Why do european countries compare themselves to the US as the EU?

[Rossiya]

Maybe its because Americans dont know small countries. Its older but still nice: http://www.antiusa.webz.cz/galerie/vlajka1.jpg

Nice Chechnyan flag

Jesus Christ, that is awful.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Power. You may be extremely well developed, economically speaking, but if you're of a size of... say Luxembourg, you simply don't matter in the global arena. That's why you have to find a lot of allies, make compromises, find common interests and then push them forward.

OK, then I'll modify my questions. Since when has large land size = global political power? The reason I ask is that you seemed to imply that without joining Europe countries like the UK would struggle to make an impact on the World stage against countries like Brazil or Nigeria. I don't think that's true. It's the ability to assert influence that matters. Not land size.

 

[REDY]

OK, then I'll modify my questions. Since when has large land size = global political power? The reason I ask is that you seemed to imply that without joining Europe countries like the UK would struggle to make an impact on the World stage against countries like Brazil or Nigeria. I don't think that's true. It's the ability to assert influence that matters. Not land size.

Hadnt played Civilization?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Hadnt played Civilization?

Of course I have, that's where all my geo-political knowledge comes from. 2 well developed cities can make mincemeat of a backward nation of a hundred cities filled with spearmen.

Can't they?

 

[REDY]

Yeah you may try start with only 2 cities and ignore enlarging. Soon your opponent will have more money, because he will have more taxed people, more culture, because he should specialize cities, and better technologies because he should send more money to science;-)

Its exactly where will be future - in China, India, Brasil, USA...

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Yeah you may try start with only 2 cities and ignore enlarging. Soon your opponent will have more money, because he will have more taxed people, more culture, because he should specialize cities, and better technologies because he should send more money to science;-)

Its exactly where will be future - in China, India, Brasil, USA...

That would be true if CIV = Real life.

 

[Swedishguy]

That would be true if CIV = Real life.

Hehehe.

I wonder how european countries discussion became turned into a discussion of landsize. C'mon people, back to topic!

 

[Winner]

OK, then I'll modify my questions. Since when has large land size = global political power? The reason I ask is that you seemed to imply that without joining Europe countries like the UK would struggle to make an impact on the World stage against countries like Brazil or Nigeria. I don't think that's true. It's the ability to assert influence that matters. Not land size.

I meant the population.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Hehehe.

I wonder how european countries discussion became turned into a discussion of landsize. C'mon people, back to topic!

Because it is believed that it's increased size is perhaps related to how influential the EU Member States are. It's not something I agree with, but it's well on topic.

I meant the population.

Ok, then it's the ability to influence not population that matters.

 

[Winner]

Ok, then it's the ability to influence not population that matters.

No.

The ability to influence is heavily dependant on your overall power which in turn is dependant on many factors, one of which is the size of your population.

It is all interconnected. I don't say that if you have a huge population, you're a superpower, that wouldn't be true. I say that if you have a large population, you have much better chance to be superpower. Just look at China and India.

European countries will matter only if they join in some supra-national entity, otherwise they'll not be a meaningful player in the global arena.

 

[Steph]

The ability to influence is heavily dependant on your ... the size of your population.

Vatican being a good example of that.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

The ability to influence is heavily dependant on your overall power which in turn is dependant on many factors, one of which is the size of your population.

It is all interconnected. I don't say that if you have a huge population, you're a superpower, that wouldn't be true. I say that if you have a large population, you have much better chance to be superpower. Just look at China and India.

I don't believe that's true. Whilst I do think that Britian's future should lie in Europe, rather than the half-arsed attempt it's making now, I don't believe that we will be vastly more influential as a result. Nor do I believe that the countries you originally listed will eventually become influential simply because they have an increased population.

India and China are good examples. True, they are powerful now, but for years they have not been. Besides, there are many in China and India that are obviously surplus to requirements. I'd prefer to be where I am right now.

European countries will matter only if they join in some supra-national entity, otherwise they'll not be a meaningful player in the global arena.

Yet the more powerful nations have been influential for many years previously without being part of the European Union. Which countries did you mean?

 

[Winner]

Vatican being a good example of that.

Shoot the nitpickers

Vatican is more like HQ of some huge multi-national corporation. It is a state in name only.

 

[REDY]

That would be true if CIV = Real life.

I was always talking about Civ
The true is that UK + Ireland + France + Germany + Luxembourg + Belgium + Netherlands + Sweden + Finland + Denmark + Portugal + Spain + Italy + Greece + Czech Republic + Poland + Slovakia + Hungary + Lithuania + Latvia + Estonia + Austria + Slovenia is more than any European state alone.

 

[Brighteye]

I dont feel threatened by the EU. Mainly because theres nothing to be threatened about.

And china and india arent really going to invade anyone. India and china already have more people then they can effectively manage.

Lebensraum

 

[Winner]

I don't believe that's true. Whilst I do think that Britian's future should lie in Europe, rather than the half-arsed attempt it's making now, I don't believe that we will be vastly more influential as a result. Nor do I believe that the countries you originally listed will eventually become influential simply because they have an increased population.

OK, simply imagine that there is the same living standard in all countries. Which economy will be bigger - the Chinese on or the British one? Of course the Chinese one. Population is an asset you may or may capitalize on.

India and China are good examples. True, they are powerful now, but for years they have not been. Besides, there are many in China and India that are obviously surplus to requirements. I'd prefer to be where I am right now.

China is not yet fully developed. But when they reach half of the current EU level of development, their economy will be bigger than the US one and when they reach the current EU level of developemt, their economy will be bigger than EU and US combined. Now count in India and you see, what I mean.

Yet the more powerful nations have been influential for many years previously without being part of the European Union. Which countries did you mean?

That was possible only because the rest of the world missed the train of industrial revolution. It gave Europeans a major advantage and they capitalized on it.

But this is the past.

 

[Millman]

Why does anything compare...

competition

I want to prove I'm better than you.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

OK, simply imagine that there is the same living standard in all countries. Which economy will be bigger - the Chinese on or the British one? Of course the Chinese one. Population is an asset you may or may capitalize on.

China is not yet fully developed. But when they reach half of the current EU level of development, their economy will be bigger than the US one and when they reach the current EU level of developemt, their economy will be bigger than EU and US combined. Now count in India and you see, what I mean.

That was possible only because the rest of the world missed the train of industrial revolution. It gave Europeans a major advantage and they capitalized on it.

But this is the past.

I agree that the UK is likely to be more influential as a Member of the EU. Asserting that influence though will perhaps be more difficult as it has to compromise with other members.

I don't think that having a large population alone will inevitably equate to greater influence but I accept your argument that if it is capitalised upon it can set a country up to be able to assert influence in the future.

Touche