Youtube hearted comments of Archangel17 (@MDP1702).

I don't really think the language is that much of a problem, there is one clear option: english. Not only does this not favor any (large) EU member, but it is also the most used language world wide, the most used among EU allies and is used internationally in many different fields too. In the end every soldier that can't speak english yet would just take a course for it. By extension I also think english should become the 'official' EU language and be thaught in every member. Not to replace other languages, but to be used in official EU circumstances (politics, EU announcements and military for example) and so that citizens of different memberstates always have a common language to communicate with/fall back to, while ofcourse using their own native language when possible. I also don't really think the budget would be that problematic. Essentially you'd state that all members spend at least 2% of their GDP in a common military fund, with the option to put more into it with the option to spend equally less than 2% in another year within the next 10-15 years (so a nation spending 3% one year could spend 1% a few years later), though the funding needs to be known more or less 2 years in advance and the fund should have always some reserve fund left. Then it is up to the military to manage that fund under the supervision of the EU parliament, which also needs to keep the council up to date when asked about. Ofcourse this oversight can be different depending on the answer of 'who is in charge?' And ofcourse the minimum budget can be increased if most countries are in favor, though probably only done in times of need. The difference in equipment also isn't that difficult, though it isn't something fixed in a few years. For one you'd just slowly phase out the older equipment and replace it with newer common equipment. Secondly, some of this equipment could potentially be sold to other non-EU countries and replaced with common new equipment, this even could be seen as part of a modernisation plan. The main problem with this question isn't the difference in current equipment, rather the defence industry and selecting which equipment to actually use in the future. EU nations are already working on this problem (FCAS, German-French tank, ....), but it won't be an easy thing regardless, no country wants to lose jobs. I personally don't think public or political support is a problem overall, as long as you ensure that this EU army will not jeapordise NATO, something several (eastern) countries are afraid off. It is more the perception of opposition than actual opposition that is holding something more regarding an EU military back, that and the less easy answered questions. Regardless, starting with an 'EU army of the willing' is imo the best option. The 'who is in charge' and 'sovereignty' questions are essentially closely interlinked and aren't easy to fix, especially not with the current still pretty decentralized EU government.
147
Because a right to veto by one member is essentially inherently undemocratic, since a small number of people could stop a large majority from making decisions.
12
@EUMadeSimple Another thing is that this 35 billion to Russia isn't profit Russia can just use, they also need to use that tp pay for the operations to get and transport that gas. So it is more likely to be around 15-20 billion in 'support' for Russia (if even that high).
10
Kata San123 There also are quite a lot of German soldiers that state much of the non-combat ready equipment is more due to strict German standards rather than actually not being necessarily combat ready, for example even a malfuctioning signal light could make an entire system be deemed unready. Where and when did this general said this btw?
6
@Pax.Britannica It contradicts what you said because countries can do whatever they like No, they can't. If they don't follow WTO rules, they can't be a part of WTO, which generally isn't a good thing if you are a nation with a lot of trading. It is the same with the EU, you can do whatever you like, but if you break the rules, don't be surprised that there are consequences. And it's not imposed on anyone. It is imposed if they want to be a part of WTO. If you don't follow WTO you'll have to trade with WTO members as a third party, which isn't something you want unless you aren't relying much on trade. See, there you are asking for specifics. I don't need to give specifics when it applies to every single damn item I buy from outside the EU. But you don't give any evidence that this truly negatively affects you. You just claim the goods from the EU are inferior or more expensive and that is it. I too sometimes buy stuff from outside the EU, which is not really a problem or negatively impacts my life. Often it is still (significantly) cheaper than from within the EU, though for a lot less quality. Or the cost is more or less similar for a similar quality, depends on the region I buy it from (Asia vs for example the US). Generally I don't really buy expensive stuff from Asia, since it is lower quality, and this cheap stuff is usually duty free too if I remember correctly. And I only buy something from the US that really has high import tariffs if I really can't find it in the EU, which has so far only happened once or twice. It however can impact peoples