5 ms·

EU?

philwelch 3y ago
That's putting the cart before the horse; countries only join the EU after they're already politically aligned with the current membership. Turkey, for instance, has been kept out of the European Union precisely because of these types of concerns; a strategy of economic integration would have entailed allowing Turkey to join the EU in hopes that the EU would be a positive influence on the country. Edit: I'm being throttled so I'll respond to similar comments here. TheOtherHobbes similarly notes: > The EU. France and Germany used to be deadly enemies. No one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon. In particular, France and Germany weren't peacefully reconciled through economic integration. There was a war, and the victors of that war installed democratic governments in both France and West Germany and inducted both countries into a broader alliance. > Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about secession, but the economic complications make it an insane idea. It took about two decades after Texas was admitted to the union for the states to fight a civil war against each other. genman says: > Remember WW1? WW2? Not personally (I'm not that old) but those were not instances of economic integration easing military tensions; they were instances of extremely bloody world wars. And the First World War in particular was already deemed impossible because of the degree to which European economies were already economically integrated. That theory did not pan out. wolverine876: > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war. Again reversing cause and effect. The Allies won the Second World War and installed friendly governments across western Europe (and also in Greece); following this, those friendly governments formed the EU.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > countries only join the EU after they're already politically aligned with the current membership. The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. Not quite, the Western Union (predecessor to the EU by way of the was formed by the BeNeLux countries, the UK and France. Some of those were at war in preceding centuries but they were on the same side during WWI and WWII. It didn't have a lot of clout because very rapidly afterwards other more powerful institutions were formed and it was superceded. But it was more of a continuation of some of the collaboration that stemmed from being allies/liberators in the war than that they were on opposing sides. Later institutions included Germany and Italy as well.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      In Europe there have undoubtedly been international institutions going back a long way. Is what you're talking about really a blood ancestor of the EU, or is it a predecessor - another group that happened to have some of the same members. As I recall, Churchill was a strong proponent of the EU's [edit: I can't believe I used the wrong word:] ancestor (the European Communities? Some oil and coal community?), as a way to prevent further wars. Churchill blamed nationalism specifically.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I would say it was because there is a reasonably direct line of succession in terms of both members and responsibilities. The steel and coal union is also in that line. What happened is that the unification was seen as beneficial but that a larger body with a more future proof organization was what really was required.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        > What happened is that the unification was seen as beneficial but that a larger body with a more future proof organization was what really was required. You're saying the EU wasn't required? That seems like a bold statement, but probably too much to sort out in HN comments. I'm a bit confused by "but" in that sentence. I'm not sure if a 'not' or another word is missing there. Certainly many saw unification as beneficial - again, it was the key to many. Many still do.

EU?

That's putting the cart before the horse; countries only join the EU after they're already politically aligned with the current membership. Turkey, for instance, has been kept out of the European Union precisely because of these types of concerns; a strategy of economic integration would have entailed allowing Turkey to join the EU in hopes that the EU would be a positive influence on the country. Edit: I'm being throttled so I'll respond to similar comments here. TheOtherHobbes similarly notes: > The EU. France and Germany used to be deadly enemies. No one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon. In particular, France and Germany weren't peacefully reconciled through economic integration. There was a war, and the victors of that war installed democratic governments in both France and West Germany and inducted both countries into a broader alliance. > Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about secession, but the economic complications make it an insane idea. It took about two decades after Texas was admitted to the union for the states to fight a civil war against each other. genman says: > Remember WW1? WW2? Not personally (I'm not that old) but those were not instances of economic integration easing military tensions; they were instances of extremely bloody world wars. And the First World War in particular was already deemed impossible because of the degree to which European economies were already economically integrated. That theory did not pan out. wolverine876: > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war. Again reversing cause and effect. The Allies won the Second World War and installed friendly governments across western Europe (and also in Greece); following this, those friendly governments formed the EU.

wolverine876 3y ago
> countries only join the EU after they're already politically aligned with the current membership. The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. Not quite, the Western Union (predecessor to the EU by way of the was formed by the BeNeLux countries, the UK and France. Some of those were at war in preceding centuries but they were on the same side during WWI and WWII. It didn't have a lot of clout because very rapidly afterwards other more powerful institutions were formed and it was superceded. But it was more of a continuation of some of the collaboration that stemmed from being allies/liberators in the war than that they were on opposing sides. Later institutions included Germany and Italy as well.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    In Europe there have undoubtedly been international institutions going back a long way. Is what you're talking about really a blood ancestor of the EU, or is it a predecessor - another group that happened to have some of the same members. As I recall, Churchill was a strong proponent of the EU's [edit: I can't believe I used the wrong word:] ancestor (the European Communities? Some oil and coal community?), as a way to prevent further wars. Churchill blamed nationalism specifically.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      I would say it was because there is a reasonably direct line of succession in terms of both members and responsibilities. The steel and coal union is also in that line. What happened is that the unification was seen as beneficial but that a larger body with a more future proof organization was what really was required.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > What happened is that the unification was seen as beneficial but that a larger body with a more future proof organization was what really was required. You're saying the EU wasn't required? That seems like a bold statement, but probably too much to sort out in HN comments. I'm a bit confused by "but" in that sentence. I'm not sure if a 'not' or another word is missing there. Certainly many saw unification as beneficial - again, it was the key to many. Many still do.