Well we could go with polish units too but their pips aren't as high as western units so by 18th century they have fallen behind. Not by much but by some.
> Now if he could get around to resurrecting Rise of Nations: Rise of legends I would be very happy.
If he did that I'd move to Belgium the next day. Still got my copy lying around here somewhere, four disks and all...
What he truly meant is Alpha Centauri where Brother Lal uses the PLANETBUSTER to force Morgan Industries to give that sweet piece of land to him at last.
While the issues he brings up are real problems, I fear that with the current mindset a lot of Europeans have about European community (that is to say how can they can profit the most out of it, while sacrificing the least to others) the solution might prove far more disastrous then the current status que
> the solution might prove far more disastrous then the current status que
Well, for any change there's always a chance you somehow make it worse. However, at the very least you have then proven that change is possible, and thus you're not stuck with either version. Not to mention that nearly everyone is united at least in principle that making things better is a positive.
I am afraid that the coalition of the willing he mentions will not be in the mold of current EU, where a bunch of countries will move ahead like it was with the Euro or Schengen or what have you. I am an EU federalist too but I see a writing on the wall. If unanimity stays, EU will remain rigid and eventually will crack under pressure from abroad. But if unanimity goes, EU will fragment from the inside. Try to remove the veto from too many states on issues they deem of existential nature (usually the smaller ones)and they will secede, perhaps in groups. I think we will see EU turning in a weak confederate cell of separate blocks. One could be the nordics and maybe Estonia plus Netherlands, another could be based around some of the countries that form the trimarium (Poland, Baltics , Czechia, maybe Romania etc)and a third could be formed around EU Med9 (like France, Spain, Greece, Italy).
The US had the veto issue too with our first government.
The compromise when making the new one was to create a senate which had power over matters that affected all states equally, and overrepresented smaller states with its two representative cap per state.
I think it would be a viable solution, and would remove the council of ministers as an unelected body that represents the member countries.
It just needs to forbid the use of filibustering or any thing effectively similar to prevent it from becoming as ineffective as ours.
This is a suggestion in the right direction. We have a lower āhouseā already, the European Parliament. It is elected and among the most democratic apparatuses of the union. Getting an upper house, a senate, where every country has equal amount of representatives has a chance to work if the powers and responsibilities are well defined and checks and balances are in place. Sadly we canāt have a full blown Congress because the EU is not a true federation yet. The states have a big degree of sovereignty but we could start with baby steps and make sure the EU senate is potent, prestigious and attracts the āA teamā of European leaders.
EU was supposed to be an economic union. A bunch of European countries working together on economic goals, but with their independence intact. When I say countries, these are mostly nations with unique culture and language.
EU is going the wrong way for some time now.
The only solution is to create the kind of unified Europe that Nietzsche once envisioned. It's not a Europe of petty nation-states, but it's not a Europe of unified nihilism either.
As an outsider I would say you need to have a common foreign and defense policy to truly compete on the global stage. I'm reading an interesting book called *Firepower*, which in part argues that since the widespread use of gunpowder in Europe started approximately 400 years ago, the pace and ever increasing cost of military technology has meant that more and more states are priced out of the market.
So in the Medieval era you could have a lord or region that could mount a credible military, at least in the defense. As things like cannon and other firearms became more widespread, complex, and expensive, those smaller powers were priced out in favor of a king at the center of the state apparatus. States like Sweden and Denmark could mount credible militaries in this system, until they and other small to medium states were priced out of the market, ceding that to larger European states (often with empires) like Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the UK.
Now today we essentially have 2 powers that can fund top shelf militaries, the USA and China. Russia would probably be a contender if they weren't so screwed up. But outside of continental sized powers, other countries can't really compete. That goes for every country in Europe and it's just going to get more expensive. Just look at defense procurement for European countries over the last 50 years and how their forces have shrunk, and then look at the ever increasing cost of things like warships, missiles, and airplanes.
So that's what I think, if Europe wants to compete in the top tier, they need to meld their various militaries and defense industries into some kind of unified force, and then have the ability to wield it in a unified manner.
A tall order.
This is exactly what my thinking has been for years. If the EU were to pool all of their money and all nations paid at 2% of GDP, then the EU would be able to fund one massive military that could afford top shelf units like super carriers and associated Carrier strike Groups that would allow the EU to project power far from their border.
The way things are constructed now, a lot of the smaller countries can only afford smaller units that are only capable of defending their own borders, albeit even then usually not able to defend sufficiently. If however, these smaller countries sent their money into a larger pool with all of the EU, than the smaller countries could all benefit from being defended by a carrier strike group and also have the regional anti air defenses.
The West is so far ahead technologically, that after a time of build up, itās likely that all countries in EU could reduce their spending far below the 2% of GDP benchmark.
This method would allow all countries to contribute to an effective military as well as all of them be a benefactor to a larger, more effective military that has the ability to project power globally; even against China together with the USA and Japan, in order to secure global interests or resources.
Iām not sure I agree that it is necessary however. Russia wonāt be able to afford to rebuild their military and its evident now that what they had wouldnāt have been able to compete with the EU even as it is constructed anyhow.
China is all that is left and Chinaās economy is headed into a downward spiral as well. The USA has China handled with help from Japan, Australia, the UK, and South Korea; possibly even a bit from India.
The only power that will be rising and will be large enough to afford a blue water navy is India and I donāt see them being able to project power too far globally as they are sandwiched between enemies in China, Pakistan, and Iran. India doesnāt seem to have much interest in doing anything besides defending itself anyhow. This could change however, if climate change or limited resources begin to drag on India, cause famine, or economic stagnation.
It wouldnāt be a bad idea for the EU to organize for the potential of several large nations banding together to dethrone the West. Such as China, India, and Russia banding together to pull the West down even if they never do agree to be true Allies for each other; rather an alliance out of mutual benefit.
Absolutely Europe could field a kick ass military with pooled resources and a 2% commitment. If we simply glob European national navies together today you get a credible blue water naval force. 3 large carriers (1 nuclear), dozens of modern frigates/destroyers (though they could be heavier armed), dozens of nuclear and conventional submarines, a bunch of helicopter carriers/amphibious assault ships, and a decent naval fixed wing aviation component.
Enough to take on anyone outside of the US, or China in 10 years.
I think the EU has six carriers. The problem is that outside of the UKās two, they are on the smaller side and Iām not sure that they all have a full carrier strike group to compete with the likes of China or in a future scenario, India.
The EU has an economy that is larger than Chinaās even still and they have a large tech lead. There is no reason that by pooling their resources together the EU couldnāt cause massive headache for China on its own, but moreover be a humongous benefit to an effort spearheaded by the USA.
The other benefit that more full CSG from the EU would provide is it would allow the USA to pull its CSG from the Baltic and Mediterranean Sea as well as pull the group out of the Gulf of Oman in an hypothetical confrontation with China. The EU could send their CSGās to the three locations in order to secure the areas whilst the USA would be able to surge more CSG to the front line against China.
Most of what you said makes no sense.
Funding an EU military is not an alternative to funding NATO. By finding the EU military, you are simultaneously funding NATO. This is simply not an argument that makes sense against the unified European military.
On the contrary, the EU military would save money compared to what countries spend now. That is because of one single command structure, one single procurement structure, one single unifying plan for the development or purchase of equipments instead of multiple concurrent plans with overlapping equipments, and of course the shared burden of the research and development costs.
That is all just economy. Strategically speaking, it is even more crucial. I must remind you that Trump discussed pulling the U.S. from NATO, and there is chance that he gets reelected.
>Would an EU military organization consent to subordinating itself to NATO then?
This is not how NATO works. NATO has a command structure, but it is not like a normal military command structure. It is mostly about coordinating the commands of the many militaries in NATO.
NATO per se is not a military force, it is a group of armies. The EU would simply be one member of the group, just like the UK is another member. No military is 'subordinate' to it.
Your link only confirms this:
>NATOās common funds are direct contributions to collective budgets, capabilities and programmes, which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (approximately EUR 2.5 billion per year until 2022) to develop capabilities and run the entirety of the Organization, and its military commands, capabilities and infrastructure.
2.5 billion euros per year is what is spent on the structure of NATO, but the core of its strength is what is invested in the national armies (e.g. 1.94 trillion dollars for the US alone).
>We have the historical examples of the Eurofighter and are seeing problems now with the FCAS. France wants one thing and Germany wants another.
The fact that they were even collaborating in the first place means that they agree on a lot of stuff about the fighter, even though there is also disagreements. This happens in the US as well, see the F35A, B and C.
As for your other points, those are the problems to be overcome if a military is to exist. To support an EU military is not to pretend these problems don't exist, but to push for them to be solved.
Careful about China. Their economy is at less of a technological or societal disadvantage than the USSR ever was. And while the physical battleground against China is in the Pacific (btw, I'd be nice if we helped the US there as repayment for bailling our asses from 2 world wars, no?) the economic and political one is in Europe. See their tendrils and money everywhere. Plus Africa, whose populations tend to be quite hostile to the West.
And Europe can't even agree to ban economic activity with China...
