Some of goals - trade zone, free movement of people etc., may make sense but a European wide army?
Europe is a region of huge diversity, it doesn't need to be a single political entity.
In my mind this is obvious a pan European answer is needed. You can not ask Italy and Greece to solve the crisis by themselves, when most refugee want to actually go other countries.
If the refugees are persecuted so badly in their own countries (which is a condition for getting asylum), they should be happy for any sufficiently safe country that is willing to give them asylum.
We are talking medical care, language courses, and working permit. I would expect all of that if I were ever to ask my (global) neighbors for asylum - so I am willing to provide it to those that are in need.
I agree here. This is why it surely is not a bad idea to distribute the refugees over the EU countries. But I don't agree to the mentality "want to go to other countries". The refugees should be happy to get temporary asylum in a country that is much safer than the country they flee from.
> We are talking medical care, language courses, and working permit.
For language courses: Since lots of refugees have at least a smartphone, they could simply use the resources that the internet provides to learn the language themselves up to some decent level.
In the space of two weeks, many of us have gone from lifelong EU supporters to anti-Schengen. I'm upset.
There is one other thing. Identity is hard to impose. Most Americans of my acquaintance hold the US constitution to be a centrally important document. Otherwise they wouldn't argue so much about its exact meaning. There has been an attempt at a European constitution. It seems to have been a dismal failure. All the other arguments about border controls, the euro, farm subsidies and so on pale when compared to this. If you can't win hearts and minds, you can't win.
Though sometimes it appears you can achieve the appearance of winning through bureaucratic confusion.
So it is not that hard to imagine a Florida army going to war in Afghanistan, while Texas invaded Mexico and California remained neutral. If they had not been annexed by the US, they would likely either ally the US or have animosity with their southern neighbors due to strained relations from their independence wars.
Also, theoretically a governor can refuse to deploy the state's National Guard. I could find one instance where in California, Governor Schwarzenegger declined the President's request to send National Guard troops to the border with Mexico. So California does have precedent of remaining neutral (said tongue-in-cheek)!
I'm German. The stated purpose of the Bundeswehr (German armed forces) is to defend Germany. Historically this has been interpreted as "defend Germany within German borders", lately it has been extended to "defend German interests in remote places like Afghanistan".
The vast majority of deployments the German public is aware of happens either as part of or along side NATO and UN missions. I can't think of any situations where Germany sent troops without any support from other European countries. Nearly every news piece about German military responses to e.g. the Arab Spring goes out of its way to mention the attitude of other countries, especially in Europe but also NATO and the UN.
Yes, a United States of Europe is unlikely to include England (though I can see Scotland being a part of it if they eventually do secede -- unlike England, Scotland has very strong historical ties with Europe and France in particular). But it's a mistake to look at England as representative of general European sentiments.
It's not at all unheard of for political entities within a union not to maintain their own army. Germany was initially created as federation of independent states with their own armies, as was the USA. Even England (not to mention the UK) began as a loose collection of independent states.
Oh, and here's another thing about the German military: throughout the post-WW2 history of Germany there has been a recurring theme of politicians and political interest groups seeking to abolish our military permanently (after all, if it's purely for our defence, we're surrounded by allies these days and don't have any reason to fear invasions). The most frequent counter-argument is simply that we need the military to assist our allies -- note how this has nothing to do with self-defense.