3 ms·

EU was established to provide mutual economic and military security in Europe on a federal model following WW2, and it's done very well in that aim. Of course i

EU was established to provide mutual economic and military security in Europe on a federal model following WW2, and it's done very well in that aim. Of course it's not perfect, but shallow takes like the one above provide nothing of value.

marcinzm 2y ago
> military security Wasn't that NATO (aka mostly the US)?
- nielsole 2y ago
  Treaty on European union 42.7 If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
- magicalhippo 2y ago
  There's also the point that countries with close economic ties have more to lose by going to war with each other.
  - sham1 2y ago
    It's a necessary component of this sort of idea, but clearly it's not sufficient. I mean, we have had Russia in war with Ukraine for about a decade now, beginning at the annexation of Crimea, even though they had fairly good trade relations, even if they were hurt once Maidan happened. I think that one needs strong economic ties, but it seems to only truly work with democratic societies.
  - account42 2y ago
    A point fully disproven by Putin by now.
    - magicalhippo 2y ago
      I don't think that's right. Economic interdependence is a deterrent against war, not an absolute barrier. If you can easily swap trade partners for example, it's less of a deterrent. Which is one of the reasons why EU has gone beyond simple import/export agreements.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Kinda, but NATO is (imho) more about external threats. I think part of the EU's founding vision was to prevent further intra-European wars, in which it has been largely successful.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
switch007 2y ago
Following WW2? The European Union was established in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty
- adammarples 2y ago
  The EU is an evolution of the EEC which is much older. The whole federation as a concept was made after and in response to WWII
  - switch007 2y ago
    A significant and huge evolution. That's why they have separate names
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    The European Coal and Steel Community wasn't meant to be a political federation, as the name shows. Nor was the European Economic Community to give it its full name. The concept of the ECSC/EEC/EU as a political federation was always a goal of some small number of federalists (mostly in the beginning communists who were imprisoned on Ventotene during the war), but they didn't have any support for that from the people of Europe themselves, which is why the history of the EU is full of the people building it saying explicitly that they have to lie about their true intentions and can only expand its powers during a crisis. Certainly there was absolutely no intent anywhere immediately after WW2 to create a political federation. Far from it.
    - adammarples 2y ago
      Yes, Jean Monnet, pretty much the founding father of the EU, said this in 1943 “There will be no peace in Europe if the States are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty, with all that that entails in terms of prestige politics and economic protectionism. The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the prosperity that modern conditions make possible and consequently necessary. Prosperity for the States of Europe and the social developments that must go with it will only be possible if they form a federation or a "European entity" that makes them into a common economic unit.” Federation was always the goal and it was in direct response to WWII.
ffgjgf1 2y ago
> established to provide mutual economic and military security in Europe Yes and it was/is very successful at that. The overpaid and incompetent bureaucracy in Brussels seems to be mostly tangential if not detrimental to that. Also to be fair your take is also very shallow and provides little value.
seydor 2y ago
For military and political security there is NATO. The EU's mutual defense clause is an empty shell
- clemiclemen 2y ago
  The implicit line here is that if there is peace, then there is military security. And the EU has been pretty good at providing that within its borders (compared to the history of wars between countries of the EU).
belter 2y ago
> shallow takes like the one above provide nothing of value. The previous Portuguese PM António Costa, who had to resign amid a corruption inquiry...Has just been announced today for an EU role that will triplicate his previous annual salary as Portuguese prime minister "Portuguese PM António Costa resigns amid corruption probe" - https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-prime-minister-antonio-costa-resigns/#:~:text=Longtime%20Socialist%20leader%20steps%20down%20after%20police%20put%20him%20under%20investigation.&text=Portuguese%20Prime%20Minister%20Ant%C3%B3nio%20Costa,investigated%20under%20a%20corruption%20probe https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-prime-minister-anto.... "Portugal's Antonio Costa expected to be next head of European Council" - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/portugals-antonio-costa-expected-be-next-head-european-council-2024-06-17/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/portugals-antonio-costa... "...Costa's appetite for a top European position has been an open secret for years. In March 2022, amid speculation Costa was angling for a Brussels job, Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa warned him that he would call an election if he were to leave his post early..." It is a graft and of the worst kind, and naive takes like yours is what led to scenarios like Brexit. It's a jobs for the boys organization and you are not part of the club.