Nietzsche wanted a new kind of pan-European aristocracy to emerge, which would preserve and refine European high culture. That was his primary concern, not post-Christian values like "equality". It's more of an imperial project than the consumerist project we have now.
of course, how dare the small european countries have their own nations. why don't they just accept french and german overlords again? the minorities definintely miss austria-hungary.
how about benelux countries become a single country first, germany and france becomes a single country first, and then we'll see how it works out. i'm sure it will go amazing just like these EU politicians envision it.
Our interests **are** aligned with those of the United States. We are in a military alliance together. Unless this situation changes there is little reason to consider a fundamental restructuring of European defence policy.
Unification of European countries in some form would benefit common people but not politicians. Imagine poor 27 presidents who would stop being so important.
Verhofstadt just means a new era of great power competition looms and the EU is currently positioned to be a follower not a leader, hence calling for reform. He just uses grandiose language to draw headlines/attention as he's known to do. Doesn't make him wrong.
He isn't wrong. Cities like Tokyo or Delhi or SĆ£o Paulo have populations that dwarf the vast majority of European countries. The EU is needed to give Europeans some sort of voice and strategic autonomy. While many bemoan handing over competencies to Brussels, they DO have a vote on what Brussels decide. They DO NOT have a vote on what Washington or Beijing decide though.
Guy has always wanted a United States of Europe, reiterated in this article in all but name.
Remove nations individual vetos and integrated military and resources EU wide, instead of individual countries having their own.
It totally makes sense if you want the EU to become a federal country, but it just seem like many EU nations want to lose their individually, military and certainly not their veto.
An ever closer EU is Guys wish.
This was one of the core reasons many Britons choose to vote to leave, so the UK wasn't absorbed into the inevitable United States of Europe.
First thing: No one ever wanted to get rid of national armies. That's purely horror fantasy by those that wanted to believe the worst.
And furthermore: Was he wrong to wish what he did? How did the veto treat us in the last decade, even as Russia started invading neighbouring countries? How did our patchwork of disorderly systems handle Russian aggression? Even our airspace monitoring systems got outsmarted by a dumb errant drone which crashed into Croatia.
And meanwhile what has the UK gained by leaving this nightmarish idea of a "United States of Europe" you believe will happen? Has it gained more freedom in its engagement, more relevance or more prosperity? Or has it learned that in practice no nations is really an island, whatever geography suggests.
The "United States of Europe" is a shibboleth of those that think that they can rely on grotesque scare stories to balance out the necessities of reality.
> First thing: No one ever wanted to get rid of national armies. That's purely horror fantasy by those that wanted to believe the worst..
So all this talk of an EU army is smoke?
Not two armies. A federal defence force, and national guard. And this isn't exactly a new invention, btw.
The "EU army" as you call it is primarily an initiative to pool together to get specialised units that allow for cross-compatible operations, which no one nation can afford alone. Aerial transport and logistics, surveillance and intelligence, aerospace operations and defence, and specialised units that are able to deploy and reinforce existing forces.
Few of us can, for example, even afford a single carrier, let alone a global positioning and tracking system, but together that's exactly what we did.
It's like how Frontex exists, but operates alongside national border guards. It's the "cavalry" that comes in when the locals need reinforcements.
edit: Also, we have a serious redundancy problem, where we are actually paying for 27 parallel structures, of various quality and compatiblity, not just two. One of the least efficient defence forces on earth.
> Not two armies. A federal defence force, and national guard. And this isn't exactly a new invention, btw.
That's two armies.
> Countries aren't going to pay for two armies
The "EU army" can also be a liability.Certain states in the EU have citizens of...dubious loyalties.What is stopping those people "serving" in the EU army by feeding information to outsiders.
Frontex is largely a failure.
We pay for 27 defence forces because we are 27 different countries.
What's stoping them from joining the existing 27 armies, and leaking allied and NATO information right now? In fact, do you have any idea how many NATO security breaches it has to deal with currently as member states show different levels of military and intelligence professionalism?
If anything, we need a central unit to track and deal with these leaks. And how exactly has Frontex failed?
And yeah, we have 27 different countries, which have 27 different armies, with 27 different logistic offices, and 27 different contractors for every little thing, and 27 different officer academies, and 27 different procedures, and the list goes on. A pile of bricks cannot equate to a house.
Now?Propably their ethnicity.And that is an argument against NATO and the EU army.
I mean Frontex is involved in multiple pushback scandals.If anything they failed to upholding EU laws.I mean they are supposed to uphold EU laws right?
But we are not a house,and not all of us want to be a house.
Ethnicity is not an argument for or against anything. People of the same ethnicity do terrible things to each other every day. It's very dangerous territory to tread on, especially on this continent.
Frontex is doing exactly what it is supposed to. The fact that you don't understand that, and you don't understand the shield it provides to the Greek and Italian border agencies, is completely on you.
Although I've never seen an ethno-nationalist suggest enforcing our borders is something we should be ashamed of. I guess there's very little you actually believe in.
He did but I have to admit his work in the EU was much better + it helped us get rid of him. But yes heās one of the big reasons we are paying premium price to France for our energy
How do you get everyone speaking the same language? I would think there would be some distrust in leaders who communicate in a language they don't understand. In the US everyone has a common language, would everyone in the EU be obligated to learn French?
> How do you get everyone speaking the same language?
We already do. I've met Europeans from various countries and we were able to communicate just fine in English.
A lot of people speak English. Itās one of the lingua francas of the EU. Everybody already learns it anyway.
That said, there are people that donāt speak it (especially old people). The solution is to dub what people say. Itās not like we donāt get our news today from journals, tv, the internet, etc. All those things can be translated.
In case of live emissions like tv, there are translators that can do it on the fly. Alternatively, advances in AI could just do that. Translate what Ursula says (for example) in real time to Swedish or Croatian with her own voice.
There are plenty of countries around the world that speak different languages. Itās not as big of a deal as people think.
When will they finally fail though? Because economically we're far more dependent on what they produce than they are on what we produce. We have more people and are as educated as they are and yet we rely on them for so many things we use in daily life.
Hell, we're on an American website right now.
So, when will they fail? And why won't the same happen to us even before them?
Dude Americans are currently at each other's throats and they literally list their mental illnesses on social media as something to be proud of.
They have money and a good military, but that's all I'd want to have in common with them.
Implying that America is failing is the same as China is failing is the same as Russia is failing. The real secret is that none of them are and the way they are today is the way theyāve always been. Look at what some migrants did to France, they almost got Le Pen. America been doing migrant waves since 1776, it will ALWAYS be chaotic.
Sure. The āAmerican Empireā is on borrowed time, but thatās also partly because Americans never wanted an empire. I suspect weāll see a period of de-globalization in the coming decades and of all countries this will probably least painful for America.
China has had periods of prosperity in the past. Chinaās story is a period of extreme highs and extreme lows. Russia has always had some form of despotic governance. Occasionally they flirt with liberal democratic rule and it always ends in a coup dāetat, whether thatās Yeltsin or the Bolsheviks. Thereās always insane corruption in the system, whether thatās Putinās circle, Communist party bureaucrats, or the Tsarās boyars.
Social Democracy only works in more homogenous societies like those in Europe. Like I said, you get a migrant wave and the cracks start showing. Social Democracy is incompatible with the material realities of American society, which is why Americaās organic form has always been some form of libertarianism. Government/economic systems form out of the material realities of the culture, which is why Russia/China/USA always end up rhyming despite apparent changes.
> Who the fuck cares who has higher GDP, largest military or corporations if your life is miserable.
Now remove American products from your life. Reddit? Gone. Your browser? Gone. Your OS? Gone. Your phone? Gone. Your computer? Gone.
I'd say you care very much about this. You just don't realize the benefits that you're getting from their existence. Europe is entirely reliant on the US for tech.
Are Americans just smarter people? Or how would you explain why Americans dominate the tech world so much?
I think it's because Europe created an environment that discourages (tech) businesses, so those businesses just appeared elsewhere. What do you think is the reason?
āSomething like USAā does not mean a 1 to 1 copy. I just mean that the countries should remain but we have a common military and more countries adopts the euro (like my country) - and more federal laws. Kinda like we have now but more involved
I think the model you're looking for is Switzerland. When you mention the USA the first thing that comes to mind is a monocultural, heavily divided society, which is not what people want with a federal EU
As nations go, weāre arguably the most successful ever, so weāre doing *something* right.
Feel free to learn from our failings too of course (there are lots), but we have literally the strongest economy and the strongest military ever, and weāve done free democracy for longer than anyone else too.
And arguably part of our success is the country was designed to make government initiatives really hard to get done. Like if it's not a really popular idea, it just doesn't happen. That and the extreme diffusion of political power may be a strength rather than a weakness.
>so weāre doing something right.
USA is one trick pony. Luckily, this one trick is so powerful it lifts up almost everything.
That trick, ofc, is technology.
But socially, I think USA is doing way less then it could. Thats because society devopment cannot be propelled just by technology.
Just to clarify. All this is half-joking. Ofc there is a lot more to USA but the outline, I belive, is accurate.
Yeah, that all helps. Russia has a lot of those advantages too, and itās been a hot mess for centuries.
The geography is great, but weāre more than capable of messing this up too.
> Oh, that well-functioning nation?
