Conquer Club

Nope. With about 500 million people and 27 countries, they're a mighty economic powerhouse (combined: #1), but they have yet the political will to unite in order to extend the EU's power into external affairs.

By ceding the responsibility of Europe's defense to NATO, which is under the guidance of the US, they make themselves heavily reliant upon the United States.

Even though the EU now has an EU president and foreign minister, seeing that the EU president is Herman von Rompuy, Merkel and Sarkozy can easily tell him to shut up, since they represent the two most populated and most influential countries of the EU. The EU president may just be great for photo opportunities, and that's more or less it.

The EU also has no unified military, nor do its people generally want such a thing. The citizens of the EU lack the enthusiasm for any foreign military excursion, which in my opinion is a good moral reason, but it will definitely hinder the EU's ability to become more than just a voice.

The EU members do not yet have the will to become a strong, united player on the international scene. Its countries are too divided on foreign affairs, and those countries' military forces all have different agendas with no supreme unifying commander.

Correct.
Im from the Netherlands and I think it's great that each country differs a lot.
When you look through an economical perpective it might be inefficient, but I would hate it to see that every country would lose it's identity.

There are a lot of people who just don't want to be an 'European.'
We might live in Europe, but we feel ourself Dutch, German, French or Italian.
And what happens when you combine French people with Dutch people... yes.. You get people like the ones in belgium

Can you call a union a superpower? I thought only nation-states could be superpowers (I guess there aren't hard and fast rules on this).

BigBallinStalin wrote:Nope.

Duh.

We don't want to be one though.

So if the EU is unwilling or incapable of projecting a unified economic, political, and militaristic power in international affairs, won't it have a hard time safeguarding its interests against rising economic and soon-to-be militaristic powers such as China?

EDIT: What I'm trying to get at is this:

Should the EU become more united? Shouldn't it become more centralized in order to defend its own interests from other international powers (current and up-and-coming)?

Would not the advantages of having a "United States of Europe" outweigh the disadvantages in the long run?


(multiple questions, I know, sorry, but they're related, so pick and choose)

BigBallinStalin wrote:So if the EU is unwilling or incapable of projecting a unified economic, political, and militaristic power in international affairs, won't it have a hard time safeguarding its interests against rising economic and soon-to-be militaristic powers such as China?

I'd say that we're already pretty unified in economic terms. And politically we're also approaching more uniformness allthough as of yet that's mostly economic regulations and stuff.



I'd also say that economic power is really the most important thing here. And in that regard we're set since we have total economic freedom within the EU. (No import-export and total freedom to move money and people around.)

BigBallinStalin wrote:Should the EU become more united? Shouldn't it become more centralized in order to defend its own interests from other international powers (current and up-and-coming)?

Would not the advantages of having a "United States of Europe" outweigh the disadvantages in the long run?

Perhaps. But the things which are not already (partly) under the control of the EU are exactly the things where most countries don't want to yield their sovereignity. And they're also things which wouldn't really get much better when applied to the EU, things like education, health care and such don't really affect the international position of the EU.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Nope. With about 500 million people and 27 countries, they're a mighty economic powerhouse (combined: #1), but they have yet the political will to unite in order to extend the EU's power into external affairs.

By ceding the responsibility of Europe's defense to NATO, which is under the guidance of the US, they make themselves heavily reliant upon the United States.

Even though the EU now has an EU president and foreign minister, seeing that the EU president is Herman von Rompuy, Merkel and Sarkozy can easily tell him to shut up, since they represent the two most populated and most influential countries of the EU. The EU president may just be great for photo opportunities, and that's more or less it.

The EU also has no unified military, nor do its people generally want such a thing. The citizens of the EU lack the enthusiasm for any foreign military excursion, which in my opinion is a good moral reason, but it will definitely hinder the EU's ability to become more than just a voice.

The EU members do not yet have the will to become a strong, united player on the international scene. Its countries are too divided on foreign affairs, and those countries' military forces all have different agendas with no supreme unifying commander.

Being verbose isn't the same as knowing what the f*ck you're talking about.

GabonX wrote:

He's a teletubby PRINCE! Not princess! C'mon Gabon.

haha

I guess you got me there..

I dunno about your assumption that china will become more militaristic, if they do it will only be in response to US power which is far far greater. Look at how China has behaved in the last few decades they have consistently avoided confrontation with other powers. What was the last military conflict china's been involved in? the Korean war? maybe the war with india? China is much more concerned with getting along with other countries so they can sell stuff.

