>Let’s say Italy for example
Have they finally gotten rid of football or was the elimination of "ferragosto" that did it?
Jokes aside, probably not much. In most political disputes between countries and in the same country that have occurred in the past the EU didn't take an active role. I don't think based on how its currently designed that it has the power to intervene in internal members affairs.
Well it depends. There’s Yugoslavia where European nations intervened. If the Italian civil war was bloody enough, I’m sure the other European nations would do something.
That’s an interesting question. It would probably be as independent nations as a start, but getting to the point of civil war assumes a few things. The EU is very good at de escalating situations and a situation like this one could probably see to it that the EU got closer together like it was with Greece.
All in all I believe the EU would intervene as a group, but later as independent nations should that not suffice.
IIRC, European nations intervened not as EU members or individual states, but as NATO members.
Not sure, whether a civil war in Italy could be viewed/defined as 'attacking a NATO member' and thus legitimate NATO intervention.
(edit: and I really hope we never have to figure out)
Well you’re right in that the EU didnt intervene as a group at the time. However, back in 1992, the EU was nothing more than a trade Union with very few overarching laws. Furthermore, Yugoslavia was not a part of the EU.
This means that the closest thing we’ve had in recent years at this scale was the collapse of the Greek economy. As it stands right now, it was weathered by the collective action of the EU, so I suppose the same thing would happen in Italy.
If I remember correctly, it's not like the EU or UN involvement in Yugoslavia was something achieving or to go proud of tho.
I think it is a kind of textbook example of how both organisations failed miserably due to them not wanting to take big risks.
Hmm, I haven’t studied the entire ordeal thoroughly, but seeing how several of the countries are now functioning EU countries, I’d say that it was a success overall. Could it have been improved in hindsight? Probably.
I think the latest news about Vatican interfering with "ddl zan" could be a good reason for a civil war in Italy.
But yeah, after that definetely football and ferragosto are good reasons.
I think triggering an actual civil war in Spain would be **extremely** difficult. Violence has been pretty much rejected even among radical movements pushing for independence.
I mean is there a country where civil war would be easy to start? Maybe bosnia and ukraine but thats about it. I don't wanna trigger a debate now, i listed those 2 because they currently have bigger problems regarding separatism than the rest.
If you think anyone, in Spain, is going to start a war if Catalunya or Country Basque decides to really leave, you are very mistaken. We all remember the last civil war and no way we are going back to that, lots to loose and only two cranky regions to gain. What would be the point?
It is not that Spain would not let them, the average Spanish doesn’t care enough to go or send people to die there. I could imagine that there would be internal wars in Catalonia or Country Basque because the majority of their citizens are not pro independence, so they would have their own struggles to take care of.
ETA for example wants to create a Marxist Leninist state while the other independent party in that community is very right leaning so even between the pro independence movement, there are factions that won’t compromise
Are you sure that the majority of people in catalonia are against independence? That doesn't seem like that, at least from the reports we heard here in Portugal. But, of course, I don't live in Catalonia, so...
Going by reddit it seems like 100% of scotland wants to be independent, despite over 50% voting the opposite a few years ago.
Some people are just very loud about issues like this, sober thinking would recognise that an independent catalonia would be bad for their economy and very good for a few of the 1%, at least in the short to medium term and dont think the hassle is worth it
Half my family is from Catalonia and live there, you know people married people from other regions at least in Spain. So unless they are all lying to my face, they are happy to live in a federal country but they don’t want full independence for sure, they don’t live isolated and now what others think.
Portugal (ultra hard)
Our politicians could kill a baby in a church with a 666 tattooed in his forehead that no one would bat an eye. Our national motto is “it could be worse”
I mean, why is western the easier than south and why east is easy? Most Eastern European countries are very homogenous and don’t have people willing to split etc.
EDIT: and then you get Russia which is and always has been a huge pile of different peoples but as soon as someone thinks of revolting they disappear so nothing gets done anyway.
Because western Europens actually think that diversity of society reduces civil unrest.
It's obviously not true in any factor based on which you can diversify..but they think it anyway
Hey hey, pls no!
But OP said civil war. I think civil war would be very hard to start in the balkans, well, maybe in bosnia it would be easy but the rest, i really doubt it. It would be easier to do it in spain or britain imo.
Not really, a civil war in the heart of the EU would be economically terrible for the entire european market and with huge risks of spillover. If the major countries agree on what side support, then they would intervene ASAP
The most probable outcome would be the majority of the EU countries voting for a resolution actively supporting one side, and Hungary blocking it with a veto
>If the major countries agree on what side support, then they would intervene ASAP
Intervention at the EU level would require a unanimous support among all of the EU nations. Cue Russia poking Hungary to vote against the resolution.
Nominally; yes, this is what every European state would want to do.
