UK.png (129KB, 1945x1292px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1945x1292px

>>71191918
>Why do you think the UK wasn't successful inside the EU?

I never said it wasn't. The UK was relatively successful in the EU, with the exception of the huge trade deficit with the EU (the UK has a surplus with non-EU countries). But the UK has also been successful before the EU existed.

So, forget your strawman. The UK has been successful with and without the EU. Tell me what makes you think the UK can't be successful without the EU now?

>>71191957
>That's just what mister MEGA, Schulz, is advocating for.

Is it an explicit policy position? Could you link me to the party's website where it says this? I'll translate the page.

>>71191961
The second link is 40 minutes old. It's from the future EU ambassador and is clearly anti EU.

>>71191961
How am I advocating German hegemony when I'm saying we should cut back our vote to the 20% we have due to population numbers?
Your logical fallacy in the green text only comes from your over-simplification

>>71192016
Never been there, that's just what I got from the newspapers here.

Because hopefully EU will not live long enough.

Cant wait to vote on swexit

USANZACANUK army when

>>71192094
I already didn't respond because you blatantly shifted the argument in your favor. My point was always that you gain nothing by leaving the EU, you can still be successful but you will acquire none of the things you set out to get, such as a say in global politics and a reduction in 3rd world immigration which, may I remind you, you were flooding your nation with long before you joined the EU.

File: 1401924738273.gif (1MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x200px

>>71192141
Yeah, like I said, Trump is the first American President to be anti-EU and pro independent, free, nationalist Europe. You're losing, and plagiarising /pol/ memes for your generic cardboard-cutout champagne socialist Eurocrat candidates isn't going to do anything to remedy that.

>>71192218
>My point was always that you gain nothing by leaving the EU

But this is obviously not true. We gain certain things, and we lose certain other things, by leaving the EU. Losing access to the single market is worse for trade, but there are positives such as state aid not being illegal and much reduced payments to the EU (I assume we'll still pay for staying in a few of the schemes).

You seem to have a very simplistic view of this. If you actually believe we gain nothing at all then you're a fool. The truth is we gain some, and lose some. What is debatable is whether more is gained than lost, or vice versa. Not that we gain nothing.

>you will acquire none of the things you set out to get, such as a say in global politics

Why do you say this?

>>71192094
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/zerfaellt-europa/zerfaellt-europa-11-mit-herzblut-und-leidenschaft-14322032.html
This is a guest comment of Schulz in the FAZ

>>71192234
>plagiarising memes
That's not how memes work.
And the polls say that it works for him and his party. That's why the CDU is already starting the campaigning and immediately went to personal attacks on the candidate

Friendly reminder that Schultz said Germany exists solely to protect Israel

>>71188695
We have NATO.

Trump's not touching NATO as long as we pay our fair share.

>>71188695
There is nothing wrong with an EU Army. It's something they should have had in place for decades by now. Instead, they cucked themselves to the United States and never invested any of their own resources into a proper military which is also largely why they have been able to sustain their meme socialist policies thus far. Now that they can't trade some land in exchange for protection, they actually have to start paying for a military. EU is done.

>>71192349
I can't find where he talks about what Germans will have to do (underwrite periphery liabilities). He says the Eurozone is dysfunction then talks about internal markets.

Anyway, we'll see what happens. I'll be very interested to see if this is explicitly what he offers and if there's a majority to support this in Germany

because it WILL be led by germany

>>71188695
Nothing. Ans now that the Brits are out we'll finally get one.

>>71193810
The real barrier to integration in the EU is the dysfunctional Franco-German dynamic not the UK. At least now we're going, you won't be able to use us as an excuse

From the outsiders' point of view, German posters are so overwhelmingly in love with the idea of USE and a possible army and to some degree Sweden posters as well while the Mediterranean European(including France) posters have more sceptical views on this Eu army idea. I wonder why.

>>71194004
Mhm. But it's not only the historical perspective.

Germans have basically nothing to lose from this. Their foreign policy (outside the EU) is almost existent and where it does exist, it's completely toothless because there's no will to use military power to do anything.

The French have everything to lose from the EU army thing, since they're the only real military power there, their government will make supportive noises but they'll only agree to it if they get premier command of the army. And who's going to swallow that.