lives very negatively if you just remove those tariffs. And this is also the thing. You just want to maximise you bottom line, I personally also think supporting 'local' suppliers is worth something extra and to me tariffs are worth that. And such tarrifs are a normal thing, that isn't a great example of how the EU negatively affects you. The pre-existing national tarrifs have just been moved to the EU level so that there is no problem with internal free EU trade. Not Singapore. And Singapore is a country that specifically has set this up as a special system. There are only very few countries/regions in the world without tariffs. And I actually can understand from a small nations standpunt with little own manufacturing that is relying on imports for almost everything that you don't want to add this inescapble burden on your citizens. This however definitely isn't case with the EU, where you can find most things already imported or evne better manufactured within the EU. Overall the EU actually doesn't have that bad tariffs at all when looking at the weighted mean on all products, likely because while the EU has some high tariffs for certain products, it also hasa lot of trade agreements etc. Tariffs are self harm, imposed only to protect a politicians voter base. You have clearly no idea of the important of tariffs. They protect a nations/regions own production base. If you set no tariffs and your production base dissapears because of that, you are in deep problems if something happens to that foreign production base. Moreover by protecting this production base you secure the jobs in these sectors. Generally low/zero tariffs are only good for big global bussiness or in case of small nations relying on imports and even for these small nations just getting FTA's with your main trading partners and still setting tariffs for everyone else might be beneficial, though depends on the situaton. There are a few exceptions, but for a large market like the EU, that just isn't the case. From Adam smith, Milton Friedman to Thomas Sowell, even Karl Marx, economists understand this. And there are just as many or more economists that would state the opposite. There are quite some opposing economist policies that all have some support. By increasing the risk of me being censored. A more censorious world is a more dangerous one. How does it increase the risks of you being censored? Did you read it? Or did someone just tell you that is the case? Like I don't know the specifics of this, this is a genuine question. Given that you think it's OK to ask for specifics, I'm going to ask that you give me the exact regulations that the UK has "out-regulating the EU" with. Online age verification for example, where the UK wants for example porn sites to verify a visitors age using passport information. This is ofcourse just one that easily jumps out. But if you actually do a deep dive, the UK has a lot of regulation. And a lot of EU regulation was also pushed by the UK. Specifics please. I think it had to do with kippers or something similar, a quick google search will show you that. The reason I ask for specifics is that people often are saying that something (like a law or rule) impacts their life negatively and thus it or the instution responsible is a negative. But when you ask how it specifically impacts their life negatively, they can't give it since they were mostly just raging against something and trying to come up with (acceptable) reasons to do so. in the EU only the unelected politicians who make up the Commission can propose such legislation. I am actually not sure whether the parliament can't amend or remove already existing EU legislation, it might fall under their perogative. Though I can't find anything either supporting or disproving that possibility. Anyway, yes the EU can be improved, and it is improving over time. There also are many countries that need to be improved, but aren't doing so (the UK, US, ...). The CPTPP btw is essentially just a free trade agreement involving several nations. It is like NAFTA. Even the EU has some similar trade deals where it involves many other countries in one trade deal. It won't move towards a protectionist bloc, considering it isn't a trade block/union.
4
@pantheraleo1047 Honestly I'd say Germany loses power in a European federal state. Now it can use its influence to put pressure on other memberstates/leaders, in a federal system they can't really put pressure on all the European voters, not could they pressure another state without the federal government getting involved. They'd be like California or Texas, a powerfull state to be sure, but not exactly rule the federal state. Hell, it is even possible that Germany would in such a system split up more along the lines of its current states/provinces. Possibly also a similar case with other larger nations.
3
You could have said the same thing about the US army +-200-220 years ago, where a lot of the states kept their own militia defence forces with a pretty to very weak federal army.
2
The question is, can you use that for an entity as large and influental as the EU?
2
Overall the software can easily be changed and improved with over the air updates. However the interfaces (sliders, buttons, ...) can't and should be improved. Though this might happen over time. Except for that I guess it would be a more than decent car.
2