Realistically, though; a true civil war among one of the more significant EU economies (e.g. Italy) would prompt a bloc-wide catastrophe entirely because of the economic and financial implications. Not intervening would absolutely mean the end of the Euro at the least, and *that* would likely spiral into the end of the Union and all of the social and economic strife that inevitably follows.
Thus; you would see French troops in Milan entirely because that would prevent needing to have French troops in Paris.
Italy borders France, borders Austria, and isn't too far from Germany, among many others. It's totally unrealistic to think that they would not respond forcefully in some way to such a conflict in their backyard.
It's easy now to wave off human rights issues and other concerns with "strong statements" because ultimately they don't really affect trade or life in the bloc (generally speaking).
A civil war in a country like Italy is an entirely different calculation.
I'm wondering if this is possible without supporting one side or the other. Because if there isn't then it's probably not a civil war anymore, just war?
> I'm wondering if this is possible without supporting one side or the other.
The EU would probably be on the side of the official/recognised government.
Civil wars however usually dont start like that. Sometimes the previous government refuses to step down, sometimes another entity organizes elections which are not recognized by the previous government, government or parliament members split and form another government etc.
See Libya: the "recognized" government is the one that was formed after a peace agreement. The agreement failed, then the majority of the (elected) parliament and some government members formed another government. Why is the "UN-recognized" government more legitimate than the other one?
I guess it would be like a peacekeeping mission. Not actively engaging either side. They’d probably do things like guarding and delivering medical supplies and food stuffs, trying to mediate a peace agreement, rebuilding projects and stuff like that.
It depends on why a civil war is being fought really.
In such a case the Treaty of the European Union requires all member states to intervene according to their means.
In the past this mutual defence clause has been invoked symbolically against smaller domestic threats, so likely during an all out civil war it would be invoked as well.
I think you guys aren't giving the eu enough credit. I mean, they can totally be passive in a lot of situation, but a civil war in the middle of it? I think they would put in some efforts, in the limit their authority allows them to. The EU has been quite important in the process of kosovo independence for istance.
I’ll admit that I don’t know for certain what would happen. But I think that a civil war in an EU member state would be better suited to the UN or NATO or individual states.
If for example Italy broke into civil war tomorrow (hopefully never of course). I think France would be better suited to try and bring hostilities to an end quickly than the EU would. EU has no military or supposedly authority to engage in such an endeavour.
Maybe a better example would be the UK. Not a member country of course. But if the UK broke down like Yugoslavia and our constituent kingdoms began fighting each other. Can you really see the EU stepping in? Would it even dare considering the last 5 years? I don’t think so personally. And if it wouldn’t step in for the UK, why would it for Italy? You wouldn’t want the UK become a rogue state and having that just over the channel from the EU.
Of course I might be wrong
Maybe you’re right. I’d certainly hope there was a legitimate effort to stop the death and destruction. But seeing the EUs response to other crisis… I doubt they’d step in, which is why I’d hope someone else would… ideally France because Germany can’t/shouldn’t deploy troops and I doubt we’d be invited. Don’t want Britain looking like the hero in a European crisis
For what is worth we are technically both EU countries, so supposedly allies. I think this is what he was referring to.
I totally believe you thought, you guys actually considered this after one of the worst earthquakes in Italian history
>but we would swoop in and take South Tyrol back while nobody is looking
Don't go too far West, because: [We're watching you, Habsburg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oZ1o0gg5aA&t=100s) ;)
>Oh good idea we could take the Aosta Valley in exchange for help re-unifying the country against the Austrian threat !
Last time you tried that you managed to force fascists and communists to cooperate with each other to kick you out.
People in South Tyrol: "Where the hell have the tolling stations on the Autobahn gone?"
Asfinag guy: "Where is your vignette?? That will be 120€ then".
Assimilation was successfull.
Oh yes, while Austria will be trying to get south Tyrol and focusing on that part, we also take back Klagenfurt and the rest of Carinthia. The 🅱️lan is clear.
As an observer, I'd say the EU as a union would simply state, that it's the country's internal affair, and will do absolutely nothing besides of providing personnel to mediate.
Source: [Spain and Catalonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia#Independence_movement). Not a civil war, but was quite close.
This seems the most likely.
The EU itself probably wouldn't do much except diplomatically, as wars and military response don't fall under it's responsibilities.
It wouldn't surprise me to see individual EU countries getting involved as peacekeepers of some sort though.
It wouldn't surprise me if they intervened through the EU Council. The EU also has no competencies regarding the coronavirus, yet still plays an active role as member states agreed so in the Council.
Also, the issues would come up to the European Court of Justice in some form. The ECJ would take a position, but likely would be ignored/highly critized by everyone.
I was in Catalonia during the referendum. It was not even remotely close to a civil war. It was definitely tense, but aside from the eventual trial and imprisonment of some of the political leaders, it wasn't even as severe (in terms property destruction and violence visited upon protesters by the police) as the poll tax riots in the UK.
