Quote (zarkadon @ 19 Apr 2020 00:26)
As a single entity, there is only one national interest. Right now there can be up to 27 confronting interests.
coming from a spaniard, that's rather
naive idealistic.
Quote (zarkadon @ 19 Apr 2020 00:26)
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.
i think that, generally speaking, we both agree on some of the main flaws, and also some of the core goals the european union SHOULD have, but i think we slightly disagree in terms of how to achieve them - at least on the order.
a somewhat forced unification is always destined to fail imo. the way to achieve a stronger sense of community, in absence of a clearly defined threat or enemy, is
economic stability and prosperity. if people realise how much they benefit from the union, if they have the means, the time, and the curiosity to get to know them (all of which can and has been fostered), they will feel closer to their european brothers and sisters. in their intentions, EU leaders got that generally right imo, it just got lost somewhat in the bureaucratic nightmare that it turned into, and by overextending.
that's why i'm so critical of our premature and rapid (in political terms) eastern expansion since 2004: we hadn't secured those goals for even our core members. not only italy and greece, but even spain and france to a degree, were forseeably problematic - at least structurally. adding massive money and stability drains like poland, hungary, romania, and bulgaria was a huge, and maybe even lethal, mistake in achieving anything even resembling a somewhat unified and stable core. i get there was a lot of pressure, huge political and economic opportunities for key players at the time, but that's where vision and leadership could have saved us - that's where we could have created a meaningful privileged partnership framework to promote stable growth without neglecting the already existing problems.
Quote (zarkadon @ 19 Apr 2020 00:26)
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.
on the topic of belonging and pearl harbor, this might interest you:
Quote (zarkadon @ 19 Apr 2020 00:26)
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.
again, yes in theory, no in regards to the order. polls clearly show that right now, most people don't share our european spirit. any political push towards that is bound to fail. prosperity first. open borders, free trade, free travel, cultural exchange, united currency, eventually align laws and standards... all that has to become second nature and lead to economic stability BEFORE further politically mandated administrative unification.
that said, i don't think that is necessary to create a european army (in a meaningful sense), and imo that could contribute in many aspects:
- it would further promote a sense of european togetherness
- it would be a massive deterrent to any hostile military action
- it could allow us to liberate ourselves somewhat from the abomination that pax americana has become (like mandatory minimum spending, sending our youth to 'defend democracy' in afghanistan, enabling our allies to create terrorists and refugee waves that cost us trillions...)
- in doing so, it would also alleviate some of the logistically and financially problematic division of resources between national, european, and nato commitments (and some of their devastating consequences)