A European Central Government
As I am sure most of you guys have heard German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have finally bitten the bitter bullet twenty years in the making. It looks like the inevitable reality of the European Union becoming one gigantic government entity is moving from theory to practice.
As someone who is a critic of big government here in the United States, I think this is the absolute best thing that Europeans can do. They have effectively tied their future destinies to one another and it is only rational that the biggest and strongest among them should now have the carte blanche to rule over the continent. If this sounds contradictory to many of the claims I make with regards to our government structure, allow me to point out some crucial differences and potentially huge economic benefits for both Europe and the United States, as well.
Two Financial Benefits of a Pan-European State
1) Fiscal Conservatism
When Americans (myself included) rant against European fiscal policy and economic behavior we are often unwittingly referring to certain parts of Europe. Certainly some Western, most Central and all Eastern European nations implement aspects of socialism into their economies to varying degrees. This, however, cannot so easily be said to Northern European (read: Germanic) nations. Even though a great many aspects of Germany's, Holland's, Sweden's (and others') domestic policies feature bloated social programs, these countries are also known for their fiscal responsibility, free market transparency and centuries of capitalist and entrepreneurial tendencies. You can bet your last Euro that a common European government fill bow obediently to the economic, fiscal and financial policies of Germany and its sister nations. After all, had Europe been capable of surviving without German manufacturing and engineering after World War 2, we would likely have nations like Hanover, Westphalia, Prussia, Bavaria and Baden, in existence today. As it stands, Germany is the financial motor and if Europe can get on the German economic program, the continent...not to mention their currency, would greatly benefit.
2) Good Housekeeping
The post World War 2 period also gave greater power to NATO, to what have long since been proven as detrimental effects to the American tax payer. The U.S. military essentially protects European borders and gets bitching and moaning in return. A true European government could be left to its own auspices to finally begin policing its own territory on its own terms after 65 years of babysitting. As long as that is still the prevailing retirement age in the U.S, why not give NATO it's well deserved Golden Years as far as Europe is concerned. The reality is that the disciplinary issues we have seen in Athens, Paris and most recently, London need to be dealt with by a strong military authority. This cannot be done when countries like Austria have 7 fighter jets in a country of 7+ million people. A centralized European government can actually give the EU legitimacy to enforce its policy and to keep PIIGS and other countries who plan to live of the efforts of others, in line. You have to be able to clean your own house in order for it to be truly yours. Having an armed housekeeper breeds paralyzing incompetence when the shit actually does hit the fan.
Clearly, the two reasons I have given do not begun to cover the vast spectrum. Even more clearly, with the hog tied nature of European bureaucracy ... this could take a while. Still, I am happy and confident that The Old Dame will finally get her shit together and become one. Yes, I know all the arguments against and yes, I know this is pretty far from a Libertarian point of view. Europe is not America, however, and I just simply don't see the EU holding up unless it becomes more nation than confederation.
How do you guys see this playing out and most importantly...what do you think it means for the Euro long term?
If we're talking about the final goal being a United States of Europe, there's still a long, long way to go. It makes sense that no single European nation is capable of really exercising its interests on the world stage unless it bonds together with its neighbors to form a superpower.
But there it is--each of those separate members of this would-be European Union superpower has different interests. Look at the differences in social policy and foreign policy between the nations as it exists now. The extreme ends of the EU (say, England and Greece) might as well be different planets. Unanimous agreement is needed among the 27 members for major reforms to be enacted, making it highly unlikely that Germanic fiscal discipline will prevail.
Another question they seem to avoid is: what will be the role of those countries who haven't yet adopted the Euro? Will it have an army? How will the role of the ECB change? How would executive decisions be made? How will this whole thing move forward?
It'll take many decades before anyone decides to take on those questions.
Just my idea.
I'm in favor of it for one simple reason: without a centralized gov't the nation states just go to war against each other. Any economic concessions are worth it, given the 100MM deaths in name of every looney cause during the last two world wars. Europe is a spent power anyway and so they won't be viable competetion in the international scene for at least another generation, so they might as well get their internal state of affairs together.