As to the EU they are an economic super power, but otherwise lack political cohesion, this may change over time.

Anyone who want's to understand the Chinese outlook on warfare needs to read a copy of this.

Baron Von PWN wrote:I dunno about your assumption that china will become more militaristic, if they do it will only be in response to US power which is far far greater. Look at how China has behaved in the last few decades they have consistently avoided confrontation with other powers. What was the last military conflict china's been involved in? the Korean war? maybe the war with india? China is much more concerned with getting along with other countries so they can sell stuff.

As to the EU they are an economic super power, but otherwise lack political cohesion, this may change over time.

China will become more militaristic, and that is not only due to US power. They've been for the past decade gearing their military towards one more like the United States,' and they've been planning on projecting power in order to defend their interests, much like in the same manner the US does; however, they'll probably achieve a worrisome power projection capability in about 30-50 years. Without a military, they couldn't defend their interests.

Simply not being involved in recent military conflicts doesn't refute the fact that China will become a major power competitor to US and EU interests further down the road. With a stronger economy and stronger military, they will begin to shape the world more towards their interests (much like what has been done and has been going on from any regional and international power). You're right that they are more interested in improving relations with other countries, but the evidence still remains that while doing so China is still greatly modernizing their military towards a more offensive capability. If they weren't interested in becoming a future military power, they wouldn't have to gear their military towards the capability of projecting power; rather, China could improve its armed forces' defensive capabilities, but that's not the case. They've been making grand moves towards peace for the past few decades towards old enemies like Vietnam and Russia in order to lessen their enemies, so that they can focus on their potential future enemies. It's not just about selling stuff.

Also, China usually ranks as number 10 or 11 in exporter of armaments and is the number 1 recipient in arms exports, and those weapons are good enough evidence to say that China already has been become and eventually will be involved in military conflicts. And also the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission releases some very interesting materials that also support my claim.

It's just a matter of time to see China become more and more involved economically and eventually militarily.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Nope. With about 500 million people and 27 countries, they're a mighty economic powerhouse (combined: #1), but they have yet the political will to unite in order to extend the EU's power into external affairs.

By ceding the responsibility of Europe's defense to NATO, which is under the guidance of the US, they make themselves heavily reliant upon the United States.

Even though the EU now has an EU president and foreign minister, seeing that the EU president is Herman von Rompuy, Merkel and Sarkozy can easily tell him to shut up, since they represent the two most populated and most influential countries of the EU. The EU president may just be great for photo opportunities, and that's more or less it.

The EU also has no unified military, nor do its people generally want such a thing. The citizens of the EU lack the enthusiasm for any foreign military excursion, which in my opinion is a good moral reason, but it will definitely hinder the EU's ability to become more than just a voice.

The EU members do not yet have the will to become a strong, united player on the international scene. Its countries are too divided on foreign affairs, and those countries' military forces all have different agendas with no supreme unifying commander.

I hear the leaders won't be elected, they are appointed. sounds like a yup so far to me

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Nope. With about 500 million people and 27 countries, they're a mighty economic powerhouse (combined: #1), but they have yet the political will to unite in order to extend the EU's power into external affairs.

By ceding the responsibility of Europe's defense to NATO, which is under the guidance of the US, they make themselves heavily reliant upon the United States.

Even though the EU now has an EU president and foreign minister, seeing that the EU president is Herman von Rompuy, Merkel and Sarkozy can easily tell him to shut up, since they represent the two most populated and most influential countries of the EU. The EU president may just be great for photo opportunities, and that's more or less it.

The EU also has no unified military, nor do its people generally want such a thing. The citizens of the EU lack the enthusiasm for any foreign military excursion, which in my opinion is a good moral reason, but it will definitely hinder the EU's ability to become more than just a voice.

The EU members do not yet have the will to become a strong, united player on the international scene. Its countries are too divided on foreign affairs, and those countries' military forces all have different agendas with no supreme unifying commander.

I hear the leaders won't be elected, they are appointed. sounds like a yup so far to me

Wow, that's all that's needed to become a superpower? Great job, Phat, keep it coming.

thegreekdog wrote:Can you call a union a superpower? I thought only nation-states could be superpowers (I guess there aren't hard and fast rules on this).