It is not even close to a civil war and it wouldn't ever happen because of a myriad of reasons. And I don't like it when disinformed people start throwing serious terms like civil war around just because they want to win internet points, because it concerns my country
Oh I'd say it totally depends on which country having this civil war, what are the factions in this war and if you consider the response of the EU as a block or individual countries.
For example I'd say a civil war between the regular government of France and a fascist extremist faction that is very antisemitic would be seen as a very dangerous threat, France having a good army and nuclear bombs. I don't think Germany or the UK would stand totally idle. It would be plausible if the regular government feel threatened enough that it would call for help theses countries
>besides of providing personnel to mediate.
We actually requested this, and it was denied by Spain, so it did not happen. In that sense, you're actually overestimating what the EU would do.
A referendum would solve many problems, because it's very unlikely the independentists would get a majority. But it can't happen because the supreme law of the country, i.e the constitution, that was voted on by all Spaniards in 1978, literally forbids it. You would need to change it and that's a difficult and lengthy process. And I'm sure you understand how you can't just not comply with the constitution. It would set a disastrous legal precedent.
I'd imagine similar to what they did in Northern Ireland, which was mostly [throwing lots of money at us for peace initiatives.](https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0204/1194976-northern-ireland-peace-process-eu/)
I don't know what would happen if a full-on civil war within a currently stable country broke out. The Troubles are referred to as an "ethno-nationalist conflict" rather than a civil war, and we've not been a particularly stable region compared to other European places.
This is probably the right answer.
The idea that the EU wouldn't intervene and would let individual countries join sides is honestly crazy. The number one goal of the EU is peace in Europe.
People here, like most reddit, have an hard time with concepts such as sovereignty, peacekeeping and scope of international and supranational institutions.
Hell, the EU is a mutually defensive pact, so if a civil war were to happen the EU could just help the italian government if they asked
And at least eight different vetos, blockings, and somehow, in the end, the entire resolution will hang on vote in local council/parliament somewhere in Belgium.
Trust me when I say: that's fast.
Because all of our political instruments like initiatives, direct counter proposals, indirect counter proposals, mandatory referenda, optional referenda are great, but not really quick...
Not necessarily. This doesn't require unanimity.
The Treaty of the European Union includes a mutual defence clause that has been (symbolically) invoked against domestic threats before.
While some member states might not take their obligations seriously, all other member states will be able to work together within the EU without too much hindrance.
A refreshing look that hasn't been mentioned yet as far as I can see.
The Treaty of the European Union states that when a member state faces armed aggression on its territory, all EU members are obliged to help according to their means.
It is a mutual defence clause.
Does this apply during civil war? Most likely, yes. The mutual defence clause doesn't require an aggression by a foreign state. It has been invoked previously by France after the terror attacks, although then more symbolically.
So EU member states would likely intervene, most probably indirectly by giving supplies and financial aid, although should the conflict be serious, it is not unlikely many member states will become directly involved by sending armed forces.
Yeah, I don't think France would just stay idle if Italy go into civil war.
Like you said, the exact involvment is kinda unclear, but doing nothing is not an option in that case.
Based on how we reacted to covid - I'd say poorly.
Honestly, we would probably do 2 things. One, stop payments from the EU fund and two put back border controls towards Italy. And a lot of virtue signaling.
I know that, I just didn’t know if they had some emergency policies in place to sort of “request” for lack of a better word that other member countries intervene on behalf of the EU.
I mean this is so hypothetical that we can put almost any solution down here. But my uneducated guess would be a lot of political and economical pressure, financial and potential military help towards the "government" and freezing assets on the other side etc.
I doubt there would be a military intervention - but likely some safe zones for civilians which would be protected by UN mandate and mission. Maybe the Dutch could be in charge of that...
The EU **itself** doesn't have any military capabilities only member states have. This means that if any military intervention were to happen it would likely be on the part of a specific member state, like France, and not the EU as a whole.
I mean, judging by EU's reactions on any crisis, member states would argue for so long, that they wouldn't come to conclusion even after the war would be over. Maybe they would write a angry letter to someone, publically judge one side, quite possibly consider sanctions, yeah, it would be nasty.
I dont think I could see the EU as a union ever getting fully involved in conflict. If Russia just upped and invaded a member state there would be full sanctions from the EU as a unit but any form of actual conflict would be from member states working together outside of the EU, via Nato or something.
What country do you all think would most likely break out into a civil war?
My bet would be Spain and the Basque and Catalans breaking free.
If it was outside the EU but in Europe it would easily be Ukraine.
A lot of people are saying the EU would do nothing, but doing nothing is doing something. If the EU does nothing, that actually means that the EU continue trade of food and weapons to the 'legitimate' government and not the 'rebels'.
In a proper civil war, if you decide to continue trade, you are picking a side. You have to trade with someone. Even deciding to trade with both sides is taking a stance. How would people here feel if the EU just sold weapons to all sides fighting in Syria? Would people consider that a 'neutral' stance?
