[reinier]

No, we need each EU country to realize that they all need to have a functioning army that all train together and all contribute to a force that can possibly defend the EU together. Maybe we could standardize a lot of equipment across the armies, but why would we want a general EU army? Who would be in control of it? The possibility of an unelected comission ending up with control is unacceptable IMHO.

[SllX]

In essence, this is more or less what NATO is, and it does standardize a lot of equipment across different forces and provide a chain of command.

If NATO didn’t exist though, the other guy is right: you want one military with one chain of command. The more fractured you guys are, the more ineffective any kind of unified military you create will be because you have to convince Frenchmen and Spaniards it is worth dying for Poles and Hungarians and vice versa.

[i_am_proteus]

The existence of separate political/economic (EU/EEC) and political/military (NATO) unions in Europe is remarkably dissonant.

[hnmullany]

A reminder that the members of the EU Commission are proposed by the collective ministers of all European governments, appointed by the group of all EU Heads of Govt (prime ministers/presidents) and ratified by the EU Parliament (directly elected).

It's as unelected as the US Supreme Court is - which means - technically unelected, but definitely reflective of the wishes of the electorate via the people they elect to populate it.