Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As we have an 'US Politics' and an 'UK Politics' thread, isn't it time we have an 'EU Politics' thread as it's just as relevant and important? Also, as someone "over here", I always am curious to the opinions on regional news from someone "over there". So here, EU Dakkaites...all of us of course, really...is a bit of EU relevant news I saw today, to hopefully get this started.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/amid-fears-of-trump-europe-tries-to-make-its-security-less-dependent-on-the-us/ar-BBwdSK2?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

I think posters from the US and the EU, including UK, can all agree that it makes sense for the countries of Europe to have a military they can depend on and that isn't crippled by even smaller missions. The fact that so many countries in the EU - including Germany of course here - are below the 2%-of-GDP spending mark is not a good thing, in my opinion.

Naturally, how exactly money is spend and how efficient the result in good equipment and competent training is - that's something different that the raw amount of money can't show. I see the benefits behind more European cooperation in many ways, especially when it comes to training. Militaries from different countries might be able to teach other countries a bit about "specialities" of warfare - be it mountain combat or winter warfare or whatnot.

I don't see an EU military being practical at all. One, NATO already fulfills that roll, for all intents and purposes. This would create an extra level of bureaucracy that doesn't need to exist.

Secondly, it would be another major step towards disbanding national identities, which I highly doubt most European countries are ready for, let alone even want in the first place.

 Witzkatz wrote:
I think posters from the US and the EU, including UK, can all agree that it makes sense for the countries of Europe to have a military they can depend on and that isn't crippled by even smaller missions. The fact that so many countries in the EU - including Germany of course here - are below the 2%-of-GDP spending mark is not a good thing, in my opinion.

Naturally, how exactly money is spend and how efficient the result in good equipment and competent training is - that's something different that the raw amount of money can't show. I see the benefits behind more European cooperation in many ways, especially when it comes to training. Militaries from different countries might be able to teach other countries a bit about "specialities" of warfare - be it mountain combat or winter warfare or whatnot.

That's pretty much the nugget I got out of the article. There's obviously opportunity for a lot of economic efficiencies and synergies that can be had from coordinating increased EU efforts and leadership on the defense/military front.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't see an EU military being practical at all. One, NATO already fulfills that roll, for all intents and purposes. This would create an extra level of bureaucracy that doesn't need to exist.

Secondly, it would be another major step towards disbanding national identities, which I highly doubt most European countries are ready for, let alone even want in the first place.

I'd mostly agree. If countries inside the EU express an explicit desire to work closely together, like apparently the German and Dutch militaries are doing, then I think it will be a beneficial thing for all involved. Shoehorning in an EU military at this point seems indeed a bit unnecessary to me, as long as NATO is still in place.

Any kind of inter-country training will only help with improving communications. Armies training together will also probably feel a bit more inclined to feel like a part of NATO and a "team".

I think many governments in Europe really looked at the political climate of the last decades and realized that the threat of the Cold War has decreased, at least for now, and looked for places in their budget to save money. I understand that maintaining a strong (and expensive) military in comparably peaceful times might not make all the voters happy, but it just seems slightly reckless to me to not only rely on old equipment, but to also decrease manpower and training, thereby losing out on experienced men and women when push might come to shove later on.

Fail > Epic Fail > EU

Synergy isn't the Problem. Not planning ahead is.
Defense is always long term. You can't have "just in time" everything available you need, but Politics ( especially in Europe ) is stuck in short term thinking.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I don't see an EU military being practical at all. One, NATO already fulfills that roll, for all intents and purposes. This would create an extra level of bureaucracy that doesn't need to exist.

Secondly, it would be another major step towards disbanding national identities, which I highly doubt most European countries are ready for, let alone even want in the first place.

I'd mostly agree. If countries inside the EU express an explicit desire to work closely together, like apparently the German and Dutch militaries are doing, then I think it will be a beneficial thing for all involved. Shoehorning in an EU military at this point seems indeed a bit unnecessary to me, as long as NATO is still in place.

Any kind of inter-country training will only help with improving communications. Armies training together will also probably feel a bit more inclined to feel like a part of NATO and a "team".

I think many governments in Europe really looked at the political climate of the last decades and realized that the threat of the Cold War has decreased, at least for now, and looked for places in their budget to save money. I understand that maintaining a strong (and expensive) military in comparably peaceful times might not make all the voters happy, but it just seems slightly reckless to me to not only rely on old equipment, but to also decrease manpower and training, thereby losing out on experienced men and women when push might come to shove later on.

I agree with everything here.
I don't see a happy future for the EU unless some pretty drastic changes are made, particularly where currency is concerned. (and not an eu military!)