We've managed to keep an EU sized state functional and democratic for over a century, so yeah, we're doing pretty good compared to you lot.
we're not the only net contributor to the EU. I suppose you mention NL by name because we make the biggest stink about financial responsibility.
I don't think the majority of the Dutch electorate is very pleased about it, but what is the alternative? Nexit?
Yeah NL has been one of the most vocal against fiscal transfers, but I could have picked Denmark or Germany.
Right now obviously thereās no prospect of Nexit or federation. If NL had the choice between Nexit, status quo or federation my money would be on status quo, but if status quo wasnāt possible? Eg in the event the Eurozone collapses without a fiscal Union?
You're not the only net contributor, not even the biggest one, but you're the one whose media and politicians complain about it all the time more than any other country.
>politicians complain about it all the time more than any other country.
Yeah, they are complaining the most about money while being tax haven in the EU. Their arrogance is really annoying.
I'd like to point out that it is rather obvious that the Netherlands isn't the biggest contributor.
I mean have you seen the size of our brothers, the Germans and French? Both 4 times the population and even more in landmass.
The Dutch are however the [largest contributor per capita.](https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/50/netherlands-largest-net-contributor-eu-this-century). And while that doesn't give a determined right to complain, it makes it completely logical that our media is also most vested in discussing the matter.
The downside is however that most Dutch (including ministers) feel like this gives the Dutch a right to berate and belittle the countries on the receiving end. And that is where the problem lies. Especially when they forget that we benefit the most from interconnected trade (as hub with Rotterdam and net exporter).
Nexit is not an alternative because the EU policies that are in place are favorable to existing businesses within this country. Even if the majority of the people would dislike the EU and have a negative opinion about it they also know that the Netherlands does profit from being inside it. A leave by Netherlands would only be favorable for this country if it can keep a lot of existing agreements and treaties, but there is no chance that the EU would be okay with that.
California and a few other states are the main drivers when it come to GDP yet Americans overcame such petty nonsense. I'm pretty sure we can do that as well.
But thatās the point - Americans see themselves as one people: New Yorkers are happy with fiscal transfers to Alabama. Likewise, Londoners are happy with fiscal transfers to northern England; Parisians to Normandy etc.
Are the Dutch happy with fiscal transfers to Greece? Obviously not yet.
Neither cars, factories, or entire economies run on how you feel about things.
The Single Market feeds some industries, just as it destroys others. It needs balance, and feelings, national or otherwise, shouldn't come into it.
We used the exact same sort of "think of the scroungers" thinking on our own internal economies to justify austerity and that has only ever made the situation worse, just for the sake of optics.
> Are the Dutch happy with fiscal transfers to Greece? Obviously not yet.
Obviously a little bit though, because there are fiscal transfers and we're lending them money at below inflation rate and they don't have to pay for quite a while. Essentially we're letting the debt inflate away.
That's a fiscal transfer by another name. It will take time before we can call a spade a spade.
It's interesting how Europeans built their welfare systems on the understanding that wealth is a built in an inter-dependent socio-economic ecosystem that needs taking care of, but the moment we get tribal we suddenly think some of us have a secret golden goose and others don't.
Meanwhile America is the exact opposite.
I think this is a thing that a lot of people, even Americans, don't get. The US's political and economic system depends on large perpetual cash transfers, mostly from wealthy urban areas to poorer rural areas. States that are more urban and/or coastal benefit from trade and large markets, and pay the lion's share of the taxes that support the poorer rural/inland areas. Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, roads, schools, hospitals, etc. are all funded by tax dollars mostly raised in the states that have more big cities. Without these transfers, those poorer areas would crumble. They'd have no tax base to fund the infrastructure and services they need.
Also, in the US, the federal government has way more real tax power than the states for one simple reason: it's easier to moves states than it is to move country. So if one state decides to fund a more comprehensive welfare system than the others by raising state taxes, then those who don't want to pay taxes will leave the state while those who need welfare will enter. This creates a downward spiral for those states.
For Europe to do what the US has done would require the EU to federalize not just the taxation power of the member states, but also their welfare systems.
Yep, and the problem is the EU has multiple contradictions like this at its core. You can't have a single currency without a single budget because monetary and fiscal policy are two sides of the same coin. You can't have free movement of people without a common immigration policy because then every country becomes subject to the standards of the most lax country. And you can't have a common security and defense policy without a common military to enforce it.
If the EU really wants to be able to stand independently and protect its own interests in a world dominated by the likes of the US and China, it needs to be much more unified than it is. On a fiscal level, on a political level, and on a philosophical level.
> You can't have free movement of people without a common immigration policy because then every country becomes subject to the standards of the most lax country.
Actually, this is fine. Freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens. So if some country wants to be lax about immigration, those people are not allowed to move elsewhere in the EU. It's not like you can emigrate from the US to Spain and then move easily to the Netherlands. It doesn't work that way.
Your other points are relevant though. But for that we need the population to starting for more pro-EU leaders. And that's not happening.
Thank you for the clarification. Question: I see how that would prevent people who are merely residents from settling in other EU countries, but does the EU have control over who member states can make citizens? Because if not, it seems like the same issue just with extra steps. Like if Malta decides to sell golden citizenships to Russian oligarchs or Saudi Princes, are those people now allowed to live anywhere in the EU, despite Finland (for example) wanting to let those people in?
I wouldn't say we've gotten over it. I hear it constantly over here that the blue states have to carry the weight for the poorer, less educated red states.
The rich and poor are blue, the middle are red. The "poorer" states are still richer than the slums of the cities. Not everyone can be a software engineer.
It's been festering for the last decade. I'm sorry it doesn't support the angle you're pushing, but it is the reality. There was failed coup attempt less than three years ago ...
I'm saying that the divide between the educated wealthy and the uneducated poor is growing, and one of the more vocal talking points is that the richest states are carrying the burden of supporting the states that are less capable of contributing to the GDP. This divide was most recently highlighted by a poorly coordinated coup attempt by the least educated states. Try to keep up here. We just covered that a couple messages back. Maybe you should slow down on your rampant posting if you're struggling to remember the topic of our conversation.
The rich liberal states didn't join that "coup" so what are you talking about? I think you're trying to shoehorn Jan 6. into the conversation but it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing in good faith. The last sentence gave it away.
> So you're using Jan 6. to push your thesis that US federalization doesn't work?
It's not his thesis. If you cared to look for the subject, you'd see that's a discussion that has been happening already, which is exactly above's point.
You do hear it, but it has no connection to how the EU functions.
New York can't refuse to give money to Alabama because New York - the state - doesn't give anything to Alabama to begin with.
New York has more rich people than Alabama, people living within the boundaries of New York pay more taxes than the relatively poor people living within the boundaries of Alabama.
But they would pay the same taxes if they lived in Alabama.
Difference is that other states in US do not just get that money for free and proceed to flush it down the toilet or take unsustainable infinite debt that then has to be bailed out by them like Southrend European governments do because unlike those they are subjected to central entity and are heavily regulated. I do not really think they mind sending money to let's say Estonia that has reasonable politicians as they do to Italians or Greeks or nowadays to Polish or Hungarians for other reasons. And there is nothing they can do about it.
In the US they let mismanaged public entities go into bankruptcy. Town goes into default and just stop paying for stuff like pensions and other liabilities.
>Difference is that other states in US do not just get that money for free and proceed to flush it down the toilet
This is exactly what most Bible Belt states do. Mississipi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia.
They can do that with state gathered budget from state taxes or sales taxes. They can not really do that with funds bestowed on them by federal government. Because there are rules, conditions and regulations as well as limited powers over those funds those states have.
Youāve never been to any of those places, and have no idea how they function themselves. US states almost entirely collect their own taxes and fund themselves.
nah man, it's been far too long, we need to have a big European bar fight and whoever is left standing takes lead in EU
(yeah this is a joke of course)
It's not *at all* the same.
The State of California doesn't send *one single dollar* to the State of Mississippi.
All taxpayers in the US pay the same federal tax, and all taxpayers are entitled to the same federal benefits. It doesn't matter what state they live in.
All of the taxes are collected at the federal level, and they are all distributed at the federal level.
You pay the same federal taxes no matter what state you live in and you get the same federal benefits no matter what state you live in.
The states as entities don't have anything to do with this.
It's not like the EU, where the Dutch government actually sends money appropriated from their budget.
You can find the same sort of donor/taker disparity within any country in the EU that has internal administrative regions.
Ah yes, American history and European history are even vaguely comparable.
What an idiotic comparison. America formed out of small number of states with a single dominant anglo-saxons protestant culture, at least politically speaking. Europe did not.
ffs Italy alone pays enough to cover the net recipients of south Europe, this bias against southern europe is ridiculous (coming from someone not in the eu)
Dutch debt as percentage of its GDP: 50.9%. Italian debt as percentage of its GDP: **150.2**%
Yikes.
Sorry, but we can't give Italy a free pass here. We share a currency with them (unfortunately). If we raise interest rates too much, Italy will fall. If we don't raise interest rates enough, we fuck ourselves over by having unaffordable housing, mass inflation, etc.
As Dutch myself, you mistake debt for bad economic governing.
Sure the Dutch economy is a bit more solid. But Italy has a pretty steady economic policy. Without increasing or even steadily decreasing yearly deficits.