Before the creation of supranational entities, the EU was just one big warzone. Hopefully this example of relative peace spreads to other regions. It would be best if a number of regions could do employ the federated states model the US uses, but where it's not viable the EU model is a good start.
Pffft. That is just Oldspeak for Eurasia.
Thanks for this Midas. Explains a lot :). There's an interesting piece in the Lex Column on this as well.
Extremely against this. Smaller countries get the shaft and we are afraid of losing what little self- governance we have left. I'm starting a campaign for the Nordic + Scandinavian countries to make their own way.
"After all, had Europe been capable of surviving without German manufacturing and engineering after World War 2, we would likely have nations like Hanover, Westphalia, Prussia, Bavaria and Baden, in existence today."
You make some interesting points, but to argue that europe's inability to survive without German manufacturing post WW1 was the factor that, not possibly, but in your words likely prevented Germany's return to its 1871 border status is laughable. What justification can you provide for this? I would be interested to see.
"The post World War 2 period also gave greater power to NATO, to what have long since been proven as detrimental effects to the American tax payer. The U.S. military essentially protects European borders and gets bitching and moaning in return. A true European government could be left to its own auspices to finally begin policing its own territory on its own terms after 65 years of babysitting."
Protecting Europe from what exactly? Since 1989/91 what impending doom has the USA protected Europe from? The way I call it, if anything it has been the reverse, certain european countries sent troops to Afghanistan in support of US forces responding to a terrorist attack on US soil (albeit one that killed europeans too). Furthermore, despite the admittedly lower levels of defence spending than the US, when taken together I think it is fairly obvious Europe can protect itself. Individual states have nuclear deterrants, some developed indiginously, some purchased from the US. Furthermore, europe has a widely developed armaments industry capable of producing world leading (or near) weapons systems and outside of the US it is difficult to see who could, since the 1990's at least, pose a military threat. The biggest threat to 'european borders' isn't military but would clearly come from immigration/drugs trafficking etc, and this is something I am not aware the US particularly helps with. Maybe 30 years ago there would some justification for this argument but certainly not today.
"The reality is that the disciplinary issues we have seen in Athens, Paris and most recently, London need to be dealt with by a strong military authority. This cannot be done when countries like Austria have 7 fighter jets in a country of 7+ million people."
And so finally we move from the questionable to the patently rediculous. The idea that you would lump these protests/riots together predicated by completely different factors and use them as a justification for a "strong military authority" is absurd, something which is then compounded by the reference to the number of Austrian fighter jets. What use are fighter jets going to be in response to domestic rioting? Do you really think that a country like austria would ever even contemplate using military jets in response to localised domestic rioting, for that matter do you really think that the UK government's decision not to employ the army was driven by a limited defence budget? I mean come on, so they can afford a bit of short notice adventurism in Libya involving 24 hour long distance bombing sorties but don't have the capacity to quell a few youths out to nick some TV's.
I wasn't arguing about Europe's inability to survive without German manufacturing post World War 1, I was talking about World War 2. Read about George Marshall and JCS 1779 of the Marshall Plan. Incidentally, Herbert Lehman (one of the original founders of Lehman Brothers) was also a key player in the decision. Do some research before you speak, these were the maps that would have been used to supplant Germany. In fact, America saved Germany twice. First it was Wilson, then Truman.
Scenario#1
Scenario#2
Feel free to do your own research, there's a ton of evidence to back this up.
You conveniently ignore the 45 years which are the crux of the point. Europe can protect itself and police its territory like a limp dick in a sandwich slicer. Only someone whose military tactical knowledge and experience is limited to a game of Risk thinks that Europe could defend itself from Russia today or yesterday (perhaps tomorrow, if fully unified militarily...which is still a very difficult sell). In spite of the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia is still a military/nuclear superpower with the largest per 100 capita armed forces after N/S Korea. There are still enough active/reservist Russian soldiers to take over Eastern/Central Europe in a matter of weeks. As for your point about drug traffickers and immigrants, read a little bit about the "connection" between the Kremlin and the Russian Mafia. There is nothing in Europe that could come close to stopping them, other than NATO. As for what the U.S. does on the drug trafficking front in Europe, just another shining example of your not belonging in this sort of debate. As for the six Germans, three Poles and a Ukranian "fighting in Afghanistan" this has no bearing on the fact that T-84s strolling through Europe is a reality that your generation has no comprehension of or appreciation for.