 SirDonlad wrote:


I agree with everything here.
I don't see a happy future for the EU unless some pretty drastic changes are made, particularly where currency is concerned. (and not an eu military!)

I don't really feel well informed about the details of the currency issues to really discuss that point in detail; but the economic discrepancies between member states overall is something that seems to be a continuing problem. I don't see any clear, direct solution for that right now, though.

What irks me a bit is that some of the newer member countries out of the former Eastern bloc seem to have quite a few politicians who attack the EU to score political points with their voters at home, while overall receiving quite a bit of net funding money from the EU. I don't see how there can be a healthy working relationship between country and EU level in cases like this.

The topic of the Brexit is already discussed in detail in the UK politics thread, so I'm not sure how much it makes sense to repeat points from there, here. Overall I'm rather wondering if the EU got a bit too big too quick, and the current situation - which includes the desire of half the UK population to leave the EU - stems from that fastened growth of the Union and the accompanying problems.

They did grow too fast. If they wanted to bring in many different countries with different economic outputs etc. they should have kept the level of intergration very shallow. You need to walk before you can run.

yeah, the two-tier system has a lot of merit i think, but I wonder if it would be beneficial to have different types of euro?
Like an 'italia euro' which the italians can feth about with as they need to for their economy and later on when the two currencies match they can be bought out by the 'full euro'?
I dunno, just 'spitballin' here.

 Witzkatz wrote:

I'd mostly agree. If countries inside the EU express an explicit desire to work closely together, like apparently the German and Dutch militaries are doing, then I think it will be a beneficial thing for all involved. Shoehorning in an EU military at this point seems indeed a bit unnecessary to me, as long as NATO is still in place.

If there's a belief that the borders of Europe are now set, and that conflict within Europe should and will permanently cease, than a standing EU military force does make sense. It will fail however, because of certain aspects of reality which doom it to being more idealistic than practical.

Firstly, why does it make sense? The answer is that warfare in the twenty first century has become one which is essentially determined in the opening stages of a conflict to a large extent. Warfare is undertaken with the resources immediately to hand because the weaponry involved is so complex that it cannot be any other way. When a tank costs many millions of pounds and requires well educated staff/highly advanced dedicated manufacturing apparatus to produce, it is impossible to scale up the manufacture in the short time periods conflicts now occur in.

The days of wars being decided by whoever had the largest amount of convertible industrial plant are long gone. Wars are fought with whats to hand at the time, and what the established supply chain can produce within the period of conflict. That supply chain is not easily expanded, and cannot be improvised. There are only so many plants capable of producing chobham armour or the electronic components of a cruise missile.

A unbification of defensive forces across Europe allows the expenditure of defence funds on as large a standing force as possible, one far larger than any given combination of member states. It enables you to ensure administrative and technical support is not split/unnecessarily replicated. It allows you to spread the manufacturing chain out across a wider geographical area to prevent key industrial areas being eliminated in one strike by a foe, as well as ensuring a homogenisation of the supply chain. It permits you to plan defensive and offensive strategy along a wider border. And so on.

Why will it fail? Firstly, communication issues. An efficient army needs to be able to talk to itself. Unless a dual language requirement was instituted, you could end up with a situation whereby a local Portugese commander cannot communicate with the Greek troops under his command. Secondly, it would require the EU army to have compulsory purchase powers across the EU in order to site troops effectively. It would require the creation of an EU procurement bureau which all states would have to contribute to. It would have to have bases in every country in order to be able to deploy to suppress any internal dissidence the police can't handle, or lend support in issues of national emergency. And so on.

In short, it would require the creation of an organisation with an overwhelming amount of power across all states. Since the legitimacy of government ultimately derives from the ability to wield force, this contracting out of the military would undermine their own power to an extent that the national governments would never knowingly permit. Not at this stage, anyway.

Yeah, it should have been a project, that would have take at least about a whole century, but that greedy nutcases rushed it.
We have how many political factions in the EU?
How many economic-systems?
How many cultures?
How many juristic systems?
How many military structures?

We don´t even control our borders! And I make no joke, WE HAVE TO CLOSE THEM IN TIME OR WE WILL JUST DROWN IN MIGRATION HERE!!!

No, right at this point the EU already failed and now it is in a state of a slow, painful and unreversable state of decay.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't see an EU military being practical at all. One, NATO already fulfills that roll, for all intents and purposes. This would create an extra level of bureaucracy that doesn't need to exist.

