Bout time. ^^


USE - the United States of Europe.



/e Or if you just have to be different... the Unified States of Europe. Or you could just stay the EU, but structure things like the states in the US did.

Many states in the US would rather be their own country. But the advantages of a single government with states rights, offer too many advantages.

Just make Luxembourg like Washington DC. Not really a country or state but make that area the capitol of the EU, and then adopt something "like" the US constitution, but with your own ideas woven in.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 18 2020 04:32am

No, we don't have a common constitution, and not the same languages. Yet Europe is more about doing politics to increase markets & financial collaboration...
All my love goes to EU standards tho, and some EU army eventually, common core for borders or international interventions, research... That's what we do, but NO extra layer of power.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Apr 18 2020 05:22am

Yeah, I know. It's why the EU is not a super power. The EU needs the ability to join together instantly to aggressively rather than passively, react to world events.
Figure out how to do that and the EU will then be a super power.


/e Like I said above... there are states that would rather, go their own way. But the advantages to being able to work as a whole, in trade, politics, war, etc., is worth having one language, one govt. and one monetary system.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 18 2020 05:27am

EU is called an emerging super power by scholars.

Well, good. And as I'm sure you know, emerging is like... "beginning".
You made a good start, now just finish it.

I realize this is not something that can be accomplished like... next week. But it still needs to be done.

The EU is already the 3rd geopolitical power (was 2nd) being made up of different member states. The ability to flex on the world stage doesn't depend on integrating every last bit of Europe into not only a political union, but an economic one, it's achieved through how many nukes and fighter jets you've got. Remind me, how many EU countries even invest 2% of GDP in military spending? Care to guess what that is over in the US, China and Russia?

The US and China (and Russia but they're less relevant now) want to be top dogs and are belligerent in their foreign meddlings. European countries do have a different culture - we're more peaceful. After two world wars, we learnt our lessons...and that's why I don't think the EU is ever going to be the superpower that will rival the US, China and eventually India.

What you are asking for is not necessary for the EU to be a world power.

Nuclear submarines with nuclear ICBMs is super powered enough already. Carrot virus could change many things.

It could just be European Federation, but tbh the name is the smallest issue.





This.



We don't invest in military spending because we're part of NATO and rely on the US's world policing. I advocate for our own military structure and nuclear program to secure self reliance. This doesn't mean we should cease relations with the US... quite on the contrary, I think we should cooperate with them as much as possible, but from a level ground of mutual self reliance.

Calling the EU as it is right now a geopolitical power is laughable. Some of our member states may have commercial and/or cultural ties with certain regions of the world, but there is no way to excercise influence over them, and that is the essence of geopolitical power. I'm not advocating for a belligerent approach like Russia or the US (China isn't militarily belligerent, but rather enacts its influence via trade, techonology and creating economic dependency), or neocolonialism, but rather securing our way of life in the long run, and trying to diplomatically internationally push our interests through democracy and trade.

Right now, we're just a bunch of collectively organized semi-independent NATO satellite states. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in the short term, as it gives us security with very little expense, but it threatens our way of life in the long term. Think of it this way:

The current system works fine in the world we live in NOW, but we don't know about the future. Strong independent countries have a much more easier time adapting to international change (and they can even shape it). Let's take Europe as a small sample size of the world... right now, it is fine being a small country like the Netherlands or Austria... but how great was it to be a small and militarily weak country during the 1930s? It didn't work out too well for them. Now let's switch back to the world scale... the EU is fine as it is in the current world, but if the geopolitical climate shifted towards a more aggressive one, we could be easily pushed around by the US, Russia and China.

The world changes, inevitably, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. We can't assume that what works for us now will also work for us in the future. Becoming a strong united and self reliant superpower is the best guarantee for long term survival.

This post was edited by zarkadon on Apr 18 2020 07:33am

If EU countries are worried about being attacked they can and have signed military pacts with each other. That's the way we protect smaller countries that are our allies and it works.

The EU being a single country would certainly enable quicker decision making but you are making the assertion, with no evidence, that being a country would transform the EU into a much greater power than it currently is. I see the benefits of negotiating as a trading bloc for free trade agreements and such, which is why I wanted the UK to stay in the EU by the way, but the EU is already doing that. So where does this additional geopolitical power stem from exactly? It's already a massive trading bloc with military pacts to protect vulnerable countries like Estonia.

As a single entity, there is only one national interest. Right now there can be up to 27 confronting interests. This obviously makes the EU lose potential.

Bureaucracy would be far more agile, decisions would be made faster, infrastructure and wealth would be easier to spread, and therefore allow europeans from all regions to have access to opportunities that allow them to fulfill their potential and indirectly help the state.

A political constitutionally bound union is a much better guarantee of keeping the alliance safe in the long run. Treaties are nice, but that may not guarantee much in the long run. Other countries have nukes and a far more advanced military and intelligence structure... not much we could do if we don't develop our own military powerhouse. Also, the lack of a united political structure keeps us from developing a national identity. If Estonia was invaded, there would be people on the other side of the continent that wouldn't care much about "a random small country that barely contributes to the EU". But if they felt Estonia was part of their own country, then they'd care. See how Americans cared about Pearl Harbor, despite being a shit ton of miles away from their mainland... because it was part of their country that was attacked.

A country with half a billion people, with developed infrastrucute and high wealth per capita, and strong ties with emerging markets like Latin America or North Africa... I don't see how this isn't the perfect recipe for a powerful and influential state. Keep it divided, and they'll eventually be at odds with each other... the US, China and Russia will try to seduce the individual countries to lure them into their influence zone, and all that potential will be gone.