Developments in and the future of the EU

[Hrothbern]

Posts related to and regarding the EU pop up all the time in other threads.


Considering:
Brexit, Macron, the German-French domination, the Federalist option at crossroads, increasing populist nationalism in general and in specific EU countries, the repositioning of the geopolitical order towards Asia, DIEM25, and so many other developments.

I think there is value for a thread focussed on the EU.

 

[Hrothbern]

As first post from me something seemingly minor: an article in the Guardian that is as such interesting and annoyed me at the same time.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...sis-balkans-eu-membership-russia-china-turkey

key text:
""The second world war is over but the first world war is not yet finished.” Those were the words of a senior Turkish official I met recently in Ankara. He was speaking of the Middle East, but it was the sort of comment I might well also have heard in Moscow, in Kiev or in the Balkans, about the state of affairs on the European continent".

I think those words are as such true,
but at the same time it assumes that the EU is as a whole a nation like Russia, the US, China, etc
and in my opinion it is not

Then the Guardian continues:
"The one place I couldn’t possibly have heard this is Brussels. That’s because the European Union is still unprepared to live in a world where geopolitics has returned – in which governments, as well as much of the public, are obsessed with borders and territories, and tend to define success less by economic growth than by national pride".

So........ first the EU is framed in a position it does not have !..... and then it is critisized that it does not respond adequately to it in geopolitical terms.
What a garbage !!!

However.... I think that the underlying truth is, that the face of the EU, the message, is so opaque that everybody can label or brand the EU to his own liking.
The EU is to the masses not clear what it is AND not clear what it not is
driftwood without direction or vision.

I think that is one of the main issues of the EU.

 

[Verbose]

Part of the problem seems to be that while the EU is quite powerful, and in some ways far sturdier than often assumed — it also lacks the kind of proper hierarchy of functions where "a brain" tells the rest of the mass what to do. It's part of why Brussels is always fingered by critics, and why - since it's so unobvious what Brussels actually decides - a lot of conspiracy theory has to be ad hoc cobbled together to explain the EU. It just HAS to have a central "brain", possibly in the form of a secret cabal, carrying out a predetermined program of some kind. The alternative, that the EU really is primarily a reactive entity by design, is not accepted. If you prod the EU, it can respond. But unprodded it won't do much. Which is why the EU never gets its crap together until there is a full-on crisis, and its constituent parts are forced to respond. And even then the bits can always fall out among themselves and fail to come up with something that works...

 

[AdrienIer]

The EU is also hugely dependent on individual national leaders' ideas. Macron's very pro-EU discourse might take it out of its lethargic state and finally react to the pressure it's facing, but there are so many anti-EU leaders in the EU that it makes it difficult to find European responses to those pressures.

 

[Kyriakos]

The eu hasn't failed in all things; for starters it did, and still does, allow Germany to maintain its export economy. If you are in Germany or one of its satellites, that should be more than enough. Also allowed it to re-unify, and then ridiculously lord over Europe.

Otherwise, the Eu isn't good enough to even term a failure. Half of it is societies with no tie to western ideals in the first place. The other half is jingoist.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Then the Guardian continues:
"The one place I couldn’t possibly have heard this is Brussels. That’s because the European Union is still unprepared to live in a world where geopolitics has returned.

I'm emphasizing on that part because I believe this is the true issue. However, the reasons why it is an issue are more subtile than just people suddenly caring about borders and patriotism.

Up untill the 2000's, Europe was protected by the US. They could focus on growing their economy and let Reagan or Clinton manage the thing when it became more serious. The cold war in general was managed this way, but even the conflict which sparked in Bosnia and later Kosovo were ultimately solved by the Americans, which was totally fine to Europeans. And why wouldn't they feel this way? Americans offered them security for free and took alone all the negative aspects about, well, having a foreign policy. Basically Europeans had the cake and eat it.

Things have changed in the turn of the millenium. For different reasons, neither Bush Jr, nor Obama and even less Trump are ready to offer that to Europeans. No matter the political ideology, the fact is that with globalization, the US strategic interests moved from Europe to Asia. And this is a structural move which is made to last, it's not just about the political color of the current American president.

I believe Europeans haven't figured yet that they've been kindly asked by Americans to take their fate in their own hands, which is the main reason explaining the European failures in the two major geopolitical crisis it had to face in the last decade:
- security with the Syrian war and the following refugees crisis. The US basically didn't come to save European arses.
- banking crisis followed by debt crisis followed by the euro crisis. The US saved their own arse and Europe had to deal on its own part by itself.