Secondly, it would be another major step towards disbanding national identities, which I highly doubt most European countries are ready for, let alone even want in the first place.

The problem with NATO, from an EU point of view is that it includes the likes of the US and Turkey... And few Europeans desire to be drawn into yet another conflict by the US or to have protect Turkey if that nutjob Erdogan gets in trouble.
That is why a unified EU defense organisation is desirable. It means that there would be more control in Brussels (or Berlin rather, as we all know where the real power in Europe lies) and less uncertainties about being dragged into conflicts that Europe has no real interest in.

But yes, it is unlikely to be going to happen anytime soon as it would get the Eurosceptics and nationalists really riled up. Expansion of EU power is way too sensitive an issue currently to be going ahead with it.

If you booted Turkey out of NATO there wouldn't be that problem.

I'm serious. Under that bastard they don't deserve to be in it.

But anyway, I think that we worked to improve NATO rather than trying to build this EU army it would be a much better outcome. It can start by making sure the member states spend that 2% of GDP on defence.

 Ketara wrote:


In short, it would require the creation of an organisation with an overwhelming amount of power across all states. Since the legitimacy of government ultimately derives from the ability to wield force, this contracting out of the military would undermine their own power to an extent that the national governments would never knowingly permit. Not at this stage, anyway.

I wouldn't say "overwhelming". I would rather talk about "well thought". If we let the people on terrain have a true voice and power of decision, it can work much more smoothly that you would think.

This is only possible if we stop having the current way of taking decisions in Europa. We need coordination and true cooperation, but that won't work if we let power of decision in the hands of ambitious, unpunished demagogues who care only for their own interest.

In short; we have to stop having "all mighty patrons/leaders" who are given much more credits than they actually have. Power of decision should be directly from the people first concerned, not people completely out of touch because way too far from the reality of the terrain or just having too much money for themselves to really care.

National government are part of the problem of EU. They don't protect their country; they just care about their own election..

Sooo...

Spain still doesn't have a working government (been like that since the february elections, the second ones were in june, nexts ones in christmas), any help? Please?

At least the World Bank got saved from the corrupt fool our caretaking (more like career-caretaking) government wanted to send as its executive director (public outrage worked for once!).

I still don't understand why are you soo worried about saving our sorry asses, but seeing that ya'll want to keep Mallorca and Menorca and Magaluf and Ibiza, maybe you should kick our politicians in the teeth and put someone competent in there. Doesn't matter if he or she doesn't speak Spanish, most of our politicians can't speak either.

We do have some morale boost tho, we don't have neo-nazis or euroskeptiks or any of the far right problems the rest of countries have. Last elections the fascists and the commies didn't even bother to sign in and try to get a vote from their grandmas.

 aldo wrote:
Sooo...

Spain still doesn't have a working government (been like that since the february elections, the second ones were in june, nexts ones in christmas), any help? Please?

At least the World Bank got saved from the corrupt fool our caretaking (more like career-caretaking) government wanted to send as its executive director (public outrage worked for once!).

I still don't understand why are you soo worried about saving our sorry asses, but seeing that ya'll want to keep Mallorca and Menorca and Magaluf and Ibiza, maybe you should kick our politicians in the teeth and put someone competent in there. Doesn't matter if he or she doesn't speak Spanish, most of our politicians can't speak either.

We do have some morale boost tho, we don't have neo-nazis or euroskeptiks or any of the far right problems the rest of countries have. Last elections the fascists and the commies didn't even bother to sign in and try to get a vote from their grandmas.

Not saving Spain and the likes of Greece would mean the failure of the Euro and the federalist policy at the heart of the Euro.

I'm surprised by the lack of effort the communists are putting in across Europe these days too.

We(Austria) will have in the next weeks/months a re-election of the president, because somebody hat the brilliant idea to manipulate like an idiot(seriously!). Oh, and we have a non-elected chancelor.

 aldo wrote:
Sooo...

We do have some morale boost tho, we don't have neo-nazis or euroskeptiks or any of the far right problems the rest of countries have. Last elections the fascists and the commies didn't even bother to sign in and try to get a vote from their grandmas.

Sooo… funny that you mentioned neo-nazis. Here in Germany out politically correct neo-nazis (AfD) compared themselves with the White Rose (that was an actual Nazi resistance group here in Munich):
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/afd-berlin-vergleicht-sich-abermals-mit-den-geschwistern-scholl-14438495.html (translate.google.com version)

 Ankhalagon wrote:
We(Austria) will have in the next weeks/months a re-election of the president, because somebody hat the brilliant idea to manipulate like an idiot(seriously!). Oh, and we have a non-elected chancelor.