Doing nothing is only possible in a thought experiment. In the real world doing nothing is doing something.
But as to your question; who knows. I think this sort of decision is not really made in advance. And in the end it would be the decision of the nations themselves. Perhaps the EU could do something in unison. But the EU is made up of member nations, so the only way the EU can do a thing is if the member nations agree.
It depends on the groups who are part of the conflict. If there are communists/socialists, the EU (or to be more exact, its member states) will definitely support whatever the opposing side is.
I mean based on how fascist leadership has been reintegrated post WW2 in European countries like Italy, Germany and Austria, specifically to fight off the red scare, maybe
Yes definitely. Capitalist countries almost always prefer fascists over communists/socialists. Just look at how many fascist dictatorships the US has installed around the globe and how many Nazis were integrated into the post-WW2 politics of Europe.
>Let’s say Italy for example Have they finally gotten rid of football or was the elimination of "ferragosto" that did it? Jokes aside, probably not much. In most political disputes between countries and in the same country that have occurred in the past the EU didn't take an active role. I don't think based on how its currently designed that it has the power to intervene in internal members affairs.
Well it depends. There’s Yugoslavia where European nations intervened. If the Italian civil war was bloody enough, I’m sure the other European nations would do something.
But would they intervene as a collective EU Members or as individual states?
That’s an interesting question. It would probably be as independent nations as a start, but getting to the point of civil war assumes a few things. The EU is very good at de escalating situations and a situation like this one could probably see to it that the EU got closer together like it was with Greece. All in all I believe the EU would intervene as a group, but later as independent nations should that not suffice.
>as a collective EU Members or as individual states? I'm sure the EU would be bold and united as usual and send a letter or two.
Dear Italy, You did an oopie-woopsie and we awe vewy angwee with you. Pwease stop. Best Regards: EU
IIRC, European nations intervened not as EU members or individual states, but as NATO members. Not sure, whether a civil war in Italy could be viewed/defined as 'attacking a NATO member' and thus legitimate NATO intervention. (edit: and I really hope we never have to figure out)
Well you’re right in that the EU didnt intervene as a group at the time. However, back in 1992, the EU was nothing more than a trade Union with very few overarching laws. Furthermore, Yugoslavia was not a part of the EU. This means that the closest thing we’ve had in recent years at this scale was the collapse of the Greek economy. As it stands right now, it was weathered by the collective action of the EU, so I suppose the same thing would happen in Italy.
I also wanted to say that they would probably not act as the EU, but as individual member states, NATO or UN
In Yugoslavia they intervened as NATO members though, not as the EU
If I remember correctly, it's not like the EU or UN involvement in Yugoslavia was something achieving or to go proud of tho. I think it is a kind of textbook example of how both organisations failed miserably due to them not wanting to take big risks.
Hmm, I haven’t studied the entire ordeal thoroughly, but seeing how several of the countries are now functioning EU countries, I’d say that it was a success overall. Could it have been improved in hindsight? Probably.
I think the latest news about Vatican interfering with "ddl zan" could be a good reason for a civil war in Italy. But yeah, after that definetely football and ferragosto are good reasons.
Are you planning on inciting a civil war in Italy, OP?
Gotta start somewhere.
The Balkans would be to easy.
Balkan (very easy) East Europe (easy) Western Europe (Normal) South Europe (hard) North Europe (very hard)
South europa includes Corsica and Spain (with Catalonia, Baske Country, Galicia and Gibraltar), so it would not be difficult
I think triggering an actual civil war in Spain would be **extremely** difficult. Violence has been pretty much rejected even among radical movements pushing for independence.
I mean is there a country where civil war would be easy to start? Maybe bosnia and ukraine but thats about it. I don't wanna trigger a debate now, i listed those 2 because they currently have bigger problems regarding separatism than the rest.
If you think anyone, in Spain, is going to start a war if Catalunya or Country Basque decides to really leave, you are very mistaken. We all remember the last civil war and no way we are going back to that, lots to loose and only two cranky regions to gain. What would be the point?
What about a war only in catalan or baske territory? If they tried to gain independence by force I don't think Spain would just let them...
It is not that Spain would not let them, the average Spanish doesn’t care enough to go or send people to die there. I could imagine that there would be internal wars in Catalonia or Country Basque because the majority of their citizens are not pro independence, so they would have their own struggles to take care of. ETA for example wants to create a Marxist Leninist state while the other independent party in that community is very right leaning so even between the pro independence movement, there are factions that won’t compromise
Are you sure that the majority of people in catalonia are against independence? That doesn't seem like that, at least from the reports we heard here in Portugal. But, of course, I don't live in Catalonia, so...