The whole thing is a joke.

Everyone knows the EU army would just be used to 'rescue' refugees

>>71194090
I also wonder now that the UK has voted out, what languages are the possible EU army to use for communication? And it needs a perfect one because you have to give orders not only to German/Franco ones but the whole continent and let's be honest soldiers aren't usually famous for the linguistic ability and trilingua(?) tongues.

>>71194380
They'd use English, it's the dominant shared language. They'd moan about it but it's what they'd have to do

>>71193967
>>71193967
>The real barrier to integration in the EU is the dysfunctional Franco-German dynamic not the UK
typical Brit. Always talking like it's 50 years ago.

>>71194541
>typical Brit. Always talking like it's 50 years ago.

50 years ago the Franco-German outlook was far more harmonious and consistent. The divergence between the French and German economies, and the foreign policy issues, and the issue of Eurozone integration, has ruined what was a powerful and productive relationship

You have fuck all understanding of history or European current affairs

If you really, truly want to unite Europe, rich cunts must give out money to the poor ones
Just like how rich parts of a country would help out the poor

A truly united state would mean a single market without taxes, and for that to happen it's better off with a single currency
But what this means is that each country is not going to have their own central bank, meaning not having their own monetary policy
So poor countries won't be able to get themselves out of a jam
The whole union is bound to collapse unless rich cunts help them out

File: nosferatu.jpg (7KB, 300x191px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x191px

>>71190567
Top lad

>>71194608
>50 years ago the Franco-German outlook was far more harmonious and consistent.
~50 years ago was when the first attempt at creating a European army failed because of a change of government in France. Nowadays it's looking more realistic than ever. Czech and Romania just agreed to make a joint battaillon each with Germany. Things have really seen a drastic increase in pace since Brexit.

>>71188695
Now UK out, Europe can make army.

>>71195078
These joint battalions are a money-saving exercise and more than that, political currency. They're a million miles away from the reality of an EU army.

The first attempt at a European army is older than 50 years, it was in the 1950s (over 60 years ago) and it was more likely to work than today's efforts because it was limited to western Europe.

Do you think the French have stopped caring about their national sovereignty? Because of Brexit? Do you think the Poles or Finns are going to risk losing command of their forces to politicians who are notoriously weak on confronting Russia? Give me a break.

>>71195078
The whole EU army proposal needs a major threat to be alive and needlessly to mention a major event (world war or something alike) to test it ability unless EU go into to full US mode and apply interventionism while being a true major world player(a reason the army must exit). I don't know what the German masterminds behind all this are brewing. Truly intriguing.

>>71195299
>Do you think the French have stopped caring about their national sovereignty? Because of Brexit?
Go to a rally of Macron (next French pres) and gaze in awe how pro-European modern French are.

>Do you think the Poles or Finns are going to risk losing command of their forces to politicians who are notoriously weak on confronting Russia?
Kek, you think they have any illusions of stopping the Russians on their own? Do you think they will count on the US after what Trump has said so far? You realize that in Poland recently a book became a bestseller which explores an alternative history in which they didn't turn down the German's offer to fight alongside them against the Soviets in WWII?
You think the Finns want to be finlandized forever? You don't think they rue that they missed the opportunity to stop being finlandized when Russia was at her knees in the late 90s and now, that this opportuniy has passed they won't immediately take the next opportunity to get out of the Russian sphere of influence as soon as it should arise?

>>71195373
>a major threat
We have that with current Russia.

>>71188695
>So what's wrong with an EU army?
Nothing.

File: csm_8895353655._Abstimmung_in_Laendern_6952be1a9c_c9037a7a06[1].jpg (56KB, 490x712px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 490x712px

>>71195852
>Go to a rally of Macron (next French pres) and gaze in awe how pro-European modern French are.

Macron rallies are not representative of general French public opinion. I think you are delusional.

>>71195929
How so? Are Russian really that imposing for eastern Europe? The size of their economy is no bigger than Italy after all. If they are not going to use nuclear weapons then I don't know why it is taken that seriously by Germany and Co. It's not like Russia is China desu.

