5 ms·

This is why I think the EU is a dangerous idea. It has become this truism that we are stronger together. No, we are not. Europe conquered the world, because we

This is why I think the EU is a dangerous idea. It has become this truism that we are stronger together. No, we are not. Europe conquered the world, because we were divided. Our strength came from our division not our unity. Random events always happen. Every country will always experience a random bad leader. It will happen sooner or later. What is best then to have a land area unified into one or split into 10 different countries? One bad leader among 10 occasionally will not pull the whole area down. One bad leader for the whole area can pull the whole area into the dark ages. Consider the Chinese emperor which banned all Chinese naval exploration and trade? That could never happen in contemporary Europe, because if your country got such a dumb leader your neighbors would quickly outcompete you and it would become very obvious how stupid that decision was within short time. Being political divided is thus a good insurance against doom. Imagine someone like Hitler rising to power in a unified Europe? There would be no way to counter his madness. That is why I think that China's rise today will eventually end up being a temporary thing. It will eventually stagnate, because China doesn't have anything to clearly challenge it. I also think this will be America's downfall in the end. We can already see an almost Chinese way of seeing the world in America. Instead of Mandate of Heaven, we got American exceptionalism, which means America is very poor at absorbing ideas from abroad. The thinking is always that America is best and has nothing to learn from the foreigners. Not all that different from the Chinese view when the British came knocking on their door. What is great about Europe is that we got this big playground for political and society experiments. Different countries try out widely different models for society. I see this among Nordic countries as a microcosmos. Each country try out different ideas and then we copy what works from each other. Many of the policies e.g. enacted in my home country Norway has previously been tried out in Denmark or Sweden.

partycoder 10y ago
World War 2 was one of the last major conflicts involving most of Europe. What happened after World War 2? Europe became dominated by the US and the Soviet Union. They ceased to be truly independent. Through the United Nations, the US made wars of aggression illegal. This is mostly to avoid another world war. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II
jwhitlark 10y ago
I'm not sure why you think America is bad at absorbing foreign ideas. Roughly 10% of the population is foreign born; successfully absorbing people and ideas is what America is all about. I'd say it's the driver of American exceptionalism, not limited by it.
supergarfield 10y ago
This is a good point, but I am fairly sure there is a balance to reach here. The EU is currently politically extremely weak, with national veto powers widespread: see how Wallonia, only a part of a small country, was able to significantly delay CETA ratification, and could probably have cancelled it; how large EU economies (Germany, France, semi-formerly the UK, and probably Italy and the Netherlands) all have veto power in practice; how some countries (Poland and Hungary come to mind) pretty much ignore some rules with little being done against it. What would it even mean, in the current state of the EU, for "a Hitler to rise to power in it"? First, he would have to be supported by a large number of member states (in which case it would be likely that even without the existence of the EU, that sort of leader would have become widespread in Europe), and then, he would be president of the European Parliament? Of the European Commission? I doubt he would be very harmful there, except possibly to the EU as an institution. I believe the EU can (and probably should) integrate quite a bit further before the problems you raise can realistically happen. I think member states should be given lots of freedom in non-foreign-policy, non-budgetary choices (as they currently are), which leaves a lot of room for the experimentation you describe, and less power to individually veto negotiations that are much more effective when Europe acts as a block. No-one wants to have to certify their cars or get an insurance license 27 times to service 20 million people on average each time. As a last resort against utterly stupid decisions or policies, of course, member states are always free to leave.
- jwhitlark 10y ago
  Actually, I think that a great deal of America's success is because member states are NOT free to leave. Otherwise, they can abandon each other when it becomes convenient. Edit since I can't reply. It's hard to imagine, but it wasn't always so, and rich states always have a net tax outflow to poorer states. It's the political equivalent of burning your ships; you have to make it work, for no other course is survivable. Slavery and economics forced the question, but the American Civil War was first and foremost to answer the question: can a state leave? Note this is only about your last sentence, I agree with all the rest.
  - supergarfield 10y ago
metafunctor 10y ago
The whole point of the EU is piece among the European nations. That's hardly a “dangerous idea”. I don't think peace and competition have to be at odds. We can still have relatively independent states with different ideals and cultures, without having to actually start killing each other by the millions. And if that's impossible, well, I'll move to the United States, or possibly Mars.
novaleaf 10y ago
Worth thinking about: Corporations. in my mind, that gives every national union (EU included) the "strength through division" you are talking about, but without all that other geopolitical risk.

partycoder 10y ago

World War 2 was one of the last major conflicts involving most of Europe. What happened after World War 2? Europe became dominated by the US and the Soviet Union. They ceased to be truly independent. Through the United Nations, the US made wars of aggression illegal. This is mostly to avoid another world war. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II

jwhitlark 10y ago

I'm not sure why you think America is bad at absorbing foreign ideas. Roughly 10% of the population is foreign born; successfully absorbing people and ideas is what America is all about. I'd say it's the driver of American exceptionalism, not limited by it.

supergarfield 10y ago

This is a good point, but I am fairly sure there is a balance to reach here. The EU is currently politically extremely weak, with national veto powers widespread: see how Wallonia, only a part of a small country, was able to significantly delay CETA ratification, and could probably have cancelled it; how large EU economies (Germany, France, semi-formerly the UK, and probably Italy and the Netherlands) all have veto power in practice; how some countries (Poland and Hungary come to mind) pretty much ignore some rules with little being done against it. What would it even mean, in the current state of the EU, for "a Hitler to rise to power in it"? First, he would have to be supported by a large number of member states (in which case it would be likely that even without the existence of the EU, that sort of leader would have become widespread in Europe), and then, he would be president of the European Parliament? Of the European Commission? I doubt he would be very harmful there, except possibly to the EU as an institution. I believe the EU can (and probably should) integrate quite a bit further before the problems you raise can realistically happen. I think member states should be given lots of freedom in non-foreign-policy, non-budgetary choices (as they currently are), which leaves a lot of room for the experimentation you describe, and less power to individually veto negotiations that are much more effective when Europe acts as a block. No-one wants to have to certify their cars or get an insurance license 27 times to service 20 million people on average each time. As a last resort against utterly stupid decisions or policies, of course, member states are always free to leave.

jwhitlark 10y ago
Actually, I think that a great deal of America's success is because member states are NOT free to leave. Otherwise, they can abandon each other when it becomes convenient. Edit since I can't reply. It's hard to imagine, but it wasn't always so, and rich states always have a net tax outflow to poorer states. It's the political equivalent of burning your ships; you have to make it work, for no other course is survivable. Slavery and economics forced the question, but the American Civil War was first and foremost to answer the question: can a state leave? Note this is only about your last sentence, I agree with all the rest.
- supergarfield 10y ago

metafunctor 10y ago

The whole point of the EU is piece among the European nations. That's hardly a “dangerous idea”. I don't think peace and competition have to be at odds. We can still have relatively independent states with different ideals and cultures, without having to actually start killing each other by the millions. And if that's impossible, well, I'll move to the United States, or possibly Mars.

novaleaf 10y ago

Worth thinking about: Corporations. in my mind, that gives every national union (EU included) the "strength through division" you are talking about, but without all that other geopolitical risk.