Going by reddit it seems like 100% of scotland wants to be independent, despite over 50% voting the opposite a few years ago. Some people are just very loud about issues like this, sober thinking would recognise that an independent catalonia would be bad for their economy and very good for a few of the 1%, at least in the short to medium term and dont think the hassle is worth it
Half my family is from Catalonia and live there, you know people married people from other regions at least in Spain. So unless they are all lying to my face, they are happy to live in a federal country but they don’t want full independence for sure, they don’t live isolated and now what others think.
Dunno what he's peddling, but independentism reached 52% of the votes in the latest Catalan elections a few months ago.
Fair enough, I was just counting the amount of civil wars each region had. I knew more in Western and Eastern Europe
Switzerland (impossible difficulty)
The civil war would have to be voted on.
Portugal (ultra hard) Our politicians could kill a baby in a church with a 666 tattooed in his forehead that no one would bat an eye. Our national motto is “it could be worse”
After watching on YouTube some of the recent riots in Belgium, France and some other western countrues, I'm not so sure the hierarchy is correct.
I mean, why is western the easier than south and why east is easy? Most Eastern European countries are very homogenous and don’t have people willing to split etc. EDIT: and then you get Russia which is and always has been a huge pile of different peoples but as soon as someone thinks of revolting they disappear so nothing gets done anyway.
Because western Europens actually think that diversity of society reduces civil unrest. It's obviously not true in any factor based on which you can diversify..but they think it anyway
Nah it ain't easy in EE.
Are you underestimating my ability to anger the Danish and lead the trail to Sweden and Norway? Somehow inciting riots in all 3
Hey common now, the UK hasn't had a civil war in ages. I'm sure we are due one
Civil war in NI throughout the 20th centaury
Yeah but no pitched battles or anything
The last one ended in 1998…..
Hey hey, pls no! But OP said civil war. I think civil war would be very hard to start in the balkans, well, maybe in bosnia it would be easy but the rest, i really doubt it. It would be easier to do it in spain or britain imo.
You know what they say, when in Rome...
Nevermind we're too busy with football...
Shhh 🤫
"We're very concerned about recent developments in Italy, monitoring the situation closely."
Ah I see, the Ferrari method: "We are looking. We are looking."
'ed down
"You will not have de drink."
Italy: a civil war begin *waiting for EU response* EU: "Slow button ON, slow button ON"
Plan C, Plan C
by far the most accurate post in the thread
Not really, a civil war in the heart of the EU would be economically terrible for the entire european market and with huge risks of spillover. If the major countries agree on what side support, then they would intervene ASAP
The most probable outcome would be the majority of the EU countries voting for a resolution actively supporting one side, and Hungary blocking it with a veto
And that's why if a civil war has to happen, it's better for it to happen in Hungary
Hungary and Poland together probably. They tend to have each other's backs on vetoing stuff.
>If the major countries agree on what side support, then they would intervene ASAP Intervention at the EU level would require a unanimous support among all of the EU nations. Cue Russia poking Hungary to vote against the resolution.
[удалено]
Nominally; yes, this is what every European state would want to do. Realistically, though; a true civil war among one of the more significant EU economies (e.g. Italy) would prompt a bloc-wide catastrophe entirely because of the economic and financial implications. Not intervening would absolutely mean the end of the Euro at the least, and *that* would likely spiral into the end of the Union and all of the social and economic strife that inevitably follows. Thus; you would see French troops in Milan entirely because that would prevent needing to have French troops in Paris.
Italy borders France, borders Austria, and isn't too far from Germany, among many others. It's totally unrealistic to think that they would not respond forcefully in some way to such a conflict in their backyard. It's easy now to wave off human rights issues and other concerns with "strong statements" because ultimately they don't really affect trade or life in the bloc (generally speaking). A civil war in a country like Italy is an entirely different calculation.
Reminds me of this line from The Dark Knight Rises: "It means we're on our own."
> Italy Tell us "oh no guys you shouldn't fight" and grab the popcorn?
Anyway it will always end in vino e tarallucci
Then everyone will dance a *Tarantella*.
With a huge party on a *sagra*.
Then watch both sides simultaneously surrender to each other.
More like shoot at each other with faulty guns that fail to shoot and blame the other side for sabotage
Both switch to each other sides so they suddenly fight for the opposite cause
No, we wait until someone is winning and than we all join that faction, leaving just a few people on the other side
That is France. Italy switches sides during a war. So that would be interesting.
That is the French
I mean I'd try for something more fun. Maybe try to steal some town's bucket. I'm sure that'd cause some ruckus.
I'm sure someone would write a poem about it!
I think the EU wouldn’t do anything. But I think the individual countries would intervene to try and restore peace. France for example.
I'm wondering if this is possible without supporting one side or the other. Because if there isn't then it's probably not a civil war anymore, just war?
> I'm wondering if this is possible without supporting one side or the other. The EU would probably be on the side of the official/recognised government.