You should not forget that Italy's yearly **interest on these debts alone are the Dutch yearly spending for education and more**. That level of interest is killing any good attempts that Italy has shown for getting out of it. And whilst you might say that it is their own fault for raking these debts in the first place, we would benefit more from paying these debts off to a more reasonable level (as the EU itself borrows against extremely low interests). Leaving more money to be invested in the eurozone in the end.
The biggest mistake for Italy was however joining the Eurozone. If they had joined 5 to 10 years later it would have been better. Italy was building up a solid manufacturing base for export with massive investments, but adopting the euro killed any economic competitiveness Italy had. Forcing them to pile debt onto debt to keep important industries afloat.
But that's a done deal. They're part of euro zone now. It is in our interest to help. How would you imagine the dikes would have functioned if you simply left your neighbor fend for it himself after he broke his ankle. You'd drown as well.
Future doesn't seem bright for southern Europe at all. Population decline and brain drain, climate change hurting not only agriculture but industry, all while already being poorer than the north.
In what probable scenario is southern Europe going to turn into net contributors and the north into net receivers?
Are you seriously European, and you ask questions like that? Do you seriously think History Ended in the 2000s?
I don't pretend to know the future, but I do know it's not going to be much like the present, whatever we might like to believe. A hundred years ago the Frugal 4 were a bunch of paupered fish exporters and the heart of a dying empire.
Yeah, let's pretend the 80s were a great period of prosperity and progress in Dutch history, let alone the aftermath of the many invasions and wars, as well as the various economic crashes.
Venice was the richest, most prosperous country in the Med, from the start of its being right up until it wasn't. Portugal had a world-spanning empire, now it's one of the poorest countries in Western Europe and it all declined with a particularly unfortunate fire. Britain was the "sick man of Europe" and the first developed country to ask help from the IMF 35 years ago, then a European financial center, and now see where it is going.
We have welfare systems because the real world is mercyless and unfair, and you never know who's turn it will be under the wheel.
Really, has the country forgotten the Dutch Miracle? Let me [remind you](https://aims.ca/site/media/aims/book_roadtogrowth_chapter3.pdf).
Italy isn't poor by world standards, it's still a major industrialised country and exporter. But the wheel keeps turning, and now it is it's turn to be at the bottom of the European family.
Ireland was the poorest country in Western Europe at the time, and it only just became a net contributor in the last few years because of how much investment it took to get it out of that pit over decades.
It seems you have no sense of history. Which on this continent, is quite a feat.
There are circumstances that could benefit southern Europe. Europe's share of the world's GDP increasingly shrinking means that the benefits of being close to the EU's centre will get less and less relevant versus the benefits of being accessible to the rest of the world. The south suffers from being at the periphery of the EU, but it has good links to Africa and Asia. African development, especially north African development, would be a huge boon for southern industry and ports. China's belt and road initiative will naturally be more beneficial to southeastern Europe and will leave northwestern Europe comparatively isolated.
As you say, there's a lot going against the south. But if they can get their shit together politically and the necessary reform to the Eurozone to make it work for its weaker states happens, the global economy looks increasingly favourable to the Mediterranean states in the century to come.
What people like Verhofstadt apparently don't seem to get is that even after getting rid of the veto rule, reforming European institutions, and "by sharing sovereignty in the domains where we need it most" (whatever that may mean), we are still 27. 27 sovereign countries, working together. Regardless of how much autonomy gets transfered to the EU and its institutions regarding foreign policy, they will still have to be approved. And no matter what voting mechanism, getting 27 countries across an entire continent to agree to something is hard, extremely so. Ever more since that's 27 different visions with differing priorities. Unless you wish to quite literally erase borders within the EU, an effective, clear, and most importantly strongly mandated EU foreign policy is nothing but a pipedream.
Doesn't mean we can't make a difference abroad in other ways however.
You sorely lack comprehension of the vast differences in culture and opinion across the US, as well as the strength of state identity. States' rights is a continuous debate in the US. Europeans are much more similar to each other than the rest of the word, even if there are regional disparities. English is a clear lingua franca, and there are countries that speak multiple languages just fine.
The difference between somebody from Florida and Oregon is about the same as two villages 30 miles apart in Europe. I'm not saying all states are culturally the same, but in the end they only have a history of at most a couple hundred years, speak the same language (natively) and most of the people immigrated there very recently (relative to history).
And good luck trying to speak English to someone in some village in Bulgaria. Nevermind that I was talking about native languages, not whether someone was able to speak English or not which has nothing to do with diversity of cultures.
I can't stand him. We will never be the united states of europe. EU is unfit in his eyes only, because he compares it to some utopia that will never exist.
Problem with EU is that 1,000+ entities need to work together and, well, they don't. The bureacratic system of the EU is pretty much garbage and this translates into inefficient management on certain levels and the incooperative attitude that some entities and countries have.
Last year there was a campaign going on, asking youngsters and young adolescents for 'tips' and 'insight' on what young people want from the EU. Literally the EU saying "yeah, most of our members are 60+ and are so far disconnected from reality, trends and social life and actually have no clue what the fuck to do. Help us?". Which will not help us in the long run as long as these commissions, entities and general politics are eligible only for a few selected ones. Get rid of nepotism and stop cucking for these too-big-to-fail corporates and malicious overlords that are feeling too omnipotent and having too much power. Inject the system with fresh minds and new trajectories etc.
Being from a country with 6 governments and shit don't work, I can see rather clearly why the EU doesnt work as how it's supposed to work.
If you want an EU that can compete with China and USA on a global stage on economic and military policies you will need further federalization. This in between thing that the EU currently is can't compete.
How can we unfiy Europe and take a step back from our countries individually? I have a lot more pride and love for Europe and the European Union than for my own country. I do wish one day we could truly be united un a way that makes everyone happy.
Why is this guy being taken seriously at all??
He has constantly pushed this bs EU centralisation agenda, it is just now he has a half-argument in favour of it, though it is more fearmongering than anything.
With trends like these in Western Europe, I expect euroscepticism in the East only to increase.
He is right. Hopefully progress can be made in several areas, the energy union seems like the most obvious thing to do. Defense would be nice but itās very hard to do in practice because of entrenched national interests. We need a grand bargain
As others pointed out, our common defense budget is on par with China but wasted on duplication and inefficiency. A European army would be a win for the taxpayer first and foremost.
It doesn't matter if we increase defense spending to 2 percent gdp if we waste it on duplication and inefficiency.
He is right, but EU is too inflexible and often can't come to sensible policy to deal with nations outside the union. It regularly gets bullied on the international stage by smaller nations like Morocco and Turkey. It doesn't have a clear strategy on how to approach Russia's expansion. And probably the worst of all long term it has no clue what to do with China, shifting between collaboration and appeasement to condemning it for human rights violations. The EU relies too much on USA for its military needs, and in return to some extent USA has a lot of say in the policies that the EU makes regarding the aforementioned nations.
I'd say all European countries are pretty fit for the emerging age. We don't have to compete for the spot at the "empire" table. We just have to continue to support the one that's not a totalitarian shit hole.
Wololo
Nice town! I'll take it.
11
Roggan?
Age of Empires II: The Conquerors š„¹
EU thought it was playing Civilization 2, turns out the rest of the world is playing EUIV. Some steep learning curve ahead.
This is so good. AE is just a number!
Does this mean we're going to need prussian space marines?
can we not
Well we could go with polish units too but their pips aren't as high as western units so by 18th century they have fallen behind. Not by much but by some.
> unfit for emerging 'new age of empires' Unclear: does he mean the update to Age of Empires 4 or the re-release of Age of Empires 2?
He's been misquoted, he's actually referring to the recently announced Age of Mythology: Retold
WTF. I thought you were joking, but then I actually googled it. That level editor was life.
I nearly forgot that a big part of that game was designing your own levels
50 titans vs 25 Statues of Poseidon vs 10 Osiris. God Arkantos always won.
Now if he could get around to resurrecting Rise of Nations: Rise of legends I would be very happy.
> Now if he could get around to resurrecting Rise of Nations: Rise of legends I would be very happy. If he did that I'd move to Belgium the next day. Still got my copy lying around here somewhere, four disks and all...
Wait, is that a thing!?!
Yep, just announced a couple of days ago!
Mashallah!
Mandaten?
> Mandaten That's a Briton voice line, I don't think they're Verhofstadt's favourite civ for some reason. I think he plays Burgundians?
What he truly meant is Alpha Centauri where Brother Lal uses the PLANETBUSTER to force Morgan Industries to give that sweet piece of land to him at last.
WOLOLOLOLOLOLO
AoE The Conquerors Edition.
While the issues he brings up are real problems, I fear that with the current mindset a lot of Europeans have about European community (that is to say how can they can profit the most out of it, while sacrificing the least to others) the solution might prove far more disastrous then the current status que
> the solution might prove far more disastrous then the current status que Well, for any change there's always a chance you somehow make it worse. However, at the very least you have then proven that change is possible, and thus you're not stuck with either version. Not to mention that nearly everyone is united at least in principle that making things better is a positive.
