3 ms·

> shitshow Compared to what large bureaucracy? US federal government? China? India? UN? I'd say EU is about as sane as these things go. Large bureaucracies ten

> shitshow Compared to what large bureaucracy? US federal government? China? India? UN? I'd say EU is about as sane as these things go. Large bureaucracies tend to be a little crazy. And as for the merits of it: NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative. It is hard to imagine basically all EU members reassembling a military union outside of the EU. Which would put Norway and the UK in a tight spot. As to the costs, it's the usual tradeoffs. EU has single set of rules, which in practice Norway has to accept without a seat at the table - they literally say that in TFA. That's already some sovereignty outsourced. They are considering swapping it for a vote. Also the single diplomacy aspect is massive when dealing with Trump. EU can apply counter-tarriffs much more easily than a non-EU country.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? It's a regulatory one.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  > The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? The EU has it's own version of NATOs article 5, it's the "Mutual defence clause", but people tend to forget that. From the excerpt: > This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
  - tfourb 2y ago
    The EU mutual defense clause is even stronger than Article V of the NATO treaty: Nato Treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Translation: Every NATO member can bloody well decide for themselves ("as it deems necessary") how to help another member state. Article 42/7 of the EU treaty: "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." Translation: You got to give it everything you got ("all means in their power"). If Ukraine had been an EU member, the treaty would have required other EU member states to send ground troops. Of course, international treaties can not be enforced, if the treaty parties don't want to comply. So in reality, both treaties rely on mutual accepted norms of behavior more than on the letter of the law. Which is why Trump's behavior has been so damaging to the NATO alliance, without any actual test of it. And while the EU's treaty is worded stronger than NATO's, it has never been formally used or tested.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    People don't see the EU as a suicide pact so it wont function as one.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  There's a growing concern that the US would not defend its allies, or worse, join Russia in a European war. So, right or wrong, Europe is thinking of building an alternative. It would require not only military, but also political coordination. The options are to do it within, or outside the EU. Within the EU, it is somewhat straightforward. As a sibling comment says, there is already a vague commitment to mutual defence. There is a forum for political discussion, common diplomacy, mechanisms for coordinating industrial policy, the works. And any changes could be seen as incremental strengthening of an existing thing. To do it outside of the EU, most of all, makes the original concern explicit - it is saying US has left the NATO. This is in no-one's benefit. Even ambiguous US participation is valuable to Europe. The other downside is that, as is, a EU "NATO" can't easily include UK and Norway, both valuable allies. Which is maybe what Norway wants to address here.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  Ah but that's exactly what the EU is trying to do, me thinks. They are using the curcumstances as an opportunity and pretext to involve themselves in military issues, perhaps even to propose full-on EU forces soon.
coffeebeqn 2y ago
I don’t think the EU is the best second option after NATO if the US were to leave. You’d leave out UK, Turkey, Canada, possible Asian allies, etc. which would make it quite a bit weaker than it could be
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  Well, that's indeed the prime issue - but also I suspect why Norway is even considering is. There were also some noises about Canada considering EU membership (!). Turkey would be a hard nut though, especially with the recent activities. I mean, when there's will, there's a way. It could notionally be an EU organisation, with third-party affiliates, a bit like ESA or Horizon. But even then, I posit that it is more convenient to have it notionally be a unit of the EU for most EU members - and by extension, most NATO-ex-US countries.
  - coffeebeqn 2y ago
    It would be a problem for also any EU country with an actually functioning armed forces or some semblance of hard power strategy like Poland or Finland. Would they want to hand over the reins to a EU army that probably sucks and put their national security in the hands of countries or bureaucrats who have no clue about Russia or war fighting post WW2
hagbard_c 2y ago
> Compared to what large bureaucracy? ... Large bureaucracies tend to be a little crazy. So there's a good reason not to subject yourself to large bureaucracies any more than you have to. > NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative Not really, Norway is already part of NORDEFCO and the Nordic Council, they're not 'alone'.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  > So there's a good reason not to subject yourself to large bureaucracies any more than you have to. Some things require scale. As I say elsewhere in the thread, UK left for this very reason and is worse off in every single metric they were hoping to improve - GDP growth, immigration control, quality of governance, environmental concerns, amount of red tape... The workings of a bureaucracy are not the same as the final outputs. IMO and IME the quality of EU outputs is generally high.
  - gghhzzgghhzz 2y ago
    as a standards body, yes some of the output is high. I think it serves a useful function. on the macro level though I can't see it myself. EU area had everything going for it in terms of being able to make drastic progressive shifts forward in multiple areas. but instead since 2008 its been doing little but dealing with the contradictions of its own self-imposed constraints. be that debt crisis, energy policy, fortress border policy, emigration issues, Brexit and endless political dramas over reactionary political movements. It's now fixated with re-armament, something that threatens to produce yet another lost decade. Meanwhile, China and other parts of Asia have taken these same 20 years to create entire new sectors and lead the world in them.
    - rich_sasha 2y ago
      Yeah, Europe needs to find its mojo again, that's for sure. But I wouldn't blame the EU for that. There was a general preference for consumption vs investment, if anything the EU was driving investment more than member states. The rearmament might actually inject a good chunk of investment - let's see.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? It's a regulatory one.

