Originally posted by trumptman
Your second point actually proves what I am saying so thank you. The 10 nations that the E.U. is taking in have even smaller and more ineffective armies than the rest of Europe. So you have something that isn't good enough and now it has to do even more than before. It would be like the U.S. annexing Mexico. I have seen Mexico's "naval bases" like the one in Bahia de Los Angeles. It is a small building with some sand bags and a few 25 foot boats to "patrol" with. It is a joke and we would gain nothing from their armies while assumg all responsibility for their land.
The same is true for what will happen with the E.U. They get 10 new partners that they now have to agree to protect with no real army.
The last issue is a big one. As you said the ladies don't want five children and everyone wants their free time. The EU commision on population growth determined that the EU needs a population growth rate of 1.8 (currently 1.4) and 1.2 million immigrants a year. (currently 700,000) However even this would only slow the decline. How are you going to pay for all the services of a growing elderly population when there are fewer people to contribute to an even larger tax burder?
EU is not US, it's not a federal state but a deal between a group of countries. At the origin it was only a treaty about economical exchanges, no it's more than that, liberty of free circulation of goods and people, cooperation of justice, diploma recocnize in the whole EU, right to elect the major of the town of any EU people living in it .. common currency the euro for some members of EU ...
But there is no european defense, only some cooperation between state like germany and France and their joint Franco-german brigade.
The defense of Europe is built upon NATO. The majority of the countrie who are going to join EU are member of NATO, like Polland. Their protection is already alchieve. Anyway, since the end of the cold war, there is no direct conventional threat for their land. The major threat is terrorism, something that cannot be struggle via nukes. The problem of Europe is not defending their home land, and i can said that his army is more than sufficiant for this dutie (who is ready to struggle against more than one million of professional soldiers with good equipement ? ), but his capacity to export his forces outside it. Britain is able to export 50 000, france from 25 000 to 30 000 and the others countries less. I will say that they are not able to export more than 100 000 soldiers, compared to the 500 000 of US. 100 000 soldiers is not sufficiant for this purpose. That's why in the future if europe want a real european foreign policy, they'll have to improve this point seriously.
In resume : the army is sufficiant for his own protection, but not enough to make war outside it.
For the last point, yes they are, people live longer. But does not the same problem exist (even in a lesser extent) in US ?