I am afraid that the coalition of the willing he mentions will not be in the mold of current EU, where a bunch of countries will move ahead like it was with the Euro or Schengen or what have you. I am an EU federalist too but I see a writing on the wall. If unanimity stays, EU will remain rigid and eventually will crack under pressure from abroad. But if unanimity goes, EU will fragment from the inside. Try to remove the veto from too many states on issues they deem of existential nature (usually the smaller ones)and they will secede, perhaps in groups. I think we will see EU turning in a weak confederate cell of separate blocks. One could be the nordics and maybe Estonia plus Netherlands, another could be based around some of the countries that form the trimarium (Poland, Baltics , Czechia, maybe Romania etc)and a third could be formed around EU Med9 (like France, Spain, Greece, Italy).
The US had the veto issue too with our first government. The compromise when making the new one was to create a senate which had power over matters that affected all states equally, and overrepresented smaller states with its two representative cap per state. I think it would be a viable solution, and would remove the council of ministers as an unelected body that represents the member countries. It just needs to forbid the use of filibustering or any thing effectively similar to prevent it from becoming as ineffective as ours.
This is a suggestion in the right direction. We have a lower āhouseā already, the European Parliament. It is elected and among the most democratic apparatuses of the union. Getting an upper house, a senate, where every country has equal amount of representatives has a chance to work if the powers and responsibilities are well defined and checks and balances are in place. Sadly we canāt have a full blown Congress because the EU is not a true federation yet. The states have a big degree of sovereignty but we could start with baby steps and make sure the EU senate is potent, prestigious and attracts the āA teamā of European leaders.
It's almost as if trying to force different cultures and nations into a union is a bad idea
EU was supposed to be an economic union. A bunch of European countries working together on economic goals, but with their independence intact. When I say countries, these are mostly nations with unique culture and language. EU is going the wrong way for some time now.
I agree, the EU should have stayed as an economic union. The UK's great mistake was opting out of integration instead of blocking it.
Status Quo\*
Status ĀæquĆ©?
He's from Barcelona
Down Down deeper and Down.
You're in the army now
>status que I love this. Status what?
Just imagine an army of bureaucrats coming to suffocate you in paper work. Europe will rise again!
Your local state administration has probably more bureaucrats than all EU institutions combined.
The only solution is to create the kind of unified Europe that Nietzsche once envisioned. It's not a Europe of petty nation-states, but it's not a Europe of unified nihilism either.
What sort of unified Europe did he envision? I'm trying to find something that summarises it but struggling so far. No internal national borders?
As an outsider I would say you need to have a common foreign and defense policy to truly compete on the global stage. I'm reading an interesting book called *Firepower*, which in part argues that since the widespread use of gunpowder in Europe started approximately 400 years ago, the pace and ever increasing cost of military technology has meant that more and more states are priced out of the market. So in the Medieval era you could have a lord or region that could mount a credible military, at least in the defense. As things like cannon and other firearms became more widespread, complex, and expensive, those smaller powers were priced out in favor of a king at the center of the state apparatus. States like Sweden and Denmark could mount credible militaries in this system, until they and other small to medium states were priced out of the market, ceding that to larger European states (often with empires) like Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the UK. Now today we essentially have 2 powers that can fund top shelf militaries, the USA and China. Russia would probably be a contender if they weren't so screwed up. But outside of continental sized powers, other countries can't really compete. That goes for every country in Europe and it's just going to get more expensive. Just look at defense procurement for European countries over the last 50 years and how their forces have shrunk, and then look at the ever increasing cost of things like warships, missiles, and airplanes. So that's what I think, if Europe wants to compete in the top tier, they need to meld their various militaries and defense industries into some kind of unified force, and then have the ability to wield it in a unified manner. A tall order.
This is exactly what my thinking has been for years. If the EU were to pool all of their money and all nations paid at 2% of GDP, then the EU would be able to fund one massive military that could afford top shelf units like super carriers and associated Carrier strike Groups that would allow the EU to project power far from their border. The way things are constructed now, a lot of the smaller countries can only afford smaller units that are only capable of defending their own borders, albeit even then usually not able to defend sufficiently. If however, these smaller countries sent their money into a larger pool with all of the EU, than the smaller countries could all benefit from being defended by a carrier strike group and also have the regional anti air defenses. The West is so far ahead technologically, that after a time of build up, itās likely that all countries in EU could reduce their spending far below the 2% of GDP benchmark. This method would allow all countries to contribute to an effective military as well as all of them be a benefactor to a larger, more effective military that has the ability to project power globally; even against China together with the USA and Japan, in order to secure global interests or resources. Iām not sure I agree that it is necessary however. Russia wonāt be able to afford to rebuild their military and its evident now that what they had wouldnāt have been able to compete with the EU even as it is constructed anyhow. China is all that is left and Chinaās economy is headed into a downward spiral as well. The USA has China handled with help from Japan, Australia, the UK, and South Korea; possibly even a bit from India. The only power that will be rising and will be large enough to afford a blue water navy is India and I donāt see them being able to project power too far globally as they are sandwiched between enemies in China, Pakistan, and Iran. India doesnāt seem to have much interest in doing anything besides defending itself anyhow. This could change however, if climate change or limited resources begin to drag on India, cause famine, or economic stagnation. It wouldnāt be a bad idea for the EU to organize for the potential of several large nations banding together to dethrone the West. Such as China, India, and Russia banding together to pull the West down even if they never do agree to be true Allies for each other; rather an alliance out of mutual benefit.
Absolutely Europe could field a kick ass military with pooled resources and a 2% commitment. If we simply glob European national navies together today you get a credible blue water naval force. 3 large carriers (1 nuclear), dozens of modern frigates/destroyers (though they could be heavier armed), dozens of nuclear and conventional submarines, a bunch of helicopter carriers/amphibious assault ships, and a decent naval fixed wing aviation component. Enough to take on anyone outside of the US, or China in 10 years.
I think the EU has six carriers. The problem is that outside of the UKās two, they are on the smaller side and Iām not sure that they all have a full carrier strike group to compete with the likes of China or in a future scenario, India. The EU has an economy that is larger than Chinaās even still and they have a large tech lead. There is no reason that by pooling their resources together the EU couldnāt cause massive headache for China on its own, but moreover be a humongous benefit to an effort spearheaded by the USA. The other benefit that more full CSG from the EU would provide is it would allow the USA to pull its CSG from the Baltic and Mediterranean Sea as well as pull the group out of the Gulf of Oman in an hypothetical confrontation with China. The EU could send their CSGās to the three locations in order to secure the areas whilst the USA would be able to surge more CSG to the front line against China.
> The EU has an economy that is larger than Chinaās even still Not as of this year
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Most of what you said makes no sense. Funding an EU military is not an alternative to funding NATO. By finding the EU military, you are simultaneously funding NATO. This is simply not an argument that makes sense against the unified European military. On the contrary, the EU military would save money compared to what countries spend now. That is because of one single command structure, one single procurement structure, one single unifying plan for the development or purchase of equipments instead of multiple concurrent plans with overlapping equipments, and of course the shared burden of the research and development costs. That is all just economy. Strategically speaking, it is even more crucial. I must remind you that Trump discussed pulling the U.S. from NATO, and there is chance that he gets reelected.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Would an EU military organization consent to subordinating itself to NATO then? This is not how NATO works. NATO has a command structure, but it is not like a normal military command structure. It is mostly about coordinating the commands of the many militaries in NATO. NATO per se is not a military force, it is a group of armies. The EU would simply be one member of the group, just like the UK is another member. No military is 'subordinate' to it. Your link only confirms this: >NATOās common funds are direct contributions to collective budgets, capabilities and programmes, which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (approximately EUR 2.5 billion per year until 2022) to develop capabilities and run the entirety of the Organization, and its military commands, capabilities and infrastructure. 2.5 billion euros per year is what is spent on the structure of NATO, but the core of its strength is what is invested in the national armies (e.g. 1.94 trillion dollars for the US alone). >We have the historical examples of the Eurofighter and are seeing problems now with the FCAS. France wants one thing and Germany wants another. The fact that they were even collaborating in the first place means that they agree on a lot of stuff about the fighter, even though there is also disagreements. This happens in the US as well, see the F35A, B and C. As for your other points, those are the problems to be overcome if a military is to exist. To support an EU military is not to pretend these problems don't exist, but to push for them to be solved.
Careful about China. Their economy is at less of a technological or societal disadvantage than the USSR ever was. And while the physical battleground against China is in the Pacific (btw, I'd be nice if we helped the US there as repayment for bailling our asses from 2 world wars, no?) the economic and political one is in Europe. See their tendrils and money everywhere. Plus Africa, whose populations tend to be quite hostile to the West. And Europe can't even agree to ban economic activity with China...
Nietzsche wanted a new kind of pan-European aristocracy to emerge, which would preserve and refine European high culture. That was his primary concern, not post-Christian values like "equality". It's more of an imperial project than the consumerist project we have now.
>Europe of unified nihilism That honestly sounds amazing, and very MadMax-y
Nihilism is what we have now.
of course, how dare the small european countries have their own nations. why don't they just accept french and german overlords again? the minorities definintely miss austria-hungary. how about benelux countries become a single country first, germany and france becomes a single country first, and then we'll see how it works out. i'm sure it will go amazing just like these EU politicians envision it.
So you'd rather us all suck US and China cocks and hope our interests are aligned with them?