All the riots have been caused by a varying degree of resistance to the realities of inefficient welfare states having to make cutbacks. Again, if you actually do the research you want me to do for you, it is pretty easy to draw a straight line between the underlying root of all three situations. The fighter jet example is an illustration. It goes to show how a sovereign country within the European community has no real world military ability to police its own airspace. Naturally, this luxury is afforded by NATO. Try to pay attention to the point, going off in a thousand different directions which have nothing to do with it just display your arrogance and ignorance.
Ok, Midas responded before I could (and does not need help) and there's some overlap but I spent time typing it so dammit I'm posting it:
...Itself, mostly. Just as an example, the American bases in Germany aren't there because we were confident of their ability to run a democracy. Look at Italy and honestly say it's a beacon of good governance.!?!?! We parked some military hardware there to make the point that we're not doing the Marshall plan...and whole WW1+2 thing....again.Europe, wake up, there's no nice way to say this: you were an occupied territory for decades.....
Hmmm, yes, thanks for the water truck. We're talking about invasion+occupation grade military hardware and troops. Not a whole lot of Europeans in shitholestan last time I checked the stats [2 min ago]. Blah blah blah blah...RUSSIA. The cold war hasn't ended as far as the Kremlin is concerned, in fact, they're still thinking in terms of 1950. They will crush you in days if they so chose. Also, if you haven't pulled out a map and taken a gander lately, you might notice that Europe is actually physically attached to a region we call MENA.....and those people don't.like.you.at all. This anti-America jihad is a short term trend-maybe a few decades, but the anti European Christian sentiment has centuries of rich history and it's just a matter of time before they unify and become militant. Iran is leading the whole clown show, just give it another few years. And it IS in large part about religion, make no mistake in trying to be politically correct. NATO, or some form of it, is going to be around a looooooong time. BRAVO on the spelling The point is that despite very high sounding and sophisticated looking laws and ethics, much of Europe can't and WON'T actually enforce their laws in a crisis. Turn on the news, watch the riots, and tell me I'm wrong. YES, in fact, the generation that propogated WWII is still actually alive and given their history are not to be trusted. The point is that there is a significant portion of the population that isn't afraid to completely disregard the laws and do as they please. The UK has a history during this century of not dealing with problems before they grow into a crisis. This is an issue of WILL, not budget.....they have the money, but it's not going towards building a strong civil society.They're not exactly doing a whole hell of a lot in Libya to be honest and this rebellion should have been over months ago. We've had a hard on for that guy for decades and all of a sudden no one is sure what to do???? I'm actually pissed at Obama for not intervening, but that's another discussion.
I will agree that certain areas of Europe are stable and productive and will likely suffer economically as a result of EU integration: this is a shame and I have no pragmatic solution to offer so I'll leave the topic for someone else.
The problem with a single European government is that hey would have to be very authoritarian in order to keep all the disparate groups together. Lok at Austria-Hungary, the Roman Empire, etc. All, in part, were torn apart by ethnic conflicts. Not saying it's impossible, because with military technology now a serious insurrection can be put down. For all the bitching we do about Iraq, the insurgency is really just testing our patience not actually destabilizing government. If Iraq was in SC the US government would have killed every insurgent years ago because there would be no way we would let that shit go on in our backyard, but hundreds of thousands of miles away....? yea...
I have a feeling Germans would be less empathetic to Grecian protestors and their gripes. I agree with the notion that the new government would have to be more conservative, because on the whole the most socialist states in the EU are the worst off, so the rich states would need a reason to join. Germany is not the pinnacle of conservatism, but they would need an incentive to join...like a supermajority of voting rights in the new body (with France and other more responsible countries).
