Talk:Military of the European Union

This article was nominated for deletion on August 1, 2005. The result of the discussion was No Consensus default to Keep..

Question

Is "Eurofor" also a member of EU military group ?

Siyac 83.87.19.95 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the histogram of expenditures is completely wrong - I have checked the numbers, but when I add them I get a "timeline failure" or something. It should be: USA 533Bn, EU 293Bn, China 46Bn, Russia 32Bn. Can someone who knows the histogram markup make the change? To be honest, I question the validity of the histogram anyway... Regards, 195.137.96.79 05:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, worked it out - done. 195.137.96.79 06:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Vandalism

An unregistered person keeps changing the first sentence by adding the word "yet" before "state". The EU is not a state and probably will not become a state. It might do, yes. Though it is unlikely. Anyhow, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is here to give factual information about the present world and its history.

Secondly this person, who remains anonymous, keeps adding that the new Reform Treaty has been approved. It hasn't. It will be signed by government heads/foreign ministers this December and then it will have to be ratified by all member states before it comes into effect.

What we have here is a pro-federalist-EU person adding POV points/inaccurate statements to this article. Why it is only me taking action I do not know.

If this carries on I will get a moderator to lock the article/take other action. David 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how one defines a state, surely? The EU has an executive, a parliament, a president, a diplomatic corps, its own embassies, the nuclei of its own armed forces and police force (EUROGENDFOR), and policies on everything from agriculture to a space programme. It makes the overwhelming majority of the laws which govern those within its borders. The major function of national assemblies is now not the making of policy but the implementation of policies from the EU. At what point does it slip over the line between "trade club" and "state"? If it carries out all the functions of a state, but refuses to call itself one, is it not a state? At the time of this writing the ~~Constitution~~ Treaty Of Lisbon has not yet been ratified but the EU is already proceeding as if it had been, and nobody doubts that it will be.

So "The EU is not a state and probably will not become a state" doesn't seem a very realistic statement. Effectively it already is one, even if it shies away from the word.82.71.30.178 (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, it is not a state. It is a political and economic union of 27 sovereign states. It is not recognised as a state by anyone. The Treaty of Lisbon reaffirms that it is not a state. The EU is becoming a confederation at most. David (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The major function of national assemblies is now not the making of policy but the implementation of policies from the EU."

Not so. The majority of legislation that the individual EU states run on is legislation passed by the individual national legislative units--and many countries in the EU have "opt-out" clauses that give them exemptions to EU law. Additionally, the military forces of the individual EU states are solely controlled by those EU states, NOT from Brussels or Strasbourg. The nuclear weapons of the UK and France are the sole property of the UK and France and other EU nations have absolutely no say or control over them (and this situation is unlikely to change). On paper, the EU "may" be a nation, in practice it's nothing more than a Confederation.68.164.4.102 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, surely if it is recognised as a state by other states, then that makes it a state? The EU has diplomatic accreditation from all of the UN member states, including the 27 states within the EU. It also signs international treaties, protocols, and understandings as a separate state. What else does it have to do, in your eyes, to make it a state? Additionally, I don't see this as repeated vandalism, I see it as the correction of a repeated error.

The EU is not a state and is not recognised as a state by any state! It signs treaties and agreements with other states sometimes when it has been given the competance to do so by the member states. David (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, on this you are just plainly incorrect. For example, the United States recognises the European Union as a state separate from the 27 member states. As another example, the European Union has signed the accord that we now know as the Kyoto Protocol as a state entity separate from the 27 member states. Once again, if the EU is seen by other states (e.g. the US) as a state, and if it does what states do (e.g. signs international accords as a state), then surely that makes it a state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.41.97 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are just plainly incorrect. You are confusing the term "state". The United States does not recognise the European Union as a state. It recognises it as what it is - a supranational union of 27 sovereign member states. The EU signs numerous international agreements on behalf of the 27 member states as it has been given the competence to do so by those member states. You are simply confused about the issue here. The EU is, at most, a confederation of sovereign member states, who grant some of their decision making powers to supranational institutions that make up the EU. It is not a state. David (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the United States does not recognise the European Union as a state, then why does it send an Ambassador to Brussels, and what is John Bruton doing in Washington as the EU Ambassador to the US. In order to exchange diplomatic credentials, those parties need to recognise each other as states. You refer us to the Wiki definition of a 'state', and on this definiton, the EU ticks the boxes to be defined as a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.240.26 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you see "ambassador" and think "state". Which is wrong. You are trying to find anything which meets your idea that the EU is a state. Which it is not. The United Kingdom sends an ambassador to the United Nations. So by your warped reckoning the UN is a state too. David (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is why Wiki has such a reputation for unreliability and inaccuracy. You are taking an opinion (the EU is not a state) and positing as fact. Those who disagree with your opinion (what you call fact) are branded as 'vandals' (why not 'Wiki-terrorists'?). What is most interesting is that, without an objective standard as to whether an entity is (or is not) a 'state' there can be no appeal to an objective authority. I guess that you should go back to being a Town and Country Planning student and I should go back to being the Head of an EU Research Institute!

There can be ambassadors for a wide range of organisations, from Universities to multi-national organisations, such as the UN, NATO and the EU. They are not nations. While I dont think anyone disagrees with the SIMPLE (as in GCSE level) premise that the EU is not a state, it cannot be ignored that the EU exhibits a wide range of aspects TRADITIONALLY liked to the nation state. You are getting to hung up on sermantics. If you have trouble with this simple context, I would recommend the work done by Ian Bache. 62.56.97.200 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg

Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Active Troops per 1000 citizens

These figures are most certainly wrong. The number of ACTIVE troops for Switzerland is low. The number of reservists very high. So the figure of Active Troops per 1000 people show be lower - about 1.699 per 1000 (13000 per 7million) not the 47.90 given. I havent changed it. They should all be corrected not just this one.--129.169.154.81 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot 09:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defence budgets in euros? (!)

Since most member states use euros (or, like Denmark and Sweden, keep in step with euros),surely it makes more sense for the table to be given in EUR rather than USD. It seems crazy to me to have to revise the values at regular intervals to compensate for the collapse of the dollar, especially as it makes it look as there has been an increase in military spending. --Red King (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was thinking about. It would more sense and add coherence to the text. What do you think?

P.S: If in 10 days no one has made any objections, I will edit the article.

--Alfa989 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment

I've added military equipment such as tanks and aircraft to the table for more detail. There are few sources about the member states' navies, so I've skipped that section, although you can feel free to contribute if you find the proper sources. - Tourbillon ^A ? 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"Slovakia" :
- {{cite news|title=Slovakian Armed Forces |date=[[2006-07-25]]|url=http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Slovakia-ARMED-FORCES.html}}
- {{cite news|title=Slovak Armed Forces |date=[[2006-07-25]]|url=http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Slovakia-ARMED-FORCES.html}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Someone already working on these articles might find this useful if they haven't already seen it: The ABC of EU peacekeeping abroad.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warships

Why have the number of warships (esp. aircraft carriers) been ignored on the table listing military capabilities, when these special vessels are the principal means for projecting power over long distances? Could someone add this category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.204.144 (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with that -130.208.165.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Iceland

I added the EFTA member Iceland to the strength list on the page. Kinda weird to miss that country since EU has been very keen to make Iceland join during the last few months. - 130.208.165.5 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

Now the Italian Defence have only 190.000 soldiers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.81.83 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]