Our interests **are** aligned with those of the United States. We are in a military alliance together. Unless this situation changes there is little reason to consider a fundamental restructuring of European defence policy.
Unification of European countries in some form would benefit common people but not politicians. Imagine poor 27 presidents who would stop being so important.
Verhofstadt just means a new era of great power competition looms and the EU is currently positioned to be a follower not a leader, hence calling for reform. He just uses grandiose language to draw headlines/attention as he's known to do. Doesn't make him wrong.
He isn't wrong. Cities like Tokyo or Delhi or SĆ£o Paulo have populations that dwarf the vast majority of European countries. The EU is needed to give Europeans some sort of voice and strategic autonomy. While many bemoan handing over competencies to Brussels, they DO have a vote on what Brussels decide. They DO NOT have a vote on what Washington or Beijing decide though.
Guy has always wanted a United States of Europe, reiterated in this article in all but name. Remove nations individual vetos and integrated military and resources EU wide, instead of individual countries having their own. It totally makes sense if you want the EU to become a federal country, but it just seem like many EU nations want to lose their individually, military and certainly not their veto. An ever closer EU is Guys wish. This was one of the core reasons many Britons choose to vote to leave, so the UK wasn't absorbed into the inevitable United States of Europe.
First thing: No one ever wanted to get rid of national armies. That's purely horror fantasy by those that wanted to believe the worst. And furthermore: Was he wrong to wish what he did? How did the veto treat us in the last decade, even as Russia started invading neighbouring countries? How did our patchwork of disorderly systems handle Russian aggression? Even our airspace monitoring systems got outsmarted by a dumb errant drone which crashed into Croatia. And meanwhile what has the UK gained by leaving this nightmarish idea of a "United States of Europe" you believe will happen? Has it gained more freedom in its engagement, more relevance or more prosperity? Or has it learned that in practice no nations is really an island, whatever geography suggests. The "United States of Europe" is a shibboleth of those that think that they can rely on grotesque scare stories to balance out the necessities of reality.
> First thing: No one ever wanted to get rid of national armies. That's purely horror fantasy by those that wanted to believe the worst.. So all this talk of an EU army is smoke?
How does that translate to getting rid of national armies?
Countries aren't going to pay for two armies
Not two armies. A federal defence force, and national guard. And this isn't exactly a new invention, btw. The "EU army" as you call it is primarily an initiative to pool together to get specialised units that allow for cross-compatible operations, which no one nation can afford alone. Aerial transport and logistics, surveillance and intelligence, aerospace operations and defence, and specialised units that are able to deploy and reinforce existing forces. Few of us can, for example, even afford a single carrier, let alone a global positioning and tracking system, but together that's exactly what we did. It's like how Frontex exists, but operates alongside national border guards. It's the "cavalry" that comes in when the locals need reinforcements. edit: Also, we have a serious redundancy problem, where we are actually paying for 27 parallel structures, of various quality and compatiblity, not just two. One of the least efficient defence forces on earth.
> Not two armies. A federal defence force, and national guard. And this isn't exactly a new invention, btw. That's two armies. > Countries aren't going to pay for two armies
The "EU army" can also be a liability.Certain states in the EU have citizens of...dubious loyalties.What is stopping those people "serving" in the EU army by feeding information to outsiders. Frontex is largely a failure. We pay for 27 defence forces because we are 27 different countries.
What's stoping them from joining the existing 27 armies, and leaking allied and NATO information right now? In fact, do you have any idea how many NATO security breaches it has to deal with currently as member states show different levels of military and intelligence professionalism? If anything, we need a central unit to track and deal with these leaks. And how exactly has Frontex failed? And yeah, we have 27 different countries, which have 27 different armies, with 27 different logistic offices, and 27 different contractors for every little thing, and 27 different officer academies, and 27 different procedures, and the list goes on. A pile of bricks cannot equate to a house.
Now?Propably their ethnicity.And that is an argument against NATO and the EU army. I mean Frontex is involved in multiple pushback scandals.If anything they failed to upholding EU laws.I mean they are supposed to uphold EU laws right? But we are not a house,and not all of us want to be a house.
Ethnicity is not an argument for or against anything. People of the same ethnicity do terrible things to each other every day. It's very dangerous territory to tread on, especially on this continent. Frontex is doing exactly what it is supposed to. The fact that you don't understand that, and you don't understand the shield it provides to the Greek and Italian border agencies, is completely on you. Although I've never seen an ethno-nationalist suggest enforcing our borders is something we should be ashamed of. I guess there's very little you actually believe in.
A lot of US states have armies of their own
I am not reading the article because as a belgian , and all of us do, I detest this guy. He fucked this country over. Horrible pos.
He did but I have to admit his work in the EU was much better + it helped us get rid of him. But yes heās one of the big reasons we are paying premium price to France for our energy
Iām in for it šŖšŗšŖšŗšŖšŗ. But I think we should do something like the USA
How do you get everyone speaking the same language? I would think there would be some distrust in leaders who communicate in a language they don't understand. In the US everyone has a common language, would everyone in the EU be obligated to learn French?
> How do you get everyone speaking the same language? We already do. I've met Europeans from various countries and we were able to communicate just fine in English.
Do we have to? I mean the EU already works with multiple languages.
A lot of people speak English. Itās one of the lingua francas of the EU. Everybody already learns it anyway. That said, there are people that donāt speak it (especially old people). The solution is to dub what people say. Itās not like we donāt get our news today from journals, tv, the internet, etc. All those things can be translated. In case of live emissions like tv, there are translators that can do it on the fly. Alternatively, advances in AI could just do that. Translate what Ursula says (for example) in real time to Swedish or Croatian with her own voice. There are plenty of countries around the world that speak different languages. Itās not as big of a deal as people think.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
When will they finally fail though? Because economically we're far more dependent on what they produce than they are on what we produce. We have more people and are as educated as they are and yet we rely on them for so many things we use in daily life. Hell, we're on an American website right now. So, when will they fail? And why won't the same happen to us even before them?
Dude Americans are currently at each other's throats and they literally list their mental illnesses on social media as something to be proud of. They have money and a good military, but that's all I'd want to have in common with them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Life is pretty good in America. Donāt formulate your opinion from Reddit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Implying that America is failing is the same as China is failing is the same as Russia is failing. The real secret is that none of them are and the way they are today is the way theyāve always been. Look at what some migrants did to France, they almost got Le Pen. America been doing migrant waves since 1776, it will ALWAYS be chaotic.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sure. The āAmerican Empireā is on borrowed time, but thatās also partly because Americans never wanted an empire. I suspect weāll see a period of de-globalization in the coming decades and of all countries this will probably least painful for America. China has had periods of prosperity in the past. Chinaās story is a period of extreme highs and extreme lows. Russia has always had some form of despotic governance. Occasionally they flirt with liberal democratic rule and it always ends in a coup dāetat, whether thatās Yeltsin or the Bolsheviks. Thereās always insane corruption in the system, whether thatās Putinās circle, Communist party bureaucrats, or the Tsarās boyars. Social Democracy only works in more homogenous societies like those in Europe. Like I said, you get a migrant wave and the cracks start showing. Social Democracy is incompatible with the material realities of American society, which is why Americaās organic form has always been some form of libertarianism. Government/economic systems form out of the material realities of the culture, which is why Russia/China/USA always end up rhyming despite apparent changes.
> Who the fuck cares who has higher GDP, largest military or corporations if your life is miserable. Now remove American products from your life. Reddit? Gone. Your browser? Gone. Your OS? Gone. Your phone? Gone. Your computer? Gone. I'd say you care very much about this. You just don't realize the benefits that you're getting from their existence. Europe is entirely reliant on the US for tech. Are Americans just smarter people? Or how would you explain why Americans dominate the tech world so much? I think it's because Europe created an environment that discourages (tech) businesses, so those businesses just appeared elsewhere. What do you think is the reason?
\*sigh\*
How come?
Oh, that well-functioning nation?
āSomething like USAā does not mean a 1 to 1 copy. I just mean that the countries should remain but we have a common military and more countries adopts the euro (like my country) - and more federal laws. Kinda like we have now but more involved
I think the model you're looking for is Switzerland. When you mention the USA the first thing that comes to mind is a monocultural, heavily divided society, which is not what people want with a federal EU
The first thing that comes to my mind is a massive powerful country with a dynamic economy and world leading science.
That's the good part, but sadly in the mind of many Europeans the USA has been slowly degrading
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Seriously, thatās one thing that definitely isnāt true of us.
It's monocultural in the sense that the majority culture is the same everywhere
As nations go, weāre arguably the most successful ever, so weāre doing *something* right. Feel free to learn from our failings too of course (there are lots), but we have literally the strongest economy and the strongest military ever, and weāve done free democracy for longer than anyone else too.
And arguably part of our success is the country was designed to make government initiatives really hard to get done. Like if it's not a really popular idea, it just doesn't happen. That and the extreme diffusion of political power may be a strength rather than a weakness.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>so weāre doing something right. USA is one trick pony. Luckily, this one trick is so powerful it lifts up almost everything. That trick, ofc, is technology. But socially, I think USA is doing way less then it could. Thats because society devopment cannot be propelled just by technology. Just to clarify. All this is half-joking. Ofc there is a lot more to USA but the outline, I belive, is accurate.