The EU seemed stupid to me without a unified monetary policy, but this isn't much better. I feel that the stringent cutbacks, the internalization of extra-national strife, and other problems will lead to conflicts, higher taxation, and economic malaise. It might work in better times, but then to poor countries would eiher be unknown or not be incentivized to join. My God Switzerland and the uK dodged a bullet here.
Okay, so I seem to have annoyed a fair few very patriotic Amercians. I will try and address your points.
The point RE: post WW2 I accept, I had naturally assumed you were referring to WW1, either way I don't think it is credible, but I am happy to leave that one open. I think most people would accept that there were reasons other and more important than Europe being unable to survive without Germany's manufacturing capability, for Germany to remain united. I certainly think you are going too far in saying it would likely (which I take to mean greater than 50% chance) have been broken up into its constituent states.
RE: Russia, I think your attitude is very simplistic. While Russia may be strong in terms of it being a nuclear power and it having a large military, I just don't buy the idea that they could invade Europe as it stands. Their equipment is largely out of date and their troops aren't particularly well trained. This is before we even mention the fact that two European states are also nuclear powers, and why would Russia even want to invade Europe?
I think this sentence speaks volumes of your attitude:
"as for the six Germans, three Poles and a Ukranian "fighting in Afghanistan" this has no bearing on the fact that T-84s strolling through Europe is a reality that your generation has no comprehension of or appreciation for."
I think in one foul swoop you have completely closed the debate, people of a similar mindset to you, which I am sure there are a few, particularly in America, will agree with what you have said. Those that are perhaps more moderate, particularly within Europe, will completely understand the mindset on which you base your arguments and probably discount based on the underlying assumptions you have made.
Regarding the rioting I would probably most strongly disagree. The link you refer to I certainly don't think applies in the UK, it is widely accepted (here at least) that it was criminal opportunism. Also, that fact that the riots have now stopped, without 'strong military authority' would surely suggest that it is not required.
While "It goes to show how a sovereign country within the European community has no real world military ability to police its own airspace." may be true, that wasn't the point you originally made, you stated:
"Paris and most recently, London need to be dealt with by a strong military authority. This cannot be done when countries like Austria have 7 fighter jets in a country of 7+ million people."
You directly said that the riots going on Europe couldn't be dealt with when countries like Austria have 7 fighter jets.
Regarding arrogance and ignorance, I would disagree, I think I have a different point of view based on underlying assumptions that are completely different to yours. Now I understand the mindset underpinning your argument I can empathise with what you are saying but completely disagree with it.
A lot of what you have done (and admittedly I did in my original post) is assume that your underlying assumptions, which cannot really be proved either way e.g. aggressive potentially expansionist Russia with the capability to take over central and eastern europe in a matter of days, are correct and that any other opinion is either ill informed or incorrect. I can assure you I am not, I just hold a different opinion, and one that I think a lot of people more knowledgeable on the subject than either us, would support ( a lot would support you also).
Anyway, apologies I can't give a fuller reply, I may try on the weekend.
"as for the six Germans, three Poles and a Ukranian "fighting in Afghanistan" this has no bearing on the fact that T-84s strolling through Europe is a reality that your generation has no comprehension of or appreciation for."
One final response to this point, how many American's have died protection Europe from Russia this year? or last year for that matter?
How many European troops have died in Afghanistan?
I know a lot of people (I am ex military) that would be deeply offended by your off hand dismissal of the admittedly limited European effort in Afghanistan and I just think it speaks volumes about your mindset.
anon, when push comes to shove, a nation has to be able to back up its words with action, and it will be unable to fully enforce its interests without some capacity of military might. Europe is very much a proponent of the "Soft power" approach to foreign affairs and it has its place. But you can't solve all problems with just talk. Even in the Balkans war in the late 1990's, most of the effort was born by the US and Britain, and that was in Europe's backyard.