In both cases, major European powers, Germany ahead but not only, were basically waiting for things to happen, and were only forced to react, very badly, when it was already too late. The rise of populism over the continent just comes from that European governments general apathy while facing crisis.

Frankly, I don't blame Americans from behaving this way, they have very valid reasons to think we should be adult enough to keep up our own backyard. Ensuring the security of the whole of Europe and Middle East is very costly, and they paid it hard in 2001. Being French, I had a quick glance about that when we intervened in Mali to avoid the Jihadists to secure a stronghold in Sahel. We did that of course for the security of France, but we did so as well for the security of the whole of Europe, and the only thing we got in return was being accused of being corrupted neo-colonialists. No matter what people can think, it doesn't change the fact we did ensure European security in intervening there.

All this to say that, yes, I do believe the American security umbrella is gone for good in Europe because Americans have numerous rational and valid reasons to behave so, but Europeans are still in denial of that reality. Not only they don't see it, but they even refuse the very idea. The current British governement is certainly the one being the most in denial in this regard. More than anyone, they perceive their national interests as more tightly linked with those of the Anglosphere than with those of continental Europe, which mostly explains their optimism in Brexit.

Brexit is for what it's worth another test for the EU, and contrary to the other recent crisis, Europeans know this time they can count only on themselves to solve it. Brexit will be the moment of truth for the European Union as an institution: either it will prove itself as being here to last, or it will progressively lose itself in bickerings.

 

[innonimatu]

IUp untill the 2000's, Europe was protected by the US. They could focus on growing their economy and let Reagan or Clinton manage the thing when it became more serious. The cold war in general was managed this way, but even the conflict which sparked in Bosnia and later Kosovo were ultimately solved by the Americans, which was totally fine to Europeans.

Protected from what, exactly? The Soviet Union dismantled itself in 1991. There was no credible threat since. There is still no credible threat.

Bosnia and Kosovo were offensive actions carried out by the USA and some big european countries under the cover of the EU and "international community". Inciting and then meddling in other states' civil wars because those states were perceived as not aligned (submitted to) the desired international order. They did it again in Libya, quite openly. And have been doing it in Syria. There's also the neo-colonial french empire in northern Africa, but that's another thing, they don't do much under the EU cover. Yet. In all this europeans have not been "defending themselves", they have been attacking. With or without help from the US.

Guess what an EU military will be used for.

European failures in the two major geopolitical crisis it had to face in the last decade:
- security with the Syrian war and the following refugees crisis. The US basically didn't come to save European arses.
- banking crisis followed by debt crisis followed by the euro crisis. The US saved their own arse and Europe had to deal on its own part by itself.

What? The EU happily threw fuel into that fire at least until the refugee hordes showed up and threated the place in power of some of its leaders.
The euro crisis was self-inflicted and will not be resolved until the euro goes. At every turn the choices taken by the EU bureaucracy and institutions were targeted ad benefiting the major powers within and the expense of the weaker. As had been the management of both the Euro and the trade policy of the block leading up to the crisis. It was not a "failure of the EU". It was successful use of the EU as a tool to benefit its more powerful member states. The only failure for them was that heyr hand got a little too exposed. But it's still nothing the euro-fanboys can't willfully ignore.

Brexit is for what it's worth another test for the EU, and contrary to the other recent crisis, Europeans know this time they can count only on themselves to solve it. Brexit will be the moment of truth for the European Union as an institution: either it will prove itself as being here to last, or it will progressively lose itself in bickerings.

EU delenda est.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Protected from what, exactly? The Soviet Union dismantled itself in 1991. There was no credible threat since. There is still no credible threat.

No credible threat? Do you have any idea about how this world works? Do you believe we peacefully trade millions of goods over continents and oceans just because we're a big earthlings family dancing in circle?

 

[Kyriakos]

No credible threat? Do you have any idea about how this world works? Do you believe we peacefully trade millions of goods over continents and oceans just because we're a big earthlings family dancing in circle?

No, some have Total and their private warship diplomacy. But most euro countries haven't been involved in war since ww2 or thereabouts.

 

[Marla_Singer]

No, some have Total and their private warship diplomacy. But most euro countries haven't been involved in war since ww2 or thereabouts.

Security isn't an issue only during open wars. I mean do you believe the US has such a wide navy operating on all oceans just for fun? A single container ship transports millions of dollars of goods. There are thousands navigating accross the global oceans. If no one would be there to secure sea routes, that would make fortunes for piracy, and severely damages intercontinental trade. But that's only one example.

