5 ms·

My favorite factoid: the Baby Boomers are the first generation to go from birth to retirement (and I might hope: to death) without witnessing a war along the Rh

My favorite factoid: the Baby Boomers are the first generation to go from birth to retirement (and I might hope: to death) without witnessing a war along the Rhine. The first, that is, since the death of Charlemagne. The EU has its issues, but its core accomplishment is a singularity.

nickik 10y ago
Why is everybody so certain that the EU is the reason for this? Many other things changed in the same time England, France, Germany were no longer the powers they were before. The US and Russia dominated. There were nuclear weapons. The internal politics of many of these nations changed quite a bit as well. Idiotically changes of the people and even the political elites changed. Also the EU has not always been the EU it has now. There were many iterations and those that are against the EU might not be against the general idea of a more united EU but rather against a specific iteration of these contracts. These other visions of the EU might also have prevented war (and they might have in the time they were active).
- raverbashing 10y ago
  > that are against the EU might not be against the general idea of a more united EU but rather against a specific iteration of these contracts. You're right, but then pushing for leaving or dismantling is cutting off the nose to spite the face
  - nickik 10y ago
    It depends. The questions is about institutional reform and how possible it is. I do not think the current EU will evolve in a good direction. I prefer countries to leave and establish new bilateral treaties along the same lines. Maybe after the EU has failed we can have a new attempted that people will actually get on board with.
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      While I think that the EU should not (and if they try they won't be able to) try and become a "super country" and the bureaucracy can be excessive (but some of it is needed) it's a good idea in principle > I prefer countries to leave and establish new bilateral treaties along the same lines So that they have all the obligations of a member but no say on the discussions?
      - nickik 10y ago
        > So that they have all the obligations of a member but no say on the discussions? Not sure what you mean. Bilateral treats that are single purpose have many advantages over tying everything into a centralized superstructure. It would be far better if people could vote on these individually and accept or reject them as needed. This is hardly possible with the current EU.
        raverbashing 10y ago
        Bilateral treaties between n countries would mean a total of n*(n-1)/2 deals If you have more than 3 countries, it's useful to have a common set of rules instead of just bilateralizing all deals (Which doesn't mean all rules really need to be centralized, not all EU countries adopt the Euro, for example However, when you sign a BT with the EU, your power on the decisions is diminished, but you still have to pay to be an "associated member" (that's what I meant above)
- ocschwar 10y ago
  Because one thing the EU established and maintained is the principle that countries should compete for resources and economic position in the market place and not the battlefield. It's the one constant about the EU from 1957 to today. There are indeed other visions of the EU that might also have worked, and we might need to switch to one of them in the future. But they would still have that one central element.
- baq 10y ago
  EU was built on the ECSC which has been created with preventing war as one of its primary goals: > The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible" which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step. The Treaty would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states which served to neutralise competition between European nations over natural resources, particularly in the Ruhr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun... it is a spectacular success by this measure. there were other factors contributing, of course, but free trade is the primary one.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    I must have missed the history class about the wars Europe waged with the UK in the 50s & 60s? /s The reality is that the cold war prevented intra-EU state wars, not the EU. Shared enemy. If you had to point at something, isn't Nato a more likely candidate than ECSC? In my view the EU's taking credit for other people's achievements.
  - nickik 10y ago
    Just because that was the idea does not prove causation. Increasing trade was unlikely to be a negative but its far from prove.
coldtea 10y ago
It's not an accomplishment of EU, it's because of the reduced significance of European powers. When England and France and Germany etc fought, they were huge colonial powers (or wannabe powers), controlling large parts of the world. So they were in competition, and there were great stakes from the outcomes of such battles. After the 50s or so such a war would have been insignificant as they don't have much to split. And of course Germany was in diapers and closely parented, split into Eastern and Western Germany. So the US and USSR took their place on the global arena, as major powers that competed with one another at a global scale (and thus justified a Cold and several warmer proxy wars). For the periphery of Europe (e.g. Balkans and Eastern Europe) there was another reason for the early 20th century wars: there were many nation states formed quite late and still fighting to define their borders and control. After they have solidified into a more or less homogeneous population and solid borders, there was less reason that war (and if there was one, it would be civil war). But unlike the global ingignificance of the old colonial powers (which doesn't seem to reverse course), the above balkanization might re-appear again, in the form of a split between the "native" population and a large, not-really-assimilated immigrant population in some countries -- which, in 2030 or 2050 or so, can turn into wars between those parts of the population.
- louhike 10y ago
  England, France and Germany (or HRE) fought before being colonial powers. They fought a lot of times even when they were just regional (the region being Europe) powers.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >They fought a lot of times even when they were just regional (the region being Europe) powers. Which is part of my argument: they fought on their way up, to secure dominance in Europe, and then went on to divide the world between then (or failed to, like Germany). I also mention something similar later, when writing about Eastern Europe, that nation there's also fought as they developed to define their borders and reach, until those "solidified".
    - 10y ago