Sometimes you do have to be willing to get tough, and that's why it's dangerous to assume that conventional forces are no longer necessary.
It's the same problem that has plagued Japan since it dissolved its military with the exception of its SDF. How can it combat terrorism overseas--a common threat to us all--without a military? Same question the proposed United States of Europe would have to address.
"...Itself, mostly. Just as an example, the American bases in Germany aren't there because we were confident of their ability to run a democracy. Look at Italy and honestly say it's a beacon of good governance.!?!?! We parked some military hardware there to make the point that we're not doing the Marshall plan...and whole WW1+2 thing....again.
Europe, wake up, there's no nice way to say this: you were an occupied territory for decades....."
Okay, so American forces are in Europe to protect it from itself. Well thank you very much for your country's generous altruism, but I think I speak for most of Europe when I say we will be okay without you. Again this seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion which can never be debated away.
"Hmmm, yes, thanks for the water truck. We're talking about invasion+occupation grade military hardware and troops. Not a whole lot of Europeans in shitholestan last time I checked the stats [2 min ago]."
I have addressed this point in my previous post, yes European contribution is limited, but I think you go too far, particularly given the number of soldiers, particularly British that have been killed.
Russia I addressed in my previous post.
"Christian sentiment has centuries of rich history and it's just a matter of time before they unify and become militant. Iran is leading the whole clown show, just give it another few years. And it IS in large part about religion,"
Okay, so you seem to be basing your argument, correctly or incorrectly, on a very determinist understanding of history IR. I disagree with your assessment of the middle east, without going into the Shia/Sunni divide, I would (as would a lot of others) completely question the conclusion you have in regards to this.
"YES, in fact, the generation that propogated WWII is still actually alive and given their history are not to be trusted."
Okay I think this speaks absolute volumes about your attitudes and generalisations, I don't see too much point on going in depth on this, but I think the vast majority of people within europe would disagree with your assessment which basically boils down to something being very close to "Austrians are Nazi's / started the war". It just isn't an attitude I, or the vast majority of the people I know, hold.
"The point is that there is a significant portion of the population that isn't afraid to completely disregard the laws and do as they please"
That wasn't the point he stated, in no way does:
"Paris and most recently, London need to be dealt with by a strong military authority. This cannot be done when countries like Austria have 7 fighter jets in a country of 7+ million people."
translate into what you have said. There may be a proportional of the population (lets get this in perspective, not significant) that have engaged in the rioting in the UK, but didn't you have the rioting in LA? You had to send the marines in to deal with that and yet the riots in London were brought under control by just the police. How does this feed into the idea that the unrest in the UK is somehow related to our lack of military authority?
Believe whatever you want. If Europe sincerely had a problem with the US taking care of their light work, why haven't they thrown us out? Because A. they CAN'T, B. they like playing the good cop in international issues.
With all due Respect to Europe, the US could pull the plug on them at any given moment, and has had that ability since the end of the last world war. No amount of rationalizing will change the fact that the minute the US withdraws support of Europe there will be a war. Not some ass whooping like US v Iraq round II, but a real war, and so you can bash the US all you want, but changing the subject will not fix the problems there.
Debate is very subjective. Line up the numbers backing my points next to the numbers backing your points, and decide for yourself. Believe me when I say I once looked at the world as you do, but then I educated myself and came around to this viewpoint.....it's really up to you.
"HAH! Even our riots are more hardcore than yours. Most of the rioters in the UK didn't even HAVE a real reason to riot."
Okay, I am not really sure what this has to do with anything that we have been discussing previously, I think the reason was criminal opportunism. I wasn't really looking at this thread as a USA vs. Europe or even a USA vs. UK, but if it makes you happy then fine.
"Believe whatever you want. If Europe sincerely had a problem with the US taking care of their light work, why haven't they thrown us out? Because A. they CAN'T, B. they like playing the good cop in international issues."
