By that standards, an EU army would have gone to war in Irak in 2003, dragging french soldiers and the french aircraft carrier despite them being right from the very start.
Sure, but how many "correct" decisions are not made or drag on forever because of vetos?
Allowing veto power to single participants is often crippling for institutions in practice, because you allow every political adversary (internal and external) to freely pick the weakest link whenever he wants to sabotage or paralyze decisionmaking.
This already happens in practice with the EU, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a textbook example of how such a mechanism essentially doomed the whole thing.
Yeah of course, Europe has already been destroyed by the EU bureaucracy, but lets give them even more powers to implement their dumb ideas even faster, such as... "oh, how about we stopped producing cars by 2030?", or again... "oh, war is bad, guns kills, how about we pass CSR laws that dissuade banks from funding military companies".
They are not European. They are French, or Swiss, or Scandinavian, each of those countries who may sooner or later not align anymore with your strategic interests. Countries should only trust themselves for sensitive stuff.
Why EU-native rather than nation-native ? If you are French, your sensitive stuff must be French-native, just like Switzerland does, not "EU-native whatever that means".
There is no EU, each country has very strong different interests, on some topics, some will decide to stay close to the US, on some other topics, some will seek proximity with the BRICS, etc, etc. Constantly being in an in-between is what has destroyed Europe.
Many EU countries have bought US fighter jets (Denmark for instance). Many EU countries still make it clear that they want US technology (Poland for instance). Germany is sending extremely mixed signals.
So, when it's "EU sovereignity", which is it, the Polish flavored one, or the French-flavored one ?
No. "Stronger together" is a hoax, and is only true if all participants are in agreement, otherwise you are "weaker together". 20 years of failed projects (apart from the law saying that bottles should have their cap attached) show that it is impossible to reach consensus with 27 participants.
Put 27 people in a room, all wanting something different, nothing comes out.
Every country in EU is materially better in the bloc, and the only country that left it is much worse for it.
Brexit was such a monumental disaster for the UK that even far right morons in other EU countries had to massively tone down if not abandon any "exit" rhetoric. Now their strategy is to "reform" the EU (i.e.: weaken it).
> 20 years of failed projects (apart from the law saying that bottles should have their cap attached)
This alone shows you are unwilling to engage with the idea of the EU in good faith, thus this conversation with you is a massive waste of my time.
The EU is not perfect (and in fact the expectation of unanimous decisions via veto powers is one if its main weaknesses). But every country, including my own, would be much worse without it.
I will not reply any further, feel free to have the last word.
New Iran videos show bodies piled in hospital and snipers on roofs
'I saw people getting shot': Eyewitness tells of Iran protest crackdown
An Iranian who got out of the country describes scenes of chaos as security forces opened fire in her home town.
Photos leaked to BBC show faces of hundreds killed in Iran's brutal protest crackdown
What I understand is that the Mollahs are hated by most Iranians, and that they have even managed to make the Persian population actually hate islam. Well done, bassij !
So to summarize, they were wrong to move away from nuclear.
They were wrong to ban fuel vehicle at the EU scale.
They were wrong to welcome 1 million Syrian refugees.
They were wrong to cut off gaz from Russia.
At what point does that political class that has destroyed Europe, gets voted out for good, if not prosecuted ?
They didn't even. They announced a time-plan to stop buying Russian gas eventually. Russia weaponized gas deliveries and stopped delivering. In fact, even before the war and any "unfriendly" action by Europe, they underdelivered to keep the gas storages (which they owned) low and drive the prices up. This alone should make anyone not want to buy Russian gas again.
The fact that these threads are always full of lies with all these twisted narratives show you who's doing the talking in all of them really. This thread was a few minutes old when someone had to mention that "The US blew up the pipeline" and this shit doesn't even collect downvotes or gets flagged, it rises to the top.
I clicked on two accounts posting lies and saw Russian software companies mentioned in their scant posting history, which in itself is not a crime, but also a fitting signal.
Europe has roughly divided by 5 its imports of Russian gas.
As to the Nord Stream, German prosecution services have arrested a Ukrainian national, Serhii Kuznetsov, in their ongoing investigations. The NY Times, the Spiegel, and Washington Post (all very well-known KGB mouth pieces), strongly point to Ukraine as well.
So my question is, are you really in a good position to lecture everyone about "fake news" on those topics ? I guess you were also telling us all that Trump was a KGB agent, before that got debunked in court ?
reply