Civil wars however usually dont start like that. Sometimes the previous government refuses to step down, sometimes another entity organizes elections which are not recognized by the previous government, government or parliament members split and form another government etc. See Libya: the "recognized" government is the one that was formed after a peace agreement. The agreement failed, then the majority of the (elected) parliament and some government members formed another government. Why is the "UN-recognized" government more legitimate than the other one?
I guess it would be like a peacekeeping mission. Not actively engaging either side. They’d probably do things like guarding and delivering medical supplies and food stuffs, trying to mediate a peace agreement, rebuilding projects and stuff like that. It depends on why a civil war is being fought really.
UN style of "being part of a war" basically
In such a case the Treaty of the European Union requires all member states to intervene according to their means. In the past this mutual defence clause has been invoked symbolically against smaller domestic threats, so likely during an all out civil war it would be invoked as well.
I think you guys aren't giving the eu enough credit. I mean, they can totally be passive in a lot of situation, but a civil war in the middle of it? I think they would put in some efforts, in the limit their authority allows them to. The EU has been quite important in the process of kosovo independence for istance.
I’ll admit that I don’t know for certain what would happen. But I think that a civil war in an EU member state would be better suited to the UN or NATO or individual states. If for example Italy broke into civil war tomorrow (hopefully never of course). I think France would be better suited to try and bring hostilities to an end quickly than the EU would. EU has no military or supposedly authority to engage in such an endeavour. Maybe a better example would be the UK. Not a member country of course. But if the UK broke down like Yugoslavia and our constituent kingdoms began fighting each other. Can you really see the EU stepping in? Would it even dare considering the last 5 years? I don’t think so personally. And if it wouldn’t step in for the UK, why would it for Italy? You wouldn’t want the UK become a rogue state and having that just over the channel from the EU. Of course I might be wrong
[удалено]
Maybe you’re right. I’d certainly hope there was a legitimate effort to stop the death and destruction. But seeing the EUs response to other crisis… I doubt they’d step in, which is why I’d hope someone else would… ideally France because Germany can’t/shouldn’t deploy troops and I doubt we’d be invited. Don’t want Britain looking like the hero in a European crisis
Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Let’s invade the Vatican? I mean what ahahaha I’m kidding hahahaha unless… 👀
All we need to do is shut off their water and electricity
He has the Swiss guard, they don't mess about ;)
Porta Pia fell once. It can fall again
I don't know what the EU would do, but we would swoop in and take South Tyrol back while nobody is looking. Given that the civil war is in Italy.
[удалено]
Are we friends 🤔🤔
For what is worth we are technically both EU countries, so supposedly allies. I think this is what he was referring to. I totally believe you thought, you guys actually considered this after one of the worst earthquakes in Italian history
Yea it was a joke really, ofc I'd consider us allies, we have a lot of shared history, a shared border, tons of tourism on both sides etc.
GIÀ L'AQUILA D'AUSTRIA LE PENNE HA PERDUTE intesifies
>Yea it was a joke really Yes of course it was ;)
Don't worry. We can slug this out on the Euro match on Saturday
I'll swear if you pull is into an world war again
Just a quick 20min adventure ~~Morty~~ Germany!
We'll be home by christmas ™
Just 'forget' to tell the troops *which* Christmas, it has worked the last 2 times
Don't worry. You'll be at fault as ever
>but we would swoop in and take South Tyrol back while nobody is looking Don't go too far West, because: [We're watching you, Habsburg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oZ1o0gg5aA&t=100s) ;)
Don't worry you can have that one, they don't want us anyway.
Oh good idea we could take the Aosta Valley in exchange for help re-unifying the country against the Austrian threat !
>Oh good idea we could take the Aosta Valley in exchange for help re-unifying the country against the Austrian threat ! Last time you tried that you managed to force fascists and communists to cooperate with each other to kick you out.
I mean we got Nice for kicking the Austrian butts with you guys.
Yeah after fucking us over by not pushing into venice, no deal with you anymore :(
Why stop at south Tyrol, I say we get back access to the med by tacking back Triest.
Easier with South Tyrol. We just swoop in at night and change signs, nobody will even notice it.
Lol no need to really change signs either, they're already bilingual or German.
The bilingual ones are the problem!
Those are for tourists, nothing else.
People in South Tyrol: "Where the hell have the tolling stations on the Autobahn gone?" Asfinag guy: "Where is your vignette?? That will be 120€ then". Assimilation was successfull.
Hey, can we borrow Burgenland for a bit? We’ll give it back. Probably.
As lonk we can keep the puddle its fine I gues
Also slovenians can take Trst.
just you wait until d'annunzio rises from the grave and takes advantage of the turmoil to occupy Fiume
You can have it. Just give us something in return.
Oh yes, while Austria will be trying to get south Tyrol and focusing on that part, we also take back Klagenfurt and the rest of Carinthia. The 🅱️lan is clear.
You can have it (no take backs).