>>71195852
>Go to a rally of Macron (next French pres) and gaze in awe how pro-European modern French are.
The political party that gathers the most votes among the younger voters is the Front National

>>71188695
Top kek Verhofstadt

>>71190519
We aren't, we think it's funny how Europeans act like it's "sticking it to the US" when it's pretty much the exact opposite.

Is it true Verhofstadt wants to bomb london because of brexit?

>>71196173
Typical Brit. Always living in the past. Your picture is from the pre-Brexit era.

Because EU is not supposed to be some kind of super state with it's own army. That's what

>>71197752
It's from 2016! The same year as Brexit if before the actual referendum.

Do you really expect us to believe the French (and others) have stopped caring about national sovereignty because the UK decided to leave the EU?

You think they base decisions THAT important for themselves on the UK's actions? Don't get me wrong I think the UK is an important country but you're taking this a bit too far.

>>71188695
EU countries have no powerful armies. Only the UK and France do, and UK left the EU, the french army is to protect the french interests, not the EU interests.

>>71196237
>How so? Are Russian really that imposing for eastern Europe? The size of their economy is no bigger than Italy after all
In PPP terms the Russian economy is almost as big as Germany's and bigger than either France's or the UK's. Plus, they spend a much bigger share of their GDP on their military. Plus, they have shown multiple aggressions in the last decade, essentially destroyed the European postwar peace order and behaved themselves in erratic, unpredictable and threatening fashion.

They've also maneuvered themselved into a strategically unfavorable position since the annexation of Crimea. Defense analysts have concluded that by 2018 their military buildup will have advanced far enough to take on any NATO member save the US. Furthermore due to the currently low oil prices their national treasure will be depleted by the same year. And the'll have elections in 2018. Before the annexation of Crimea Putin's approval ratings fell below 50%. Afterwards they soared. So essentially in 2018 the Russian elites will be standing with their backs to the wall and with a big stick in their hand. 2018 will be decisive year in world history and Euope needs to be prepared.

>>71197896
>It's from 2016! The same year as Brexit if before the actual referendum.
Thanks for repeating what I just said.

>Do you really expect us to believe the French (and others) have stopped caring about national sovereignty because the UK decided to leave the EU?
Brexit showed like nothing else that the success of the EU is in France's best national interest as it is in the best interest of every EU member.

>>71198672
>Brexit showed
Nothing yet.

>>71198672
>Brexit showed like nothing else that the success of the EU is in France's best national interest as it is in the best interest of every EU member.

Why will it show that?

>>71199029
Others have explained that better already. Essentially: the going back to the nation state is a ruse because it's not a going back to anything that existed before but a leap of faith with all evidence pointing to the destination being a guarantee for failure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o5eb_4pvaM#t=5m31s

>>71199416
The nation state definitely has existed before and still exists now. The nation is important for very many Europeans. You can't deny this.

>>71199560
Better shut up and listen to that Yale historian that I linked to.
The point is the nation state has never existed, or never existed successfully, without being part of a larger project. If you really do a hard Brexit you will fall down to at best Latin American standards of living.

>>71199769
Wow. How do you define hard Brexit? Because most people take it to mean leaving the Single Market, which is what we're going to do.

This will make us Latin American tier?

>>71189387
Unelected officials deciding everything?

>>71199909
yes

>>71200030
Wow

If this is the average opinion... What on earth is going to happen on the continent if the UK does well?

>>71188740
not anymore. America first, and only America first. You're gonna have to start funding your own armies now.

>>71200098
>if the UK does well
It won't. If you go all the way, the UK will break up and you'll be competing with Argentina economically.

>>71189587
>implying the US wouldn't defend our 51st state

>>71191631
Lel no. Sweden will literally be Jugoslavia in 30 years, tops.

>>71200308
>If you go all the way, the UK will break up

What does "all the way" mean?

>>71189752
The only reason they were even able to fund their social states in the first place is because they didn't have to fund their millitaries at all after 1945, they relied on the US, hopefully Trump will make good on his promises and we can stop hemmhoraging money and spend it at home where we need it.