marcinzm 2y ago

> military security Wasn't that NATO (aka mostly the US)?

nielsole 2y ago
Treaty on European union 42.7 If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
magicalhippo 2y ago
There's also the point that countries with close economic ties have more to lose by going to war with each other.
- sham1 2y ago
  It's a necessary component of this sort of idea, but clearly it's not sufficient. I mean, we have had Russia in war with Ukraine for about a decade now, beginning at the annexation of Crimea, even though they had fairly good trade relations, even if they were hurt once Maidan happened. I think that one needs strong economic ties, but it seems to only truly work with democratic societies.
- account42 2y ago
  A point fully disproven by Putin by now.
  - magicalhippo 2y ago
    I don't think that's right. Economic interdependence is a deterrent against war, not an absolute barrier. If you can easily swap trade partners for example, it's less of a deterrent. Which is one of the reasons why EU has gone beyond simple import/export agreements.
anigbrowl 2y ago
Kinda, but NATO is (imho) more about external threats. I think part of the EU's founding vision was to prevent further intra-European wars, in which it has been largely successful.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

switch007 2y ago

Following WW2? The European Union was established in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty

adammarples 2y ago
The EU is an evolution of the EEC which is much older. The whole federation as a concept was made after and in response to WWII
- switch007 2y ago
  A significant and huge evolution. That's why they have separate names
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  The European Coal and Steel Community wasn't meant to be a political federation, as the name shows. Nor was the European Economic Community to give it its full name. The concept of the ECSC/EEC/EU as a political federation was always a goal of some small number of federalists (mostly in the beginning communists who were imprisoned on Ventotene during the war), but they didn't have any support for that from the people of Europe themselves, which is why the history of the EU is full of the people building it saying explicitly that they have to lie about their true intentions and can only expand its powers during a crisis. Certainly there was absolutely no intent anywhere immediately after WW2 to create a political federation. Far from it.
  - adammarples 2y ago
    Yes, Jean Monnet, pretty much the founding father of the EU, said this in 1943 “There will be no peace in Europe if the States are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty, with all that that entails in terms of prestige politics and economic protectionism. The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the prosperity that modern conditions make possible and consequently necessary. Prosperity for the States of Europe and the social developments that must go with it will only be possible if they form a federation or a "European entity" that makes them into a common economic unit.” Federation was always the goal and it was in direct response to WWII.

ffgjgf1 2y ago

> established to provide mutual economic and military security in Europe Yes and it was/is very successful at that. The overpaid and incompetent bureaucracy in Brussels seems to be mostly tangential if not detrimental to that. Also to be fair your take is also very shallow and provides little value.

seydor 2y ago

For military and political security there is NATO. The EU's mutual defense clause is an empty shell

clemiclemen 2y ago
The implicit line here is that if there is peace, then there is military security. And the EU has been pretty good at providing that within its borders (compared to the history of wars between countries of the EU).

belter 2y ago

> shallow takes like the one above provide nothing of value. The previous Portuguese PM António Costa, who had to resign amid a corruption inquiry...Has just been announced today for an EU role that will triplicate his previous annual salary as Portuguese prime minister "Portuguese PM António Costa resigns amid corruption probe" - https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-prime-minister-antonio-costa-resigns/#:~:text=Longtime%20Socialist%20leader%20steps%20down%20after%20police%20put%20him%20under%20investigation.&text=Portuguese%20Prime%20Minister%20Ant%C3%B3nio%20Costa,investigated%20under%20a%20corruption%20probe https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-prime-minister-anto.... "Portugal's Antonio Costa expected to be next head of European Council" - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/portugals-antonio-costa-expected-be-next-head-european-council-2024-06-17/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/portugals-antonio-costa... "...Costa's appetite for a top European position has been an open secret for years. In March 2022, amid speculation Costa was angling for a Brussels job, Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa warned him that he would call an election if he were to leave his post early..." It is a graft and of the worst kind, and naive takes like yours is what led to scenarios like Brexit. It's a jobs for the boys organization and you are not part of the club.