Eu Army means common EU foreign policy!!!!?that’s not realistic !!!!

Spoločná armáda EÚ mala byť vybudovaná už v tom období keď sa EÚ zakladala.

History repeats itself as ‘EU Europeans’ forget their past.

Terrorism is not linkable to a state, that has a different term. Espionage.
Also, NATO has an active armed force capable of unified strategic defence of Europe, it’s actually one of the key reasons it was founded.
Thirdly NATO incorporates Turkey. So you are in fact suggesting a NATO state attacking other NATO states. Given the politics situation between Turkey and Europe right now, it’s possible they may quit NATO, but until that happens lets not include their military numbers amongst threats Europe faces.
Fourthly, NATO incorporates all of the armed forces of the individual nations that any EU army would have, in fact it would in no way strengthen numbers of troops actively ready to defend the EU, all it would do is restructure the command system of the nations willing to leave their defence to the EU committees that would take charge of it. If anything it may well be used as an excuse to cut defence spending even further within the EU, resulting in fewer numbers to defend against attack in total, not more.

Foreign policy of the United States - Wikipedia

Yes. A European army is long overdue. There are substantial gains in efficiency to be achieved in terms of efficiency once 28 distinct military forces are grouped into one and European military procurement is centralized. This army should be tightly constrained to the defense of the territorial integrity of the EU, with any foreign intervention requiring the explicit approval of the EU Parliament in an open vote (so that citizens can check which MEP voted in favor or against it). Furthermore, once a European army is created, the NATO treaties should be revised and e.g. the clause of mutual protection in case of foreign aggression be dropped, as the U.S. seem to have very different security policy objectives compared to Europe and some EU members aren’t members of NATO and shouldn’t be held to defend NATO members against their own interests.

Look at our neighbours and the countries at the frontier of the UE armies : 1. RUSSIA (active 845.000 soldiers, total including reserve and paramilitary – 3.3 Million soldiers) 2. Turkey (active 510.000 soldiers, total including reserve and paramilitary 1 million soldiers – very well military equiped ) vs Main Eu Borders States which would face the first brunt of an attack from Russia/Turkey or others proxies (we are not including reserves from eastern countries many have already migrated and can not be called for military service in time vs those of two countries Russia and Turkey which are lead by strong dictators and are able to settle up the reserves faster than us) : Poland (active 99.000 soldiers), Czech Republic (23.000 soldiers) . Hungary (active 26.000 soldiers), Austria (active 22.000 soldiers), Slovakia (active 15.000 soldiers), Romania (active 75.000 soldiers) Bulgaria (active 31.000 soldiers), Greece (active 143.000 soldiers) and of which the Poland has the best equiped of all, Greece used to have but with the crisis they are not in excellent shape. We need an united European Army well trained and well equiped for defensive purposes only to defend against intentions to carry out direct/assymetrical conflicts againts Europe and must include here threats from terrorist paramilitary organization which can be linked officialy !! to a state

How U.S. Foreign Policy is Made - Foreign Policy …

You also say that you are entitled to be critical of EU policies detrimental to “your country” without being called xenophobic. Well, is that a law? It is exactly begging the question of this exchange…you have exactly failed to prove that EU policies are detrimental to any specific country, as you have been unable to show that you are not xenophobic, even if that word only includes certain countries…quite the opposite. We have democracy and freedom of speech and we have the right to call you xenophobic, and I have provided evidence for this, which you have been unable to counter and indeed have not commented on at all.

Foreign policy | Politics | The Guardian

Paul, it is actually your comments that are off the mark all the time. I was referring to the same workers that you tried to use as an argument. So, apparently, you were referring to people with no skills that want to earn enough to have all the comforts…And you scenario is once again completely hypothetical. The same people that hire cheap labour from Eastern Europe will not necessarily stay in business once they have lost that cheap labour or, from what I have heard them say, they would look at automation, as they cannot afford a British labourer or the quality of their work, which is apparently much slower than that of Poles and destroys most of the crop…

Obama, Trump, and the Future of US Foreign Policy

@Yasmine, I have never worked in agriculture, but I have worked alongside Polish workers (and currently do) and I cannot see any evidence to support a claim that they are better workers than the English workers,or workers from anywhere else from Europe.
@Gyorgy, England, Britain & the UK have never historically attempted to destroy Europe. In fact History would demonstrate an intention from England/Britain/the UK to actively help Europe out of problems. We have been at war with certain nations at one point or another, but more often than not it has been to help another European country, or group of countries that were threatened or occupied by that country.

How Did the Cold War Affect U.S. Foreign Policy? | Synonym

No at all. Never. Ever. A foreign army eill be used to control troubled area. If such an army will exist in the future i’ll certainly join a counter resistance group to fight it. No kidding