>>71200371
hard Brexit, meaning the 2 year negotiation period and any postponing the deadline by the EC won't lead to a conclusive treaty, leavig you to fall back to WTO standards /wrt to trade with the EU and nothing else.

>>71189653
When the US was founded, debate raged about whether or not to have a standing army, now look at us.

>>71200533
I have no idea why continentals still underestimate Britain to a ridiculous degree despite so much of your history telling you that's a bad idea

>>71200857
Your history has zero time spent as a nation state. You were empire and then EU member. A British nation state as such, meaning alone and dependent only on itself, has never existed.

>>71200757
That's a very big jump though, we can't assume all of EU wouldn't get dragged into wars without a common army in the next 200 years.
The change in American politics was fueled by wars in Europe. And you have to admit America acted in it's interest successfully. Should Hitler or Stalin have won decisively World politics would be much less centered around America.

>>71201069
Britain is not alone in the world. We have many allies and culturally-close countries all over the world. Most of these places had a very minimal British military presence during empire. The cultural ties remain.

No country in the world, even North Korea, is dependent only on itself.

>>71199769
No, they won't, we got their back

>>71201524
Your cultural ties won't help your economy. Any major trade deal requires ~10 years of negotiations. You're in for a surprise and haven't even begun to understand what a huge blunder Brexit was.

>>71201655
You have no idea how utilitaristic states are.

>>71201724
You think a few years without trade deals will turn us into Argentina and break up the UK.

File: good goys.jpg (68KB, 477x295px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 477x295px

>EU Jews: "We need unlimited Muslim migrants."
>okay
>get terrorism, gang rapes, cities burned

>EU Jews: "We need a European Army."
>okay
>hires Muslim migrants to shoot Europeans

>>71191537
Hate him as much as you want but you can't deny that kissinger wasn't right.

Don't listen to Verhofstadt.

>>71200308
I had a sensible chuckle at that. The UK is one of our trading partners, as we rise, they rise too.

>>71200180
If no one is alive to buy your products, America won't stay first for much time.

>>71201793
It's hilarious how people who vehemently argued against TTIP based on americans being opportunistic cutthroat capitalists who will rape european business are now claiming they're an empathetic nation of dog-gooders who wont take advantage of anyone do to emotional reasons.

Very funny.

>>71201884
>a few years without trade deals
You mean a state in which you never existed before, for which you have zero experience and what's worse zero preparations. The funny or sad thing is that not even the Brexiters had plans for post-Brexit.

>>71201793
we'll see

>>71189283
The EU was much more undemocratic before when it pandered to the UK's interests instead of providing a level playing field.

>>71202159
1. They trade under current EU-US agreed rules which they won't have after Brexit which is why they're already rushing to begin negotiations with you. Of course they won't achieve conditions as good as a 500m people trade bloc can.
2. Look at their share of trade with you and with the EU and then realize what really matters to them despite all their talk of separation and how they're not really part of the continent. It's all delusional.

>>71202280
indeed. it's wishful thinking.

I support an EU army. The sooner we shrink our empire, the more money we have to address domestic issues.

File: 1486937884247.jpg (55KB, 708x960px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 708x960px

>>71188695
The EU is Neo-USSR.

File: image.jpg (41KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 450x338px

>>71204918
...or literally Hitler, depending on your political views. I just don't see how the EU is totalitarian at all.

File: 1438770963861.jpg (30KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x600px

I support an EU army so Britain can inevitably defeat it, just like we defeated all the other European armies. It's been a while since we had a good war.

>>71202209
Our economy isn't like Germany's we don't depend on exports.

Reminder that (((they))) want the EU to be as strong as possible so the global populace is easier to control

>>71200180

oh yeah?! we're going to make an army now and the USA will pay for it!!!!!!!

The fact that it would be controlled by the the EU.

>>71188695
As a soldier, I'm not gonna risk my life for foreign countries. I'm ready to give my life in defence of Sweden, but if I'm expected to defend Greece or Poland? Don't expect any heroics. Those shitholes aren't worth a single drop of Swedish blood.

I aint going to serve no fucking kike, ever

nor will my children, nor will their children's children

File: Dead britshit liberators Iraq.jpg (10KB, 276x182px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 276x182px

>>71208704
>britshit stronk