Will the EU destroy the EU?

[TastesLikeChicken]

I read some commentary earlier on a blog, I don't remember which one now, discussing the EU's reason for being was/is to properly help Europe compete with the US. When I hear that word "compete" I wonder what it really comprises because economic competition has never been that much of an issue for European countries. More likely the word "compete" refers to political stature and clout, something a few countries in Europe seem to be chafing over the loss of in recent years.

In order to compete politically the EU is going to have to put together a military (I know about the Rapid Reaction Force, but that's not really a defensive force but a pacification force.). While each country currently has it's own forces, even combined they are still nothing would could be viewed as competition to the US military hegemony. The EU is going to have to up its military budget considerably in order to establish and maintain any sort of sizable military presence. The problem is, can they really afford the outlay for such an endeavor, particularly to fill the gaps as the US withdraws forces from the Old World?

Countries like France and Germany have social programs that are already heavily taxing their economies. Many countries in Europe are salted pretty liberally with social programs. It's unlikely the public will endure any cutbacks from those programs either. Once feeding from the public trough it's difficult to encourage folks to begin foraging for themselves again.

Without a strong military the EU will never truly be able to "compete." Will they be able to erect a military complex without bankrupting themselves? Will it meet resistance from the public as well, many of whom trend to the pacifistic side of the equation?

American opinion is welcome, but I'd really like some feedback from the European forum members for some insight into these questions. TIA.

 

[ntdz]

if Europe were on single state, then I think they could compete. I don't think they'll be able to compete with the US militarily however for a long time. We are just lightyears ahead of everyone else in the world, including European powers. If Europe were to come together as one state, nation or military power, then of course they could rival the USA. European/North American countries are the foremost powers in the world. Europe can already compete politically, they have a lot of power, specifically France, Germany and the UK. Frankly, I think it's time for Europe to start pulling their weight militarily and I would welcome a stronger European military.

 

[Fern]

The EU model serves some useful purposes. My professional background is Int'l taxation and I have worked many years in Eorpean countries. For example, prior to the EU, if a Swedish Company wished to sell it's product (Commercial freezers) to a company in Italy, it had to pay curency translation costs. This market inefficiency has been now been eliminated. It's now easier and less inefficient/expensive for EU companies to conduct business with other.

Imagine in the US if a company in one state wanted to sell products to a consumer (whether personal or commercial) in another state and had to pay currency translation and customs fees with all the accompanying paperwork charges.

 

[Infohawk]

So you heard the EU's reason for being was to compete and you bought it completely eh?

The EU wasn't started to compete with the US or to fulfill any other right-wing paranoid fantasy. The EU and its forerunners were started to integrate the previously warring nations of Europe and to create a lasting peace.

 

[f95toli]

First of all I don't think "competing with the US" is the most important reason for the existance of EU, EU started out as a peace project after WWII and up until the fall of the Berlin wall 15 years ago that was still the most important aspect of this project.
The main issues when we had in the referendum about wheter or not to join the union a few years ago (I live in Sweden) were trade and economics (mainly how much alcohol you would be allowed to bring back from for example Germany and Denmark), the enviroment, peace and the possibility to travel freely in Europe and work and live where you want.

Secondly there is very little support for a "European army" in most countries and at the moment there is no way it could happen, even the "rapid reacion force" is controversial. There are some countries that would probablysupport the idea (the Baltic states for example) but most of them are member of or have recently joined NATO instead, the fact that the US is firmly opposed to the idea of an "European defence force" (or whatever it would be called) is also a big obstacle.

In Sweden we have reduced the size of the army a lot over the past 15 years. Nowadays the most important tasks for our military is peace keeping operations (UN), we have more or less stopped worrying about an invasion. Terrorism is of course an issue but I think most agree that a small, well equiped and well trained force is more suitable to deal that kind of threat.

The thing is, I don't think we even want to "compete", maybe there are people in France and the UK that would like to increase the international influence of EU but most of us do not really care that much, our self-esteem is not based on how much power or influence we have in the world.

 

[Kibbo]

Fern tells the truth. The elimination of internal barriers to trade, with the advantage of having a currency that can compete with the US dollar for external trade is what is allowing the EU to compete with the US economically. Add to that a common external tariff/regulatory regime, and the EU is a large enough market to have regulations very different from the US, yet still have thier market served by foreign producers.

And competition with the US was not the original reason for the EU. It started with a common regulatory regime for coal between France, West Germany and the Benelux States, who's prime goal, with the carrot of economic efficiency, was so that each country could keep an eye on each other's military production. The EU began as an attempt to prevent a fourth Franco-Prussian war.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
So you heard the EU's reason for being was to compete and you bought it completely eh?

The EU wasn't started to compete with the US or to fulfill any other right-wing paranoid fantasy. The EU and its forerunners were started to integrate the previously warring nations of Europe and to create a lasting peace.

"Lasting peace" can only exist if you are willing to defend it.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33


"Lasting peace" can only exist if you are willing to defend it.

Quit the preaching. It was there to implement an internal peace. For France, The Netherlands and Belgium, Germany had been thier greatest threat for close to a century.