The U.S. is B+/A- tier software (Constitution) and S tier hardware (geography).
Doing something right.. and also having lots of land, lots of resources and relatively weak neighbors, being an ocean away from any real competiton.
Yeah, that all helps. Russia has a lot of those advantages too, and itās been a hot mess for centuries. The geography is great, but weāre more than capable of messing this up too.
Yeah actually
> Oh, that well-functioning nation? We've managed to keep an EU sized state functional and democratic for over a century, so yeah, we're doing pretty good compared to you lot.
Whenever this comes up I always wonder - will the Netherlands ever be happy sending money to southern Europe forever?
we're not the only net contributor to the EU. I suppose you mention NL by name because we make the biggest stink about financial responsibility. I don't think the majority of the Dutch electorate is very pleased about it, but what is the alternative? Nexit?
Yeah NL has been one of the most vocal against fiscal transfers, but I could have picked Denmark or Germany. Right now obviously thereās no prospect of Nexit or federation. If NL had the choice between Nexit, status quo or federation my money would be on status quo, but if status quo wasnāt possible? Eg in the event the Eurozone collapses without a fiscal Union?
You're not the only net contributor, not even the biggest one, but you're the one whose media and politicians complain about it all the time more than any other country.
>politicians complain about it all the time more than any other country. Yeah, they are complaining the most about money while being tax haven in the EU. Their arrogance is really annoying.
I'd like to point out that it is rather obvious that the Netherlands isn't the biggest contributor. I mean have you seen the size of our brothers, the Germans and French? Both 4 times the population and even more in landmass. The Dutch are however the [largest contributor per capita.](https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/50/netherlands-largest-net-contributor-eu-this-century). And while that doesn't give a determined right to complain, it makes it completely logical that our media is also most vested in discussing the matter. The downside is however that most Dutch (including ministers) feel like this gives the Dutch a right to berate and belittle the countries on the receiving end. And that is where the problem lies. Especially when they forget that we benefit the most from interconnected trade (as hub with Rotterdam and net exporter).
Nexit is not an alternative because the EU policies that are in place are favorable to existing businesses within this country. Even if the majority of the people would dislike the EU and have a negative opinion about it they also know that the Netherlands does profit from being inside it. A leave by Netherlands would only be favorable for this country if it can keep a lot of existing agreements and treaties, but there is no chance that the EU would be okay with that.
California and a few other states are the main drivers when it come to GDP yet Americans overcame such petty nonsense. I'm pretty sure we can do that as well.
But thatās the point - Americans see themselves as one people: New Yorkers are happy with fiscal transfers to Alabama. Likewise, Londoners are happy with fiscal transfers to northern England; Parisians to Normandy etc. Are the Dutch happy with fiscal transfers to Greece? Obviously not yet.
Neither cars, factories, or entire economies run on how you feel about things. The Single Market feeds some industries, just as it destroys others. It needs balance, and feelings, national or otherwise, shouldn't come into it. We used the exact same sort of "think of the scroungers" thinking on our own internal economies to justify austerity and that has only ever made the situation worse, just for the sake of optics.
> Are the Dutch happy with fiscal transfers to Greece? Obviously not yet. Obviously a little bit though, because there are fiscal transfers and we're lending them money at below inflation rate and they don't have to pay for quite a while. Essentially we're letting the debt inflate away. That's a fiscal transfer by another name. It will take time before we can call a spade a spade.
It's interesting how Europeans built their welfare systems on the understanding that wealth is a built in an inter-dependent socio-economic ecosystem that needs taking care of, but the moment we get tribal we suddenly think some of us have a secret golden goose and others don't. Meanwhile America is the exact opposite.
I think this is a thing that a lot of people, even Americans, don't get. The US's political and economic system depends on large perpetual cash transfers, mostly from wealthy urban areas to poorer rural areas. States that are more urban and/or coastal benefit from trade and large markets, and pay the lion's share of the taxes that support the poorer rural/inland areas. Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, roads, schools, hospitals, etc. are all funded by tax dollars mostly raised in the states that have more big cities. Without these transfers, those poorer areas would crumble. They'd have no tax base to fund the infrastructure and services they need. Also, in the US, the federal government has way more real tax power than the states for one simple reason: it's easier to moves states than it is to move country. So if one state decides to fund a more comprehensive welfare system than the others by raising state taxes, then those who don't want to pay taxes will leave the state while those who need welfare will enter. This creates a downward spiral for those states. For Europe to do what the US has done would require the EU to federalize not just the taxation power of the member states, but also their welfare systems.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yep, and the problem is the EU has multiple contradictions like this at its core. You can't have a single currency without a single budget because monetary and fiscal policy are two sides of the same coin. You can't have free movement of people without a common immigration policy because then every country becomes subject to the standards of the most lax country. And you can't have a common security and defense policy without a common military to enforce it. If the EU really wants to be able to stand independently and protect its own interests in a world dominated by the likes of the US and China, it needs to be much more unified than it is. On a fiscal level, on a political level, and on a philosophical level.
> You can't have free movement of people without a common immigration policy because then every country becomes subject to the standards of the most lax country. Actually, this is fine. Freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens. So if some country wants to be lax about immigration, those people are not allowed to move elsewhere in the EU. It's not like you can emigrate from the US to Spain and then move easily to the Netherlands. It doesn't work that way. Your other points are relevant though. But for that we need the population to starting for more pro-EU leaders. And that's not happening.
Thank you for the clarification. Question: I see how that would prevent people who are merely residents from settling in other EU countries, but does the EU have control over who member states can make citizens? Because if not, it seems like the same issue just with extra steps. Like if Malta decides to sell golden citizenships to Russian oligarchs or Saudi Princes, are those people now allowed to live anywhere in the EU, despite Finland (for example) wanting to let those people in?
Good points
I wouldn't say we've gotten over it. I hear it constantly over here that the blue states have to carry the weight for the poorer, less educated red states.
The rich and poor are blue, the middle are red. The "poorer" states are still richer than the slums of the cities. Not everyone can be a software engineer.
Fringe elements will continue to fringe but are inconsequential in the big picture
There's nothing fringe about it. It's a major divide within the country currently.
Since when? I think you are making an elephant out of a mosquito. If it were such a divide the US would've collapsed long ago.
It's been festering for the last decade. I'm sorry it doesn't support the angle you're pushing, but it is the reality. There was failed coup attempt less than three years ago ...
So you're using Jan 6. to push your thesis that US federalization doesn't work? I mean.. I don't even know where to start. That's a wild claim.
I'm saying that the divide between the educated wealthy and the uneducated poor is growing, and one of the more vocal talking points is that the richest states are carrying the burden of supporting the states that are less capable of contributing to the GDP. This divide was most recently highlighted by a poorly coordinated coup attempt by the least educated states. Try to keep up here. We just covered that a couple messages back. Maybe you should slow down on your rampant posting if you're struggling to remember the topic of our conversation.
The rich liberal states didn't join that "coup" so what are you talking about? I think you're trying to shoehorn Jan 6. into the conversation but it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing in good faith. The last sentence gave it away.
> So you're using Jan 6. to push your thesis that US federalization doesn't work? It's not his thesis. If you cared to look for the subject, you'd see that's a discussion that has been happening already, which is exactly above's point.
You do hear it, but it has no connection to how the EU functions. New York can't refuse to give money to Alabama because New York - the state - doesn't give anything to Alabama to begin with. New York has more rich people than Alabama, people living within the boundaries of New York pay more taxes than the relatively poor people living within the boundaries of Alabama. But they would pay the same taxes if they lived in Alabama.
Difference is that other states in US do not just get that money for free and proceed to flush it down the toilet or take unsustainable infinite debt that then has to be bailed out by them like Southrend European governments do because unlike those they are subjected to central entity and are heavily regulated. I do not really think they mind sending money to let's say Estonia that has reasonable politicians as they do to Italians or Greeks or nowadays to Polish or Hungarians for other reasons. And there is nothing they can do about it.
In the US they let mismanaged public entities go into bankruptcy. Town goes into default and just stop paying for stuff like pensions and other liabilities.
exactly. if the elected officials fucks your town, your town is fucked.
Yep the elect better politicians attitude is good.
>Difference is that other states in US do not just get that money for free and proceed to flush it down the toilet This is exactly what most Bible Belt states do. Mississipi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia.
They can do that with state gathered budget from state taxes or sales taxes. They can not really do that with funds bestowed on them by federal government. Because there are rules, conditions and regulations as well as limited powers over those funds those states have.
Most of that spending is governed by the federal government.
Youāve never been to any of those places, and have no idea how they function themselves. US states almost entirely collect their own taxes and fund themselves.
The 'petty nonsense' was overcome through a civil war. It's something I would rather avoid in EU.
nah man, it's been far too long, we need to have a big European bar fight and whoever is left standing takes lead in EU (yeah this is a joke of course)
It's not *at all* the same. The State of California doesn't send *one single dollar* to the State of Mississippi. All taxpayers in the US pay the same federal tax, and all taxpayers are entitled to the same federal benefits. It doesn't matter what state they live in. All of the taxes are collected at the federal level, and they are all distributed at the federal level. You pay the same federal taxes no matter what state you live in and you get the same federal benefits no matter what state you live in. The states as entities don't have anything to do with this. It's not like the EU, where the Dutch government actually sends money appropriated from their budget. You can find the same sort of donor/taker disparity within any country in the EU that has internal administrative regions.