Where did I say that Europe has a problem with the US taking care of our 'light work'? If the USA wants to guarantee european security for half a century then more fool you. The point I was making is that that guarantee has been, since 1991 surplus to requirments. I was looking at this post more as an objective discussion of european defence and domestic issues, but for some reason you seem to have turned it into some sort of patriotic 'my country is better than your union' issue. I appreciate you are very patriotic, but I was looking at this more from an academic standpoint, I don't think you have seperated your patriotism from the arguments that you have presented.
"With all due Respect to Europe, the US could pull the plug on them at any given moment, and has had that ability since the end of the last world war. No amount of rationalizing will change the fact that the minute the US withdraws support of Europe there will be a war. Not some ass whooping like US v Iraq round II, but a real war, and so you can bash the US all you want, but changing the subject will not fix the problems there."
Once again I think you have completely demonstrated your ignorance of modern european culture and relations. There is no point in arguing about this because it is impossible to prove either way whether the statement "the minute the US withdraws support of Europe there will be a war... a real war", I think most rational people, educated on this subject and otherwise would consider your statement plainly ridiculous.
""and so you can bash the US all you want""
My response wasn't about 'bashing' the US, niavely I had beleived that the original post was intended as an a-patriotic theoretical discussion. I hadn't for a minute realised the sensitivity you, or to a lesser extent the original poster have, about the issue or your apparent inability to seperate your patriotism from any semblance of an objective viewpoint.
"Debate is very subjective. Line up the numbers backing my points next to the numbers backing your points, and decide for yourself. Believe me when I say I once looked at the world as you do, but then I educated myself and came around to this viewpoint.....it's really up to you."
Just to let you know, I have lined up the numbers, I am fully aware of the arguments, I have spent the past several years studying this subject as a core part of my degree program. My difference of opinion isn't down to ignorance or a lack of education, it is down to coming to different conclusions to yours. It seems odd that you have assumed that my different point of view is based on a lack of education. There are professors and professional academics far more educated on the subject than you or I who would argue this both ways, do you think any of those who don't agree with you aren't as 'educated' as you?
Anyway, it was interesting to see what different perspectives some people have from what I thought was the broadly accepted (within europe anyway) norm.
On a side note, you don't seem to have directly addressed any of the points I have made directly. I will highlight them below:
"The point is that there is a significant portion of the population that isn't afraid to completely disregard the laws and do as they please"
That wasn't the point he stated, in no way does:
"Paris and most recently, London need to be dealt with by a strong military authority. This cannot be done when countries like Austria have 7 fighter jets in a country of 7+ million people."
translate into what you have said. There may be a proportional of the population (lets get this in perspective, not significant) that have engaged in the rioting in the UK, but didn't you have the rioting in LA? You had to send the marines in to deal with that and yete riots in London were brought under control by just the police. How does this feed into the idea that the unrest in the UK is somehow related to our lack of military authority?
""YES, in fact, the generation that propogated WWII is still actually alive and given their history are not to be trusted."
Okay I think this speaks absolute volumes about your attitudes and generalisations, I don't see too much point on going in depth on this, but I think the vast majority of people within europe would disagree with your assessment which basically boils down to something being very close to "Austrians are Nazi's / started the war". It just isn't an attitude I, or the vast majority of the people I know, hold.
"Christian sentiment has centuries of rich history and it's just a matter of time before they unify and become militant. Iran is leading the whole clown show, just give it another few years. And it IS in large part about religion,".
Okay, so you seem to be basing your argument, correctly or incorrectly, on a very determinist understanding of history IR. I disagree with your assessment of the middle east, without going into the Shia/Sunni divide, I would (as would a lot of others) completely question the conclusion you have in regards to this.
"...Itself, mostly. Just as an example, the American bases in Germany aren't there because we were confident of their ability to run a democracy. Look at Italy and honestly say it's a beacon of good governance.!?!?! We parked some military hardware there to make the point that we're not doing the Marshall plan...and whole WW1+2 thing....again
Europe, wake up, there's no nice way to say this: you were an occupied territory for decades.....".