nickik 10y ago

Why is everybody so certain that the EU is the reason for this? Many other things changed in the same time England, France, Germany were no longer the powers they were before. The US and Russia dominated. There were nuclear weapons. The internal politics of many of these nations changed quite a bit as well. Idiotically changes of the people and even the political elites changed. Also the EU has not always been the EU it has now. There were many iterations and those that are against the EU might not be against the general idea of a more united EU but rather against a specific iteration of these contracts. These other visions of the EU might also have prevented war (and they might have in the time they were active).

raverbashing 10y ago
> that are against the EU might not be against the general idea of a more united EU but rather against a specific iteration of these contracts. You're right, but then pushing for leaving or dismantling is cutting off the nose to spite the face
- nickik 10y ago
  It depends. The questions is about institutional reform and how possible it is. I do not think the current EU will evolve in a good direction. I prefer countries to leave and establish new bilateral treaties along the same lines. Maybe after the EU has failed we can have a new attempted that people will actually get on board with.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    While I think that the EU should not (and if they try they won't be able to) try and become a "super country" and the bureaucracy can be excessive (but some of it is needed) it's a good idea in principle > I prefer countries to leave and establish new bilateral treaties along the same lines So that they have all the obligations of a member but no say on the discussions?
    - nickik 10y ago
      > So that they have all the obligations of a member but no say on the discussions? Not sure what you mean. Bilateral treats that are single purpose have many advantages over tying everything into a centralized superstructure. It would be far better if people could vote on these individually and accept or reject them as needed. This is hardly possible with the current EU.
      - raverbashing 10y ago
        Bilateral treaties between n countries would mean a total of n*(n-1)/2 deals If you have more than 3 countries, it's useful to have a common set of rules instead of just bilateralizing all deals (Which doesn't mean all rules really need to be centralized, not all EU countries adopt the Euro, for example However, when you sign a BT with the EU, your power on the decisions is diminished, but you still have to pay to be an "associated member" (that's what I meant above)
ocschwar 10y ago
Because one thing the EU established and maintained is the principle that countries should compete for resources and economic position in the market place and not the battlefield. It's the one constant about the EU from 1957 to today. There are indeed other visions of the EU that might also have worked, and we might need to switch to one of them in the future. But they would still have that one central element.
baq 10y ago
EU was built on the ECSC which has been created with preventing war as one of its primary goals: > The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible" which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step. The Treaty would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states which served to neutralise competition between European nations over natural resources, particularly in the Ruhr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun... it is a spectacular success by this measure. there were other factors contributing, of course, but free trade is the primary one.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  I must have missed the history class about the wars Europe waged with the UK in the 50s & 60s? /s The reality is that the cold war prevented intra-EU state wars, not the EU. Shared enemy. If you had to point at something, isn't Nato a more likely candidate than ECSC? In my view the EU's taking credit for other people's achievements.
- nickik 10y ago
  Just because that was the idea does not prove causation. Increasing trade was unlikely to be a negative but its far from prove.

coldtea 10y ago

It's not an accomplishment of EU, it's because of the reduced significance of European powers. When England and France and Germany etc fought, they were huge colonial powers (or wannabe powers), controlling large parts of the world. So they were in competition, and there were great stakes from the outcomes of such battles. After the 50s or so such a war would have been insignificant as they don't have much to split. And of course Germany was in diapers and closely parented, split into Eastern and Western Germany. So the US and USSR took their place on the global arena, as major powers that competed with one another at a global scale (and thus justified a Cold and several warmer proxy wars). For the periphery of Europe (e.g. Balkans and Eastern Europe) there was another reason for the early 20th century wars: there were many nation states formed quite late and still fighting to define their borders and control. After they have solidified into a more or less homogeneous population and solid borders, there was less reason that war (and if there was one, it would be civil war). But unlike the global ingignificance of the old colonial powers (which doesn't seem to reverse course), the above balkanization might re-appear again, in the form of a split between the "native" population and a large, not-really-assimilated immigrant population in some countries -- which, in 2030 or 2050 or so, can turn into wars between those parts of the population.

louhike 10y ago
England, France and Germany (or HRE) fought before being colonial powers. They fought a lot of times even when they were just regional (the region being Europe) powers.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >They fought a lot of times even when they were just regional (the region being Europe) powers. Which is part of my argument: they fought on their way up, to secure dominance in Europe, and then went on to divide the world between then (or failed to, like Germany). I also mention something similar later, when writing about Eastern Europe, that nation there's also fought as they developed to define their borders and reach, until those "solidified".
  - 10y ago