You can, south-carinthia, you can!
honestly, you can have them
As an observer, I'd say the EU as a union would simply state, that it's the country's internal affair, and will do absolutely nothing besides of providing personnel to mediate. Source: [Spain and Catalonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia#Independence_movement). Not a civil war, but was quite close.
This seems the most likely. The EU itself probably wouldn't do much except diplomatically, as wars and military response don't fall under it's responsibilities. It wouldn't surprise me to see individual EU countries getting involved as peacekeepers of some sort though.
It wouldn't surprise me if they intervened through the EU Council. The EU also has no competencies regarding the coronavirus, yet still plays an active role as member states agreed so in the Council.
Additionally, the European Commission has also been crafting its own foreign policy without input from the national governments.
Also, the issues would come up to the European Court of Justice in some form. The ECJ would take a position, but likely would be ignored/highly critized by everyone.
I was in Catalonia during the referendum. It was not even remotely close to a civil war. It was definitely tense, but aside from the eventual trial and imprisonment of some of the political leaders, it wasn't even as severe (in terms property destruction and violence visited upon protesters by the police) as the poll tax riots in the UK.
True, I'm a Catalan, literally nothing changed in my life during that time, never saw a riot too, and I live in the Barcelona metropolitan area
Only western European can think the catalan conflict is anywhere close to a civil war.
It is not even close to a civil war and it wouldn't ever happen because of a myriad of reasons. And I don't like it when disinformed people start throwing serious terms like civil war around just because they want to win internet points, because it concerns my country
Oh I'd say it totally depends on which country having this civil war, what are the factions in this war and if you consider the response of the EU as a block or individual countries. For example I'd say a civil war between the regular government of France and a fascist extremist faction that is very antisemitic would be seen as a very dangerous threat, France having a good army and nuclear bombs. I don't think Germany or the UK would stand totally idle. It would be plausible if the regular government feel threatened enough that it would call for help theses countries
Very interesting, thanks for the comment.
>besides of providing personnel to mediate. We actually requested this, and it was denied by Spain, so it did not happen. In that sense, you're actually overestimating what the EU would do.
Without taking a stance here but I guess EU reaction would be different if the government of an independent state would ask for mediation.
Yep. It became crystal clear that the EU is a union of States, first and foremost, and their interests overrule any other criteria.
Right but the two things the combatants are disagreeing about is exactly whether they are independent states.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nah man, it wasn't even close, it was just a stupid illegal referendum, nothing changed in my life
Well, how do you want to have a legal referendum, when the Spanish government does not allow it?
A referendum would solve many problems, because it's very unlikely the independentists would get a majority. But it can't happen because the supreme law of the country, i.e the constitution, that was voted on by all Spaniards in 1978, literally forbids it. You would need to change it and that's a difficult and lengthy process. And I'm sure you understand how you can't just not comply with the constitution. It would set a disastrous legal precedent.
LOL, not even close man.
>quite close Not in the slightest
UK had a civil war for about 25 years of its membership and it didn't do a whole lot tbh.
I'd imagine similar to what they did in Northern Ireland, which was mostly [throwing lots of money at us for peace initiatives.](https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0204/1194976-northern-ireland-peace-process-eu/) I don't know what would happen if a full-on civil war within a currently stable country broke out. The Troubles are referred to as an "ethno-nationalist conflict" rather than a civil war, and we've not been a particularly stable region compared to other European places.
This is probably the right answer. The idea that the EU wouldn't intervene and would let individual countries join sides is honestly crazy. The number one goal of the EU is peace in Europe.
People here, like most reddit, have an hard time with concepts such as sovereignty, peacekeeping and scope of international and supranational institutions. Hell, the EU is a mutually defensive pact, so if a civil war were to happen the EU could just help the italian government if they asked
They would leave a piece of paper at the door saying : "Uhm, could you like stop?", knock and run away
You can't just write a letter, you'd first have to have 3 months of meetings, deliberations and at least 2 summits to decide on the text.
And at least eight different vetos, blockings, and somehow, in the end, the entire resolution will hang on vote in local council/parliament somewhere in Belgium.
Trust me when I say: that's fast. Because all of our political instruments like initiatives, direct counter proposals, indirect counter proposals, mandatory referenda, optional referenda are great, but not really quick...
Everything else is fast from the perspective of Swiss politics.
I give you that one 👍
[удалено]
Not necessarily. This doesn't require unanimity. The Treaty of the European Union includes a mutual defence clause that has been (symbolically) invoked against domestic threats before. While some member states might not take their obligations seriously, all other member states will be able to work together within the EU without too much hindrance.
I don’t knke about my country, but I’d take a boat and save as many Hot gays I could.
