I agree, but there's definitely some more integration that can be done. An initially opt-in military organisation would be great because it doesn't really make sense for individual EU countries to do military alone. We should never fight with other countries in the block (and a military organisation would make that impossible), and it doesn't make sense that the EU wouldn't protect other member states.

I guess we might get that for free when we inherit NATO...

[–] fishpen0@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Shared military is probably the single strongest reason US states could never leave the Union. It comes up every single time Texas or California talk about secession. Some of our largest military operations are in those states, they would never be allowed to leave. Once you have nationalized military you have soldiers with no allegiance to your own state in all your bases and your own soldiers are spread thin among all the other states with no way for you to recall them without appeasing the current head of the military who is also always more loyal to the union (or the military or themselves) than your state.

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

and a military organisation would make that impossible

I agree that an EU military would be a great idea but let's say "less likely". We used to say the same about nato and yet here we are.

[–] aleq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

If the EU organised a proper centralised and integrated army, how would one country attack another one within this alliance?

I guess at some intermediary stages it would look more like NATO does now, with individual armies that are not very tightly integrated with each other, but if it's being integrated into the EU I'm thinking more in terms of an EU central command. Similar to how it would be incredibly difficult for Sweden to declare war on Skåne.