Power corrupts. No single country should be a global superpower
So was the US. Technically the use of the word “state” implies it still is. What is the line between a bunch of states working together and them no longer being a bunch of separate countries?
It’s a thin line indeed. Aren’t the countries in the UK closer to being actual countries than the US states?
You cannot compare the US’ setup to Europe’s. One is a nation that is still incredibly young and was sliced up like a cake for several territories that still are relatively homogenous in culture.
The other is a continent consisting of countries with very diverse cultures and thousands of years of history, who made a union to collaborate on certain political issues.
The two are not even close to being the same. Not even close.
On the contrary, periods of imperial hegemony have been some of the more stable and peaceful episodes of human history. One of them is ending right now.
That’s fair. But history is an uninterrupted succession of empires. Good ones, bad ones, middling ones. It’s the human condition. The USA was an empire founded by enlightenment libertarians, so I’d say there’s a fair chance we’re going to look back on it fondly. Similarly, the EU, if ever it could pull itself together, has the potential to be as good an empire as we’ll ever get. IMO.
Being a superpower means making decisions. The EU has problems with that: EU’s responses to anything are too slow and too weak. Deep concerns isn’t a language of power.
True.
Maybe they need to appoint someone to be in charge, who can make decisions and really get things done.
I like a democratic parliament more. Otherwise we may have a Trump in Europe. I don’t want a singe person as powerful as a medieval monarch to decide over about half a billion people.
Otherwise we may have a Trump in Europe.
You have at least two, and arguably more, right now. Historically you’ve had some real fucking doozies too, people that make Trump look like a school child.
I don’t want a singe person as powerful as a medieval monarch to decide over about half a billion people.
That’s what you’ll get eventually.
I recognise you’re just expressing frustration towards current affairs – a frustration I often share, but:
Decisions require a mandate and the reason the EU has problems making decisions about some things is that it wasn’t designed to address them in the first place.
It’s simply a slightly over-grown trading union with occasional federalist aspirations.
Responding to tariffs - fast and coordinated.
Responding to external military threats - scattered and complicated.
Tap for spoiler
As a sidenote: According to John Bolton Trump, at least during his first term, was completely oblivious to how the European Union worked and was somehow also under the impression that Juncker, then president of the European Commission, got to decide the NATO budget. Crazy, right?
That’s why the EU’s response to defense was based on financial instruments.
To become a “superpower” and/or make quick decisions regarding e.g. military threats, it would need to actually become a state-like entity and begin building several bureaucratic arms it currently lacks which doesn’t usually happen overnight. Not to mention establishing actual policies.
Before we get to that stage though, a consensus between member states needs to be formed and all manner of legal documents drafted. Centralising power means less independence for member states which is usually a hard sell. It would likely also require member states to alter their constitutions which could be an incredibly slow process even without resistance from all the respective governments. Not to mention the fact that a popular vote in all member states might be a good idea democracy-wise.
I’m not saying necessarily it’s something we shouldn’t pursue and hey, under extraordinary circumstances even bureaucracy can move quickly but it is a huge deal and moving quickly could also mean skirting around established democratic principles. (Actually iirc European bureaucracy is generally quite efficient as is –contrary to popular belief)
I guess I wrote this in the hopes of fighting disillusionment even though it’s not the core message here. We’ll do what we have to and I’m positive we’ll get to wherever we need to be in order to survive and thrive in this century. It will require patience, nerve and active participation from all of us though.
Last thing I want us to become is like the folks over in the States claiming it’s all already over. (A minority, I hope)
Sorry for the wall of text, I guess I had some stuff pent up.
One thing I remember from the Brexit “debate” was that many viewed the prospect of the EU having an army as a terrible thing that couldn’t be allowed.
“It’s the Germans wanting to re-militarize under a different flag”
Fast-forward 6 years and Russia invaded Ukraine and the mood has certainly shifted on that one.
“Come on Germany. Get those factories going.”
It already is.
We’re united in in-action, politically and economically!
Economically and culturally, Europe is already a superpower. Militarily it isn’t, and maybe that’s not a terrible thing. Politically, it just seems to have a bias for moving slowly and by consensus, although it responded quickly to COVID and the assault on Ukraine, so it can do what’s needed?