Well, is that really so bad? I mean, the last Austrian to become chancellor by being elected wasn't entirely a success either now, was he?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

 aldo wrote:
Sooo...

We do have some morale boost tho, we don't have neo-nazis or euroskeptiks or any of the far right problems the rest of countries have. Last elections the fascists and the commies didn't even bother to sign in and try to get a vote from their grandmas.

Sooo… funny that you mentioned neo-nazis. Here in Germany out politically correct neo-nazis (AfD) compared themselves with the White Rose (that was an actual Nazi resistance group here in Munich):
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/afd-berlin-vergleicht-sich-abermals-mit-den-geschwistern-scholl-14438495.html (translate.google.com version)

AfD isn't neo-nazis. AfD is a nationalistic right-wing populist party more or less similar to the PVV in the Netherlands or the FN in France. Calling them neo-nazis just means that the term loses its negative meaning when applied to actual neo-nazis. It makes some people think "Oh, if those are neo-nazis than neo-nazis are not so bad." And that is bad, because neo-nazis are really bad. We should not make neo-nazis look better than they are by diffusing the term.
Calling AfD more neutral terms like 'nationalists' will not only help prevent neo-nazis from "becoming mainstream", it will also improve the quality of political debate in Germany which already is polarised and emotionally charged enough as it is without such mud-slinging.

Yeah. You're not going to defeat Neo Nazis by labelling anyone and everyone right of centre as Neo Nazis,. Something which the hysterical Left is particularly fond of doing...in fact, that'll only play into their hands and drive otherwise moderate people into the arms of genuine Neo Nazis.

Well, is that really so bad? I mean, the last Austrian to become chancellor by being elected wasn't entirely a success either now, was he?

Yeah, that guy didn´t have any clue about anything. Most of the time he just said and made the same stupid things like Merkel....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neonazis....
I would have more fear about that Antifa-guys, who are fonded by certain left-extremist-partys and like to tour and riot around.....
Nobody cares about them.
Or the funny little incident with islamistic kindergartens in Vienna......fonded with taxes, because nobody knew it, and nobody is probaly responsible for that atrocious insanity....
Nobody cares about them that much.
About 250 Neonazis(Meaning: Nationalists or generally pissed off people...) are demonstrating! OMG! Sound the alarm! Call the Cobra(SWAT)!
Just don´t call the Antifa, they come on their own, turning whole streets into a warzone, storming police stations, throwing stones of roofs, clashing with the police, destroying vineyards, setting stuff on fire,..........
Some reasons to get a gun in time.....
And that comes from a guy, who doesn´t like them that much.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

AfD isn't neo-nazis. AfD is a nationalistic right-wing populist party more or less similar to the PVV in the Netherlands or the FN in France. Calling them neo-nazis just means that the term loses its negative meaning when applied to actual neo-nazis. It makes some people think "Oh, if those are neo-nazis than neo-nazis are not so bad." And that is bad, because neo-nazis are really bad. We should not make neo-nazis look better than they are by diffusing the term.
Calling AfD more neutral terms like 'nationalists' will not only help prevent neo-nazis from "becoming mainstream", it will also improve the quality of political debate in Germany which already is polarised and emotionally charged enough as it is without such mud-slinging.

Politically correct neo-nazis

From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism):

Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, antisemitism, and initiating the Fourth Reich. Holocaust denial is a common feature, as is incorporation of Nazi symbols and admiration of Adolf Hitler.

Their soundbites sound similar enough. The bold stuff they already do and they can't use Nazi symbols that easily here in Germany (although their followers on twitter like to do that). Of course they say that type of stuff and then when the backlash comes they whine about PC culture and that their statements were misunderstood (or they blame some imaginary interns who did something on their own initiative). The difference between them and actual neo-naizs here in Germany is that they are a political party and don't burn and bomb refugee camps. The motivation is the same.

Politically correct neo-nazis is a fitting name for them.

Mario wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

AfD isn't neo-nazis. AfD is a nationalistic right-wing populist party more or less similar to the PVV in the Netherlands or the FN in France. Calling them neo-nazis just means that the term loses its negative meaning when applied to actual neo-nazis. It makes some people think "Oh, if those are neo-nazis than neo-nazis are not so bad." And that is bad, because neo-nazis are really bad. We should not make neo-nazis look better than they are by diffusing the term.
Calling AfD more neutral terms like 'nationalists' will not only help prevent neo-nazis from "becoming mainstream", it will also improve the quality of political debate in Germany which already is polarised and emotionally charged enough as it is without such mud-slinging.