Okay, so American forces are in Europe to protect it from itself. Well thank you very much for your country's generous altruism, but I think I speak for most of Europe when I say we will be okay without you. Again this seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion which can never be debated away.
Have fun with your fiscal crisis, cupcake.
Apologies In The Flesh, I only just noticed your response:
" anon, when push comes to shove, a nation has to be able to back up its words with action, and it will be unable to fully enforce its interests without some capacity of military might. Europe is very much a proponent of the "Soft power" approach to foreign affairs and it has its place. But you can't solve all problems with just talk. Even in the Balkans war in the late 1990's, most of the effort was born by the US and Britain, and that was in Europe's backyard.
Sometimes you do have to be willing to get tough, and that's why it's dangerous to assume that conventional forces are no longer necessary.
It's the same problem that has plagued Japan since it dissolved its military with the exception of its SDF. How can it combat terrorism overseas--a common threat to us all--without a military? Same question the proposed United States of Europe would have to address."
I am unsure how what I have said requires the 'answer' that you have replied with. In my post, I have challenged 3 points that the OP made and I felt were incorrect.
1) The primary reason for Germany's existance as a unified state being Europe's inability to survive without its industrial capacity.
2) The need for the USA to continue 'protecting' Europe post 1989/91.
3) The 'need' to resolve rioting in Paris, London and Athans with a 'strong military authority' and the impossbility of this happening when countries like Austria have only 7 fighter jets.
Thank you for the introduction on soft/hard power dynamics but that is an entirely seperate debate and I am not entirely sure why you have brought it up in response to the 3 points I made. Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
"It's not altruism. We got tired of you people fucking things up, so we have garrisons all over the place to keep you under control. If you haven't noticed, the rest of the world doesn't care what you think either.
Have fun with your fiscal crisis, cupcake."
Congratulations for showing your true colours and highlighting, if there was any doubt left, your absurdity and seeming inability to debate. Did you address the points I made originally? Not really, you address points in broad terms without substantiating or expanding and then throw in some patriotic rhetoric.
Your parting shot seems to be to spout some baseless opinions in 'defence' of the USA despite the fact that my original post was in no way an attack on your beloved country.
Look, I understand that you are a bit sensitive what given the rise of China, the USA's downgrade to AA+ and "socialist" ideas such as healthcare reform and higher tax creeping into the mainstream, but ranting on an internet forum isn't going to make you feel any better, and it certainly won't return your country to the 'glory days' of the 20th century that you seem so strongly to crave.
And last, you Europeans turn political discourse into a verbose parlor game that wastes everyone's time: I'm not here to play word games with you. I'm very simply stating that the EU would benefit from the ability to govern itself effectively. America's been around for only a short time in the relative history of things and yet we've managed to accomplish, most of it in this century, what Europe hasn't been able to in its thousands of years of settled history.....why not take a good idea and just use it instead of "debating" everything and wasting your own time.
1) Possibly I will consider learning to use the coding, I tried to make it clear when I had time using the bold function.
2) I have tried to address your points, but what I want to make clear is this. Most of your points are not responses to what I have said. I have made it clear, I have three very specific issues with the OP's post:
The primary reason for Germany's existance as a unified state being Europe's inability to survive without its industrial capacity.
The need for the USA to continue 'protecting' Europe post 1989/91.
The 'need' to resolve rioting in Paris, London and Athans with a 'strong military authority' and the impossbility of this happening when countries like Austria have only 7 fighter jets.
I am not sure if it is a cultural thing in terms of differences in debating style, but you don't seem to have understood that I am only challenging those 3 very specific facts. So you have addressed the need for europe to be protected as justified by your beleif in an expansionist and powerful Russia combined with the threat from a united and hostile middle east based on religious grounds, but that is about all I can find in your posts.
Even the OP, in response to my criticism of point 1 seems to not have understood what I am saying, I am fully aware of the post war (both WW1 and WW2) debates surrounding the deconstruction of Germany, what I am unaware of is a compelling and evidenced argument that had it not been for Europes inability to survive without German manufacturing, Germany would have likely been deconstructed.