If you take the Syrian case. The refugees crisis only happened because we have let the war in Syria rot during 5 years. If NATO would have quickly intervened just like it did in Libya, there wouldn't have any refugees to worry about. Same goes for Daesh who could secure a stronghold in the Syrian desert only because they got the opportunity to fill a vacuum. And that stronghold allowed them to finance and organize terrorist operations in Europe.

And we can give many other examples. The Baltic states are protected from Russia only because they are members of both NATO and EU. Do you want me to go on with the list?

 

[warpus]

The EU is to the masses not clear what it is AND not clear what it not is

It's an economic union with some political implications, isn't it?

If the masses insist that it easily fits into a well defined category like "country" then they're going to be disappointed.

driftwood without direction or vision.

The first goal of integration was to prevent another world war from erupting at some point in the future, I believe. That's been achieved I guess, as it seems very unlikely that for example France would ever go to war against Germany again..

Some would say the end goal is a federal Europe, but democracy plays a big role, so the goal is sort of up to the citizens of Europe. If there is no clear vision or direction, then that means that the citizens of Europe can't decide on one.

 

[Ajidica]

If NATO would have quickly intervened just like it did in Libya, there wouldn't have any refugees to worry about.

Yes, swift NATO intervention avoided a refugee crisis in Libya.
Which, of course, is why where are absolutely no slave markets in Libya selling migrants/refugees and the bodies of migrants/refugees definitely don't wash ashore in Italy.

I mean, Christ, not to be blunt but have you seen something called the news in the last year or two? I don't know how you could think the Libyan military action was successful in averting a refugee crisis.

 

[Commodore]

It's an economic union with some political implications, isn't it?

As of right now. However, the leadership of the EU seems to keep hemming and hawing on whether or not it wants to be more than that. That creates uncertainty regarding the future of the EU and what role it will have in global politics.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Yes, swift NATO intervention avoided a refugee crisis in Libya.
Which, of course, is why where are absolutely no slave markets in Libya selling migrants/refugees and the bodies of migrants/refugees definitely don't wash ashore in Italy.

I mean, Christ, not to be blunt but have you seen something called the news in the last year or two? I don't know how you could think the Libyan military action was successful in averting a refugee crisis.

Yes, you're right. My initial point was that the refugees crisis was one of the two major failures of Europe together with the debt crisis. So don't expect me to defend what happened because I was precisely trying to say that we weren't able to manage the situation. And the reason why we couldn't manage the situation is because the US wasn't as ready to handle it as it would have been 20 years ago.

 

[innonimatu]

Security isn't an issue only during open wars. I mean do you believe the US has such a wide navy operating on all oceans just for fun? A single container ship transports millions of dollars of goods. There are thousands navigating accross the global oceans. If no one would be there to secure sea routes, that would make fortunes for piracy, and severely damages intercontinental trade. But that's only one example.

Poor european countries, threated by the pirates of the high seas were it not for the mighty USA coming to their aid!
Really, could you not find something better? Whatever happened to the somali pirates, btw?

If you take the Syrian case. The refugees crisis only happened because we have let the war in Syria rot during 5 years. If NATO would have quickly intervened just like it did in Libya, there wouldn't have any refugees to worry about. Same goes for Daesh who could secure a stronghold in the Syrian desert only because they got the opportunity to fill a vacuum. And that stronghold allowed them to finance and organize terrorist operations in Europe.

Perchance it happened because "you" turned a blind eye to weapons shipments from Libya, just destroyed through actions led by France, to Syria though Turkey? Perhaps it happened because NATO "quickly intervened" indeed to turn Libya into anarchy?

And what happened after NATO's intervention in Libya, regarding refugees? Hint: ask the Italians...

Finally, not content with so many outright "fake history", you had to add daesh into the mix. You know here they emerged from? Iraq. Another glorious intervention to "bring democracy". But on that one at least France is free of blame and deserving of some praise. So no need for you to twist that bit of history.

And we can give many other examples. The Baltic states are protected from Russia only because they are members of both NATO and EU. Do you want me to go on with the list?

Membership of NATO and the EU is very protective indeed. Just ask ukranians or georgians. First you set up a local pupped by financing and assisting him with political consultants (do we hear something about messing with other countries elections now? do we?). Then you have said pupped proposing to join NATO. Then a peaceful country gets its entirely unnecessary civil war going. Way to protect and bring peace!
It is not about protecting countries through NATO. It's about creating some external enemy and igniting wars. Those are good for certain businesses, good for the careers of certain professionals... Peace was there, already in existence and available to be kept. They managed to bring back war and thus secure their business and their careers. And of course they are the "professionals" of intelligence and strategy on whose analysis we are supposed to rely on to set policy, those personalities who gather yearly at Munich and announce how dangerous the world is, how necessary they are...