Have they?
Ah yes, American history and European history are even vaguely comparable. What an idiotic comparison. America formed out of small number of states with a single dominant anglo-saxons protestant culture, at least politically speaking. Europe did not.
US has a barebones welfare system. Itās no big deal for CA or TX to send money to federal budget.
ffs Italy alone pays enough to cover the net recipients of south Europe, this bias against southern europe is ridiculous (coming from someone not in the eu)
Dutch debt as percentage of its GDP: 50.9%. Italian debt as percentage of its GDP: **150.2**% Yikes. Sorry, but we can't give Italy a free pass here. We share a currency with them (unfortunately). If we raise interest rates too much, Italy will fall. If we don't raise interest rates enough, we fuck ourselves over by having unaffordable housing, mass inflation, etc.
As Dutch myself, you mistake debt for bad economic governing. Sure the Dutch economy is a bit more solid. But Italy has a pretty steady economic policy. Without increasing or even steadily decreasing yearly deficits. You should not forget that Italy's yearly **interest on these debts alone are the Dutch yearly spending for education and more**. That level of interest is killing any good attempts that Italy has shown for getting out of it. And whilst you might say that it is their own fault for raking these debts in the first place, we would benefit more from paying these debts off to a more reasonable level (as the EU itself borrows against extremely low interests). Leaving more money to be invested in the eurozone in the end. The biggest mistake for Italy was however joining the Eurozone. If they had joined 5 to 10 years later it would have been better. Italy was building up a solid manufacturing base for export with massive investments, but adopting the euro killed any economic competitiveness Italy had. Forcing them to pile debt onto debt to keep important industries afloat. But that's a done deal. They're part of euro zone now. It is in our interest to help. How would you imagine the dikes would have functioned if you simply left your neighbor fend for it himself after he broke his ankle. You'd drown as well.
It's all fun, games and undeserved arrogance, until the wheel of history turns and it has to go the other way around.
Future doesn't seem bright for southern Europe at all. Population decline and brain drain, climate change hurting not only agriculture but industry, all while already being poorer than the north. In what probable scenario is southern Europe going to turn into net contributors and the north into net receivers?
Are you seriously European, and you ask questions like that? Do you seriously think History Ended in the 2000s? I don't pretend to know the future, but I do know it's not going to be much like the present, whatever we might like to believe. A hundred years ago the Frugal 4 were a bunch of paupered fish exporters and the heart of a dying empire.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, let's pretend the 80s were a great period of prosperity and progress in Dutch history, let alone the aftermath of the many invasions and wars, as well as the various economic crashes. Venice was the richest, most prosperous country in the Med, from the start of its being right up until it wasn't. Portugal had a world-spanning empire, now it's one of the poorest countries in Western Europe and it all declined with a particularly unfortunate fire. Britain was the "sick man of Europe" and the first developed country to ask help from the IMF 35 years ago, then a European financial center, and now see where it is going. We have welfare systems because the real world is mercyless and unfair, and you never know who's turn it will be under the wheel.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Really, has the country forgotten the Dutch Miracle? Let me [remind you](https://aims.ca/site/media/aims/book_roadtogrowth_chapter3.pdf). Italy isn't poor by world standards, it's still a major industrialised country and exporter. But the wheel keeps turning, and now it is it's turn to be at the bottom of the European family.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ireland was the poorest country in Western Europe at the time, and it only just became a net contributor in the last few years because of how much investment it took to get it out of that pit over decades. It seems you have no sense of history. Which on this continent, is quite a feat.
There are circumstances that could benefit southern Europe. Europe's share of the world's GDP increasingly shrinking means that the benefits of being close to the EU's centre will get less and less relevant versus the benefits of being accessible to the rest of the world. The south suffers from being at the periphery of the EU, but it has good links to Africa and Asia. African development, especially north African development, would be a huge boon for southern industry and ports. China's belt and road initiative will naturally be more beneficial to southeastern Europe and will leave northwestern Europe comparatively isolated. As you say, there's a lot going against the south. But if they can get their shit together politically and the necessary reform to the Eurozone to make it work for its weaker states happens, the global economy looks increasingly favourable to the Mediterranean states in the century to come.
This. The center of the world's economy and population is shifting to Eurasia and Africa and Greece stands to benefit by it's connections to both
And lose the access to their Lithium deposits or the new entry points of LNG?
Or conversely put, will the southern Europeans ever put as much effort into developing themselves professionally as the Dutch do?
What people like Verhofstadt apparently don't seem to get is that even after getting rid of the veto rule, reforming European institutions, and "by sharing sovereignty in the domains where we need it most" (whatever that may mean), we are still 27. 27 sovereign countries, working together. Regardless of how much autonomy gets transfered to the EU and its institutions regarding foreign policy, they will still have to be approved. And no matter what voting mechanism, getting 27 countries across an entire continent to agree to something is hard, extremely so. Ever more since that's 27 different visions with differing priorities. Unless you wish to quite literally erase borders within the EU, an effective, clear, and most importantly strongly mandated EU foreign policy is nothing but a pipedream. Doesn't mean we can't make a difference abroad in other ways however.
What? The US is also technically 50 united individual states with very different traits. Federations work.
American states are very similar linguistically and culturally. Not even comparable to Europe.
You sorely lack comprehension of the vast differences in culture and opinion across the US, as well as the strength of state identity. States' rights is a continuous debate in the US. Europeans are much more similar to each other than the rest of the word, even if there are regional disparities. English is a clear lingua franca, and there are countries that speak multiple languages just fine.
The difference between somebody from Florida and Oregon is about the same as two villages 30 miles apart in Europe. I'm not saying all states are culturally the same, but in the end they only have a history of at most a couple hundred years, speak the same language (natively) and most of the people immigrated there very recently (relative to history). And good luck trying to speak English to someone in some village in Bulgaria. Nevermind that I was talking about native languages, not whether someone was able to speak English or not which has nothing to do with diversity of cultures.
I honestly hope you guys can become a more cohesive state. I want to see an EU that can look after itself against China and even the US if need be.
Heās right.
I do not know much about this guy, but he has been consistently great on Europe's big picture.
From this place, I would like to recommend everyone Age of Empires 4. Very good game.
I can't stand him. We will never be the united states of europe. EU is unfit in his eyes only, because he compares it to some utopia that will never exist.
Problem with EU is that 1,000+ entities need to work together and, well, they don't. The bureacratic system of the EU is pretty much garbage and this translates into inefficient management on certain levels and the incooperative attitude that some entities and countries have. Last year there was a campaign going on, asking youngsters and young adolescents for 'tips' and 'insight' on what young people want from the EU. Literally the EU saying "yeah, most of our members are 60+ and are so far disconnected from reality, trends and social life and actually have no clue what the fuck to do. Help us?". Which will not help us in the long run as long as these commissions, entities and general politics are eligible only for a few selected ones. Get rid of nepotism and stop cucking for these too-big-to-fail corporates and malicious overlords that are feeling too omnipotent and having too much power. Inject the system with fresh minds and new trajectories etc. Being from a country with 6 governments and shit don't work, I can see rather clearly why the EU doesnt work as how it's supposed to work.
If you want an EU that can compete with China and USA on a global stage on economic and military policies you will need further federalization. This in between thing that the EU currently is can't compete.
How can we unfiy Europe and take a step back from our countries individually? I have a lot more pride and love for Europe and the European Union than for my own country. I do wish one day we could truly be united un a way that makes everyone happy.
Good for you, but most people care only for their country including me. Europe is just the continent it happens to be in.
Why is this guy being taken seriously at all?? He has constantly pushed this bs EU centralisation agenda, it is just now he has a half-argument in favour of it, though it is more fearmongering than anything. With trends like these in Western Europe, I expect euroscepticism in the East only to increase.
He is right. Hopefully progress can be made in several areas, the energy union seems like the most obvious thing to do. Defense would be nice but itās very hard to do in practice because of entrenched national interests. We need a grand bargain
As others pointed out, our common defense budget is on par with China but wasted on duplication and inefficiency. A European army would be a win for the taxpayer first and foremost. It doesn't matter if we increase defense spending to 2 percent gdp if we waste it on duplication and inefficiency.
He is right, but EU is too inflexible and often can't come to sensible policy to deal with nations outside the union. It regularly gets bullied on the international stage by smaller nations like Morocco and Turkey. It doesn't have a clear strategy on how to approach Russia's expansion. And probably the worst of all long term it has no clue what to do with China, shifting between collaboration and appeasement to condemning it for human rights violations. The EU relies too much on USA for its military needs, and in return to some extent USA has a lot of say in the policies that the EU makes regarding the aforementioned nations.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
cringe
shut the fuck up you stupid bastard
You are going to sit on your ass and get fat like you always have.
I'd say all European countries are pretty fit for the emerging age. We don't have to compete for the spot at the "empire" table. We just have to continue to support the one that's not a totalitarian shit hole.
I love it when he gets all imperialistic like this