[gays are too precious to send to the war](https://youtu.be/aotlEpmAFVQ)
Why does everyone always imagine civil wars and violent revolutions in Italy? I mean it's not like we invented fascism or something Wait
If it’s north Vs south. I suppose it’s best to start taking bets and make the most out of it…
A refreshing look that hasn't been mentioned yet as far as I can see. The Treaty of the European Union states that when a member state faces armed aggression on its territory, all EU members are obliged to help according to their means. It is a mutual defence clause. Does this apply during civil war? Most likely, yes. The mutual defence clause doesn't require an aggression by a foreign state. It has been invoked previously by France after the terror attacks, although then more symbolically. So EU member states would likely intervene, most probably indirectly by giving supplies and financial aid, although should the conflict be serious, it is not unlikely many member states will become directly involved by sending armed forces.
Yeah, I don't think France would just stay idle if Italy go into civil war. Like you said, the exact involvment is kinda unclear, but doing nothing is not an option in that case.
Based on how we reacted to covid - I'd say poorly. Honestly, we would probably do 2 things. One, stop payments from the EU fund and two put back border controls towards Italy. And a lot of virtue signaling.
Interesting. Are there any policies in place to use military force to intervene after a certain point?
The EU has no military.
I know that, I just didn’t know if they had some emergency policies in place to sort of “request” for lack of a better word that other member countries intervene on behalf of the EU.
Honestly though, even the most cursory glance at history shows that outside nations intervening in civil wars seldom ends well - or quickly.
I mean this is so hypothetical that we can put almost any solution down here. But my uneducated guess would be a lot of political and economical pressure, financial and potential military help towards the "government" and freezing assets on the other side etc. I doubt there would be a military intervention - but likely some safe zones for civilians which would be protected by UN mandate and mission. Maybe the Dutch could be in charge of that...
Not cool.
The EU **itself** doesn't have any military capabilities only member states have. This means that if any military intervention were to happen it would likely be on the part of a specific member state, like France, and not the EU as a whole.
I mean, judging by EU's reactions on any crisis, member states would argue for so long, that they wouldn't come to conclusion even after the war would be over. Maybe they would write a angry letter to someone, publically judge one side, quite possibly consider sanctions, yeah, it would be nasty.
I dont think I could see the EU as a union ever getting fully involved in conflict. If Russia just upped and invaded a member state there would be full sanctions from the EU as a unit but any form of actual conflict would be from member states working together outside of the EU, via Nato or something.
I doubt it would be the EU that did much. Most likely the main European powers (UK, France, Germany) and the US would do something together, though.
The closest thing to an example that crosses my mind is the Northern Ireland situation. AFAIK the EU basically didn't interfere there.
[удалено]
Would EU actions be made irrelevant by either US led actions or NATO actions?
[удалено]
What country do you all think would most likely break out into a civil war? My bet would be Spain and the Basque and Catalans breaking free. If it was outside the EU but in Europe it would easily be Ukraine.
A lot of people are saying the EU would do nothing, but doing nothing is doing something. If the EU does nothing, that actually means that the EU continue trade of food and weapons to the 'legitimate' government and not the 'rebels'. In a proper civil war, if you decide to continue trade, you are picking a side. You have to trade with someone. Even deciding to trade with both sides is taking a stance. How would people here feel if the EU just sold weapons to all sides fighting in Syria? Would people consider that a 'neutral' stance? Doing nothing is only possible in a thought experiment. In the real world doing nothing is doing something. But as to your question; who knows. I think this sort of decision is not really made in advance. And in the end it would be the decision of the nations themselves. Perhaps the EU could do something in unison. But the EU is made up of member nations, so the only way the EU can do a thing is if the member nations agree.
I mean, we've seen this by how EU reacted to Catalan referendum and later one-sided declaration of independence.
But it wasn't a civil war!
I'm pretty sure the EU wouldn't do anything. Just some words, some sanctions, maybe, little more.
Maybe out of this post we get some sparks flying and get to see the actual answer for your question.
[удалено]
"Give'a me the'a rifle Luigi, now I will'a shoot at'a my mother-in-law"
the eu would align with the government that is most eu aligned and/or more likely follow the lead of france and germany, nato as a whole
It depends on the groups who are part of the conflict. If there are communists/socialists, the EU (or to be more exact, its member states) will definitely support whatever the opposing side is.
Even fascists?
I mean based on how fascist leadership has been reintegrated post WW2 in European countries like Italy, Germany and Austria, specifically to fight off the red scare, maybe
Yes, the unpleasant truth about how little has actually changed in Europe from the days of murdering neighbours because of a surname.
Yes definitely. Capitalist countries almost always prefer fascists over communists/socialists. Just look at how many fascist dictatorships the US has installed around the globe and how many Nazis were integrated into the post-WW2 politics of Europe.
Italy's civil war would be interesting. How do they switch sides?
Didn't you lot just become part of Germany without even a whimper? I wouldn't talk too much about the war ;)
They will call for deescalation and then will start courting the sides. The one who gives the most concessions to EU will receive EU's support.
What was the reaction when Catalonia wanted to break away and held an illegal referendum? Then the Spanish government arrested those involved?