3) I think I do have an idea what your views are, based on your sensitivity over the issues you perceived had been raised and apparent resolve to turn a debate over European security and domestic policy into some sort of patriotic pissing contest. Based on your responses you seem angry and sensitive about something, to say the least.
4) "And last, you Europeans turn political discourse into a verbose parlor game that wastes everyone's time: I'm not here to play word games with you."
And congratulations for finishing with the perfect way to highlight my point, "You europeans turn political discourse into a verbose parlor game that wastes everyone's time.", and so you have just lumped 731 million people together based on interactions you have had with how many? Do you think I assume 'you americans' all have the same attitude toward political discourse? Of course not. Like much of what you have written you have generalised and reduce to the point that the majority of what you are is largely hyperbolical rhetoric.
I'm very simply stating that the EU would benefit from the ability to govern itself effectively.
And finally, several posts later, you have got accross the point that you are 'very simply stating'. If this is the point you were trying to make all along then it is not something I would disagree with, who would disagree with the idea of a group of nations being able to benefit from the ability to govern itself effectively?
More to the point, how does that point, which you are now alluding to be the crux of your argument run against any of the 3 points I originally made, and you seemed to disagree with?
Dude, we keep NATO alive to service the fact that America runs the world. Europe is just bitter that they had their chance and blew it. Explain to me how a treaty system that we run has more actual power than the UN.
As for simply stating, read my first post.
Not wanting to intrude on the 750 millionth rendition of the great "Europe sucks - no America sucks - no Europe sucks - China ownz U!" debate...
When referring to Europe in these discussions: are posters referring to: - the EU? - the Eurozone? - E15? - the continent of Europe?
I think you need to think about the answer to that question before making any more vague and generalist statements.
A European Superstate is unlikely to happen while you still have countries like the UK and Sweden who are very much on the outskirts: geographically and politically. The next and most likely (and in my opinion most preferable) solution is closer fiscal unity in the Eurozone. Namely the introduction of the Eurobond as a means of letting all (Eurozone) nations borrow at a favourable rate. The funds raised from the Eurobond can then be lent to sovereign nations in trouble. As a term of borrowing - if nations consistently get in trouble then their national assets would be supra-nationalised.
Are you honestly this obtuse?
'Europe' does not have one single viewpoint, and I am certainly not bitter that 'we' don't run the world, in fact speaking for myself I couldn't particularly care whether we run the world or not. You keep compounding generalisation upon generalisation. You cannot apply your mindset to other people, less still entire continents.
"As for simply stating, read my first post." -
"I'm in favor of it for one simple reason: without a centralized gov't the nation states just go to war against each other."
Is not congruent to
"I'm very simply stating that the EU would benefit from the ability to govern itself effectively. "
DID I DISAGREE WITH YOUR FIRST POST? No, however you have taken my post, quoted it and apparently disagreed with a lot of the points I made, hence this whole episode. Have I taken any umbridge or even mentioned your first post? No.
You took my points, quoted them and seemed to disagree with them, that is what I was responding to. Do you not understand this? What we are discussing are the issues you raised, apparently in response to my post, and their irrelivance to the original points I was making.
Anyway, I think I will leave this now as everyone is no doubt sufficently bored and you seem to be distinctly lacking in your ability to hold a reasonable debate without reverting to irrelivant patriotic / anti european rhetoric and conjecture. Now why don't you go and listen to 'The Star-Spangled Banner' while watching a few WWII movies to calm yourself down.
Aut voluptatibus quasi fugiat repudiandae. Asperiores ut nihil quos et rem totam commodi. Et vel rerum qui omnis debitis. Sed aut et sed incidunt possimus dolorum. Sint dignissimos et debitis alias.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Sint et et soluta ipsa sapiente. Natus corrupti quia molestiae magni id. Maxime error dolorum dicta eum sint doloremque ad ducimus.
Officiis culpa non qui est ipsa eaque aut. Nihil non eos labore sit suscipit architecto enim.