As for the ability to defend themselves, France was able to do so during their terrorist crisis with the Algerians. England was able to defend themselves against the IRA, and defend the Falklands. France's and Britain's nuclear capabilities were crucial in terms of Soviet deterrence. Switzerland's and Sweden's historical positions of neutrality have been possible because of strong defence forces.

And, although many of you seem to not understand this, diplomacy with the distant threat of force can be a very effective defence in some circumstances. Especially with state-based threats.

 

[Genx87]

That interesting it was created for the purpose of stopping another european war. I would think it would be pretty well established with the United States being involved militarily in Europe a 3rd WW in that region would not happen unless the Soviets attack. But with the fall of the Soviets. I cant imagine the US letting a european ground war even begin much less expand to a World War again.

Of course maybe that will change when we start pulling our troops out of Germany.

 

[f95toli]

The only problem with that line of reasoning is that you need an enemy, and right now there is no real military threat against any member of the union.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I also agree with Fern, originally it was intended as a political method of dealing with the possibility of war, but evolved into primarily an economic treaty, having a similar effect as NAFTA.

The whole small country, tarrif, monitary issue is also a problem in the Middle East, they (Arabic countries) refuse to join the WTO for fear they would be forced to trade with Israel, or deal with some of the unusual trade restrictions they cling to, even with each other.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
So you heard the EU's reason for being was to compete and you bought it completely eh?

The EU wasn't started to compete with the US or to fulfill any other right-wing paranoid fantasy. The EU and its forerunners were started to integrate the previously warring nations of Europe and to create a lasting peace.

If I bought it completely I wouldn't have bothered with creating this topic.

Are you really so dense irl as well?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That interesting it was created for the purpose of stopping another european war. I would think it would be pretty well established with the United States being involved militarily in Europe a 3rd WW in that region would not happen unless the Soviets attack. But with the fall of the Soviets. I cant imagine the US letting a european ground war even begin much less expand to a World War again.javascript:Quote(document.messagepostform.FTVAR_MESSAGETEXTFRM);document.messagepostform.FTVAR_MESSAGETEXTFRM.focus();
Quote

Of course maybe that will change when we start pulling our troops out of Germany.

That's exactly the point. They couldn't be sure of the length of US commitment. They needed an institution that would guarantee a long-term alignment of interests.

Now, they see the economic and diplomatic benefits of being a big kid on the block, and want a counter-wieght to US influence, in order to make sure that thier interests are preserved.

Think about it: The UN security council is a dinosaur. France has no business being on there. Perhaps Russia as well. Eventually, it will either be reformed, or become irrelevant. The EU guanrantees influence in the world, regardless of what happens. They are too big to ignore.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: f95toli
The only problem with that line of reasoning is that you need an enemy, and right now there is no real military threat against any member of the union.

It would seem that Zapatero and a couple of others are working hard at couching the US as the new enemy, based on some of the stuff that Zapatero has said recently.

I realize this is from the Sun so its content must be taken with a grain of salt, but quotes is quotes:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004521270,00.html

?Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power. We want to arrange the European future at the side of France and Germany. Spain sees itself with France and Germany as never before.?

...

?Naturally it will still last some time, until we develop a closed defence policy. That can happen only after the agreement on a common foreign policy. The EU constitution is an important step in this direction.

?In 15 to 20 years we will surely have a foreign service for the EU.?

The guy comes off as a bit...grandios in his thinking.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If I bought it completely I wouldn't have bothered with creating this topic.

Are you really so dense irl as well?

You're the one who is dense. Do you really think that Belgium was worried about competing with the US back in the 50s? The original plan was so successful that they have grown together to the point that now distant thoughts of challenging S hegemony can cross their minds. Right now, all they are looking for is economic position and world influence. That influence isn't even going to matter until they come up with a method uniting foriegn policy. Why is this such a problem for you? Gotten a little too comfortable ruling the world? Don't worry your pretty little head about it. European interests are basically aligned with your own.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: f95toli
The only problem with that line of reasoning is that you need an enemy, and right now there is no real military threat against any member of the union.

It would seem that Zapatero and a couple of others are working hard at couching the US as the new enemy, based on some of the stuff that Zapatero has said recently.

I realize this is from the Sun so its content must be taken with a grain of salt, but quotes is quotes:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004521270,00.html

?Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power. We want to arrange the European future at the side of France and Germany. Spain sees itself with France and Germany as never before.?

...

?Naturally it will still last some time, until we develop a closed defence policy. That can happen only after the agreement on a common foreign policy. The EU constitution is an important step in this direction.

?In 15 to 20 years we will surely have a foreign service for the EU.?

The guy comes off as a bit...grandios in his thinking.

At what point does it point to the US as an enemy? You are confusing the piece's analysis with the facts cited. There is a movement in Europe to make the EU more like a country than an alliance. That includes a common foriegn policy. What is grandiose about a "foriegn service"? Or are you so ignorant that you don't know that that means a diplomatic corps? Do a Google on "British Foriegn Service." Are you so insecure in your position that you are afraid of multilingual bureaucrats?