Politically correct neo-nazis

From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism):

Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, antisemitism, and initiating the Fourth Reich. Holocaust denial is a common feature, as is incorporation of Nazi symbols and admiration of Adolf Hitler.

Their soundbites sound similar enough. The bold stuff they already do and they can't use Nazi symbols that easily here in Germany (although their followers on twitter like to do that). Of course they say that type of stuff and then when the backlash comes they whine about PC culture and that their statements were misunderstood (or they blame some imaginary interns who did something on their own initiative). The difference between them and actual neo-naizs here in Germany is that they are a political party and don't burn and bomb refugee camps. The motivation is the same.

Politically correct neo-nazis is a fitting name for them.

Yes, there are some unsavoury, racist elements in AfD (just like in similiar parties in the rest of Europe). But while every neo-nazi is undoubtedly a racist, not every racist is a neo-nazi. The first difference being the association with national-socialist doctrines. Some supporters of AfD definitely are neo-nazis, but AfD as a party definitely does not base itself upon national-socialism, and most of its followers are just normal people discontented with the German political establishment.

AfD is a bunch of xenophobic nationalists. Neo-nazis are also xenophobic nationalists. This may make them look similar at first glance, but if one looks deeper one sees that the similarities end there. AfD and neo-nazis have very different motivations and goals and are just very different in general. Neo-nazis do not just stop at xenophobia and nationalism. They are supremacists and ultranationalists, both of which AfD is not. Their ideologies may have important similarities, but neo-nazis are much more extreme than AfD is. And that is the second, and most crucial difference. Calling AfD neo-nazis is like calling democratic socialists communists just because their ideologies share a lot of similarities. It is important to not just acknowledge the similarities, but also to acknowledge the differences.

98% of Hungarians who voted in the referendum voted to reject EU refugee quotas but the turnout was so low the referendum was ruled invalid

Well, I wasn't expecting that. This will surely satisfy no one.

Honestly, if Hungary wants the EU money they've been getting then chickening out when the EU wants them to contribute is a dick move. It's 1.2 thousand refugees in a country with 9 million-odd inhabitants. If they're a threat to Hungarian culture then Hungarian culture would die from a stiff breeze.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, if Hungary wants the EU money they've been getting then chickening out when the EU wants them to contribute is a dick move. It's 1.2 thousand refugees in a country with 9 million-odd inhabitants. If they're a threat to Hungarian culture then Hungarian culture would die from a stiff breeze.

But the problem is...Will this 1.2 thousand refugees be it? Or will be there be another 2 thousand refugees next year, 5 thousand refugees the year after that? Didn't Germany take in a million people last year? Thats whats probably going through their minds right now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, if Hungary wants the EU money they've been getting then chickening out when the EU wants them to contribute is a dick move. It's 1.2 thousand refugees in a country with 9 million-odd inhabitants. If they're a threat to Hungarian culture then Hungarian culture would die from a stiff breeze.

But the problem is...Will this 1.2 thousand refugees be it? Or will be there be another 2 thousand refugees next year, 5 thousand refugees the year after that? Didn't Germany take in a million people last year? Thats whats probably going through their minds right now.

In which case they can tell the EU to feth off in the future instead of just refusing to even try.

It's their choice to make, of course, but even as someone who's pro-EU the fact that Eastern Europe has gotten massive economic aid from our tax payers and are now trying to chicken out of helping to shoulder the responsibility is more than a little annoying; the fact that Orbán is using blatant lies about Sweden in his BS propaganda is even more so. If they don't want to play by the rules, fine, but in that case there really shouldn't be any money for them either.

Provocative?

Russia moving nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad.

One other thing, today I learned Kaliningrad is actually a Russian territory detached from mainland Russia.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kaliningrad,+Kaliningrad+Oblast,+Russia/@54.3561739,22.4035234,7.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46e33d8d4b7c21a9:0x5050960016126ed3!8m2!3d54.7104264!4d20.4522144

 whembly wrote:
Provocative?

Russia moving nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad.

One other thing, today I learned Kaliningrad is actually a Russian territory detached from mainland Russia.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kaliningrad,+Kaliningrad+Oblast,+Russia/@54.3561739,22.4035234,7.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46e33d8d4b7c21a9:0x5050960016126ed3!8m2!3d54.7104264!4d20.4522144

Yup, it was one of the things snapped up by the USSR after WWII. Russia had no real claim over it. It was Prussian, then German, but really Polish the whole time, and is basically just an excuse to hold onto some ports. Same with Karelia and Petsamo (although those were just before from Finland).