War remains a racket. And people like you keep falling for it.

 

[innonimatu]

Yes, swift NATO intervention avoided a refugee crisis in Libya.
Which, of course, is why where are absolutely no slave markets in Libya selling migrants/refugees and the bodies of migrants/refugees definitely don't wash ashore in Italy.

I mean, Christ, not to be blunt but have you seen something called the news in the last year or two? I don't know how you could think the Libyan military action was successful in averting a refugee crisis.

Indeed.

Before the "quick NATO intervention" in Libya: libyans employed african migrants in their own booming economy.

After the glorious intervention: Libya remains mired in anarchy, its economy is destroyed and living standards plummeted, uncountable people were killed both in the wars and due to the destruction of a functioning society, migrants are traded in slave markets, and the EU (after pretended to be all humanitarian and dumping migrants into refugee camps for the italians to deal with alone) now pays the libyan warlords to mistreat migrants as much as possible in order to stem the flow. Not that you will find many details about that on BBC or other mainstream media. But it's so visible and outrageous that some do get published, thanks for pointing them out!

This is the EU's foreign policy for Africa. Woe to africans if the imperial ("Federal") EU desired by a section of the french establishment ever gets created. They will be fully colonized again, outright. An EU military will not be meant for defense, which is more than adequate already. It will be meant for expansion, and Africa is the target. The time is right: the americans distracted with Asia, the "chinese threat to Africa" available, but China still lacking power projection capability, the "refugee threat to Europe" already floating for public opinion consumption... the one thing lacking is the military to take on the whole continent again. I already told you, those "experts on security" are discussing this away from the media.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The first goal of integration was to prevent another world war from erupting at some point in the future, I believe. That's been achieved I guess, as it seems very unlikely that for example France would ever go to war against Germany again..

Some would say the end goal is a federal Europe, but democracy plays a big role, so the goal is sort of up to the citizens of Europe. If there is no clear vision or direction, then that means that the citizens of Europe can't decide on one.

Yes, that's very well said. I would personally say that, if Europe doesn't know what it wants, which is true, it does know what it doesn't want, and that would be precisely to live again crisis as it had in the past 10 years.

The thing is that if Europe isn't able to bring some orders in all that, then who would? As I see it, Europe isn't really a choice at this stage, it's the only alternative. Because it's rather nice to tell us Europe is crap and should be thrown in garbage, but how this would make the economical environment more stable? How this would make the geopolitical context safer?

 

[warpus]

Yes, that's very well said. I would personally say that, if Europe doesn't know what it wants, which is true, it does know what it doesn't want, and that would be precisely to live again crisis as it had in the past 10 years.

The thing is that if Europe isn't able to bring some orders in all that, then who would? As I see it, Europe isn't really a choice at this stage, it's the only alternative. Because it's rather nice to tell us Europe is crap and should be thrown in garbage, but how this would make the economical environment more stable? How this would make the geopolitical context safer?

If the EU was dissolved, then it would just be replaced with a bunch of similar economic treaties anyway. Maybe not a lot of them, but even the UK is all "Hey so we want to leave but keep the keys to the house"

 

[Kyriakos]

Re the mentioned baltic states (by which i don't mean Poland, which is a different case; certainly not due to military might, cause it has none), they are only in theory """protected""". If at any point, in any way, Russia does intervene, you will see the same thing seen in Ukraine (and Georgia). Maybe Finland will want to do something, but let's be realistic, who cares; Finland has no serious army either, it just has something more than a purely token army.

The people in the baltic states should not think that foreign soldiers will come protect them. Cause that never happened, and never will. If things get real, they will - like any nation with no army - be left to capitulate, while their supposed protectors will whistle known tunes.

Re the common european army: one has to seriously be living in a bubble if they actually think that - moreover after the debt charade, and the rise of fascism in various euro govs - soldiers from the other end of the continent will come die for you. That goes for anyone, not just the baltics. Just to be real.

 

[Akka]

Yes, swift NATO intervention avoided a refugee crisis in Libya.
Which, of course, is why where are absolutely no slave markets in Libya selling migrants/refugees and the bodies of migrants/refugees definitely don't wash ashore in Italy.

I mean, Christ, not to be blunt but have you seen something called the news in the last year or two? I don't know how you could think the Libyan military action was successful in averting a refugee crisis.

And these migrants, by and large, aren't from Libya proper, they are here just because Libya is the closest to Europe (namely, Italy). There is no massive migration of Libyans everywhere.