You do realize that the global superpower (at present) is a union of federated states, right? There isn't much difference between the Articles of Confederation and the present EU constitution at first blush.

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can you call a union a superpower? I thought only nation-states could be superpowers (I guess there aren't hard and fast rules on this).

You do realize that the global superpower (at present) is a union of federated states, right? There isn't much difference between the Articles of Confederation and the present EU constitution at first blush.

"LOL I SAY STUFF THAT ISN"T TRUE LMAO" - spurgistan, November 30

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can you call a union a superpower? I thought only nation-states could be superpowers (I guess there aren't hard and fast rules on this).

You do realize that the global superpower (at present) is a union of federated states, right? There isn't much difference between the Articles of Confederation and the present EU constitution at first blush.

Yeah, but it's just weird. It's like saying NATO is a superpower. Did we do that back in the day? I don't know the answer.

thegreekdog wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can you call a union a superpower? I thought only nation-states could be superpowers (I guess there aren't hard and fast rules on this).

You do realize that the global superpower (at present) is a union of federated states, right? There isn't much difference between the Articles of Confederation and the present EU constitution at first blush.

Yeah, but it's just weird. It's like saying NATO is a superpower. Did we do that back in the day? I don't know the answer.

A military superpower perhaps?

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can you call a union a superpower? I thought only nation-states could be superpowers (I guess there aren't hard and fast rules on this).

You do realize that the global superpower (at present) is a union of federated states, right? There isn't much difference between the Articles of Confederation and the present EU constitution at first blush.

uhhh... the two are VERY difrent. The USA is a Confederation of states, operating as a single national entity. The EU is closer to NAFTA, all the member states have mostly independent foreing and domestic policies. Maybe some time in the future they will be more like a single nation but they aren't comparable to the US.

I may have been exaggerating, but I did specify the US gov under the Articles of Confederation (post-independence, pre-Constitution) and while the US may have been rather weak at the time, well, we did turn into us. Not saying the EU will end up with an American-style powerful federal government, but we weren't always like this, and from what I've heard the EU is trending this way.
This has been how to radically over-generalize and win friends.

spurgistan wrote:I may have been exaggerating, but I did specify the US gov under the Articles of Confederation (post-independence, pre-Constitution) and while the US may have been rather weak at the time, well, we did turn into us. Not saying the EU will end up with an American-style powerful federal government, but we weren't always like this, and from what I've heard the EU is trending this way.
This has been how to radically over-generalize and win friends.

The pre-US states had common enemies and a common language (among other things). Not sure the Eurpean Union will turn into a USA-type system with the same quickness. Would be interesting to see though. In your defense, I can definitely see some parallels.

thegreekdog wrote:

spurgistan wrote:I may have been exaggerating, but I did specify the US gov under the Articles of Confederation (post-independence, pre-Constitution) and while the US may have been rather weak at the time, well, we did turn into us. Not saying the EU will end up with an American-style powerful federal government, but we weren't always like this, and from what I've heard the EU is trending this way.
This has been how to radically over-generalize and win friends.

The pre-US states had common enemies and a common language (among other things). Not sure the Eurpean Union will turn into a USA-type system with the same quickness. Would be interesting to see though. In your defense, I can definitely see some parallels.

Yeah I don't think it will go as quick either, or even if it will happen but it's certainly sort of going in the direction of more colaberation.

Do you know whether most states during that time wanted to really go the way of a single country?

Snorri1234 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

spurgistan wrote:I may have been exaggerating, but I did specify the US gov under the Articles of Confederation (post-independence, pre-Constitution) and while the US may have been rather weak at the time, well, we did turn into us. Not saying the EU will end up with an American-style powerful federal government, but we weren't always like this, and from what I've heard the EU is trending this way.
This has been how to radically over-generalize and win friends.

The pre-US states had common enemies and a common language (among other things). Not sure the Eurpean Union will turn into a USA-type system with the same quickness. Would be interesting to see though. In your defense, I can definitely see some parallels.

Yeah I don't think it will go as quick either, or even if it will happen but it's certainly sort of going in the direction of more colaberation.

Do you know whether most states during that time wanted to really go the way of a single country?

The majority understood that if they were truly separate, they could not provide for their own defense from the likes of the Europeans. However, if I recall correctly, the term "United States" was plural until after the US Civil War. So, pre-1865, people would say "The United States are..." and post-1865 people would say "The United States is..."