• KatherinaReichelt@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days ago

    I like the idea, but if you think about it, it would take a major EU reform to work. In the current state with every country having its own veto an European army will not be able to be deployed anywhere. We had this one with Hungary being a Russian puppet under Orban. We didn’t manage to provide normal aid to Ukraine due to Orbans veto. An European army would face the same problems.

    • timestatic@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      I mean if it gets implemented it will get the duty to actually like… you know defend its own member states. There would be no coordination or possibility to veto in this case. A veto could only be a problem if we tried to send the EU army somewhere outside of the member states and have them take on a mission there

      • azuth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        Would it defend every state? Or would the big countries make concessions to avoid a military conflict? With or without a veto right.

        By the way EU already had a mutual defense pact. A single military would increase effectiveness but remove member’s state ability to defend themselves.

        • timestatic@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          If the treaty says the military would react to any attack of a member stack with duty to defend all, the countries wouldn’t get to vote on it. Only for outward missions this would be needed