Good God, man. At least watch a few episodes of "Yes, Minister" before you comment on European politics. It will probably multiply your knowledge of the structure of the EU by tenfold. As well as non-American terms for government institutions.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If I bought it completely I wouldn't have bothered with creating this topic.

Are you really so dense irl as well?

You're the one who is dense. Do you really think that Belgium was worried about competing with the US back in the 50s?

I asked for opinions based on the comments of someone else. You may notice that if you actually read the first sentence of the OP.

Now, you were saying something about being dense?

The original plan was so successful that they have grown together to the point that now distant thoughts of challenging S hegemony can cross their minds. Right now, all they are looking for is economic position and world influence. That influence isn't even going to matter until they come up with a method uniting foriegn policy. Why is this such a problem for you? Gotten a little too comfortable ruling the world? Don't worry your pretty little head about it. European interests are basically aligned with your own.

Where did I say or even imply this is a problem?

My question and the primary thrust of my post is in regards to the EU erecting and financing a military, particularly in light of their economic burden of social programs. How about worrying a little less about what you imagine my "problem" to be and answer those queries instead?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: f95toli
The only problem with that line of reasoning is that you need an enemy, and right now there is no real military threat against any member of the union.

It would seem that Zapatero and a couple of others are working hard at couching the US as the new enemy, based on some of the stuff that Zapatero has said recently.

I realize this is from the Sun so its content must be taken with a grain of salt, but quotes is quotes:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004521270,00.html

?Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power. We want to arrange the European future at the side of France and Germany. Spain sees itself with France and Germany as never before.?

...

?Naturally it will still last some time, until we develop a closed defence policy. That can happen only after the agreement on a common foreign policy. The EU constitution is an important step in this direction.

?In 15 to 20 years we will surely have a foreign service for the EU.?

The guy comes off as a bit...grandios in his thinking.

At what point does it point to the US as an enemy? You are confusing the piece's analysis with the facts cited. There is a movement in Europe to make the EU more like a country than an alliance. That includes a common foriegn policy. What is grandiose about a "foriegn service"? Or are you so ignorant that you don't know that that means a diplomatic corps? Do a Google on "British Foriegn Service." Are you so insecure in your position that you are afraid of multilingual bureaucrats?

Do you have anything useful to add, or are you going to continue acting the part of an arrogant pr!ck?

 

[Alistar7]

He was acting?


hehe

Don't jump on him too hard, he can't help it, he's Canadian and as such has a masive inferiority complex with anything American.....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
He was acting?


hehe

Don't jump on him too hard, he can't help it, he's Canadian and as such has a masive inferiority complex with anything American.....

He must be in the minority then because most Canadians I've met, both in Canada and here in Florida (We get a LOT of Canadians here.), have been absolutely great and charming people. I played golf with a couple of Canadians yesterday. Really nice folks. Really bad golfers though.

 

[Alistar7]

Have to agree that almsot all Canadians I have come in personal contact with seem as normal as the next guy, but alot of the ones on this forum display the well know inferiority complex.

 

[Kibbo]

No, I wasn't acting, at least not the mood I'm in today.

If your original question was only about how they're gonna afford a military, then that question is simple. They're not, at least not anytime soon. Even a "rapid reaction force" is gonna take years of negotiations to get out the door.

Building a full-fledged military is decades away, if it ever happens. Why do you see it as neccessary?

What does any of this have to do with thier military, anyway?

 

[burnedout]

Speaking of the EU, here's an interesting study by "Timbro, the think tank of Swedish enterprise".

[Hat tip: Dr. John Ray]

If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA. The results of the new study represent a grave critique of European economic policy.

 

[IAteYourMother]

He's just being an ass

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I read some commentary earlier on a blog, I don't remember which one now, discussing the EU's reason for being was/is to properly help Europe compete with the US. When I hear that word "compete" I wonder what it really comprises because economic competition has never been that much of an issue for European countries. More likely the word "compete" refers to political stature and clout, something a few countries in Europe seem to be chafing over the loss of in recent years.

In order to compete politically the EU is going to have to put together a military (I know about the Rapid Reaction Force, but that's not really a defensive force but a pacification force.). While each country currently has it's own forces, even combined they are still nothing would could be viewed as competition to the US military hegemony. The EU is going to have to up its military budget considerably in order to establish and maintain any sort of sizable military presence. The problem is, can they really afford the outlay for such an endeavor, particularly to fill the gaps as the US withdraws forces from the Old World?

Countries like France and Germany have social programs that are already heavily taxing their economies. Many countries in Europe are salted pretty liberally with social programs. It's unlikely the public will endure any cutbacks from those programs either. Once feeding from the public trough it's difficult to encourage folks to begin foraging for themselves again.

Without a strong military the EU will never truly be able to "compete." Will they be able to erect a military complex without bankrupting themselves? Will it meet resistance from the public as well, many of whom trend to the pacifistic side of the equation?

American opinion is welcome, but I'd really like some feedback from the European forum members for some insight into these questions. TIA.

I haven't read any posts, and i have no idea what to say except something like... Drop your shillbilly armerican stance and get over that not everything in the world is about force. You'll be the doom of us all (official attempt at telling the future).