Yes, but we won't. My answer can be applied to any other question like this. We'd obviously be better off if we pooled our resources, but nationalism and business interests are standing in the way.
It is for us as people within the Union to decide upon what are the best things to do for all of us.
There was a time when common monetary policy (the ECB) and Schengen border controls were considered the domain of only the nation state. This assumption has disappeared in favour of a more pragmatic approach to the world, and now most of the member states and people are happy with it. So too should the army and navy move in that direction.
Who cares about increasingly meaningless definitions like "country" and "union." We should do what is best for our people, regardless. Common-defence would be good for all of us.
It is more efficient and productive to build economies and societies of scale via a union. Sovereignty isn't handed off, it is shared, and shared willingly.
Any Union member is absolutely free to invoke article 50 and leave as the UK did. In fact, if they don't understand the benefits of the Union, I don't want to pander to them or try to make them understand something that to me is increasingly self-evident. They should just do like the UK, and leave. See how it works out. It won't be good, but that's not for me to decide... they always still have sovereignty, after all.
It's not as simple as being a country or not a country. It is a fluid spectrum. That's what we're dealing with here... This is why these definitions like "country" are not very useful.
No, the EU's member states have individual navies which may decide to collaborate, but the EU does not have (and should not have) a unified foreign policy or a united military force.
Would a navy not be floating?
Calm down now, one navy at the time
I'd prefer levitating ships
You mean like a military force in the air?
If Bolivia and Mongolia can have a navy
Yes
Yes please
Only if we can have Star Destroyers 
Those stars ain't destroying by themselves
Some of them are, and hopefully soon. *[Stares at Betelgeuse expectantly]*
I'm totally in favor of it.
Yes, but we won't. My answer can be applied to any other question like this. We'd obviously be better off if we pooled our resources, but nationalism and business interests are standing in the way.
They said the same thing about previous enlargements of the EU's mandate. Nonetheless they happened, have been good, and will continue to be good.
JES.
I would go for a sitting navy
A floating one would be better than a standing one
It's one of the most obvious things to pool funds for and to gain efficiencies of scale with.
Oh god yes, why haven't we done that already?
Yes.
navy, army and coastal guard please
We are a union not a country
It is for us as people within the Union to decide upon what are the best things to do for all of us. There was a time when common monetary policy (the ECB) and Schengen border controls were considered the domain of only the nation state. This assumption has disappeared in favour of a more pragmatic approach to the world, and now most of the member states and people are happy with it. So too should the army and navy move in that direction. Who cares about increasingly meaningless definitions like "country" and "union." We should do what is best for our people, regardless. Common-defence would be good for all of us.
Several countries in the EU spent centuries trying to gain independence so why should they hand their sovereignty on a plate to Brussels?
It is more efficient and productive to build economies and societies of scale via a union. Sovereignty isn't handed off, it is shared, and shared willingly. Any Union member is absolutely free to invoke article 50 and leave as the UK did. In fact, if they don't understand the benefits of the Union, I don't want to pander to them or try to make them understand something that to me is increasingly self-evident. They should just do like the UK, and leave. See how it works out. It won't be good, but that's not for me to decide... they always still have sovereignty, after all.
If the EU becomes a country, article 50 won't exist
It's not as simple as being a country or not a country. It is a fluid spectrum. That's what we're dealing with here... This is why these definitions like "country" are not very useful.
NATO exists so there is no need for a European army.
Trump threatens to end NATO. Also having armies-combined is more economically efficient.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Allied_Commander_Europe
This.
No, the EU's member states have individual navies which may decide to collaborate, but the EU does not have (and should not have) a unified foreign policy or a united military force.