mrweasel 2y ago
> The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? The EU has it's own version of NATOs article 5, it's the "Mutual defence clause", but people tend to forget that. From the excerpt: > This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
- tfourb 2y ago
  The EU mutual defense clause is even stronger than Article V of the NATO treaty: Nato Treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Translation: Every NATO member can bloody well decide for themselves ("as it deems necessary") how to help another member state. Article 42/7 of the EU treaty: "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." Translation: You got to give it everything you got ("all means in their power"). If Ukraine had been an EU member, the treaty would have required other EU member states to send ground troops. Of course, international treaties can not be enforced, if the treaty parties don't want to comply. So in reality, both treaties rely on mutual accepted norms of behavior more than on the letter of the law. Which is why Trump's behavior has been so damaging to the NATO alliance, without any actual test of it. And while the EU's treaty is worded stronger than NATO's, it has never been formally used or tested.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  People don't see the EU as a suicide pact so it wont function as one.
rich_sasha 2y ago
There's a growing concern that the US would not defend its allies, or worse, join Russia in a European war. So, right or wrong, Europe is thinking of building an alternative. It would require not only military, but also political coordination. The options are to do it within, or outside the EU. Within the EU, it is somewhat straightforward. As a sibling comment says, there is already a vague commitment to mutual defence. There is a forum for political discussion, common diplomacy, mechanisms for coordinating industrial policy, the works. And any changes could be seen as incremental strengthening of an existing thing. To do it outside of the EU, most of all, makes the original concern explicit - it is saying US has left the NATO. This is in no-one's benefit. Even ambiguous US participation is valuable to Europe. The other downside is that, as is, a EU "NATO" can't easily include UK and Norway, both valuable allies. Which is maybe what Norway wants to address here.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
Ah but that's exactly what the EU is trying to do, me thinks. They are using the curcumstances as an opportunity and pretext to involve themselves in military issues, perhaps even to propose full-on EU forces soon.

coffeebeqn 2y ago

I don’t think the EU is the best second option after NATO if the US were to leave. You’d leave out UK, Turkey, Canada, possible Asian allies, etc. which would make it quite a bit weaker than it could be

rich_sasha 2y ago
Well, that's indeed the prime issue - but also I suspect why Norway is even considering is. There were also some noises about Canada considering EU membership (!). Turkey would be a hard nut though, especially with the recent activities. I mean, when there's will, there's a way. It could notionally be an EU organisation, with third-party affiliates, a bit like ESA or Horizon. But even then, I posit that it is more convenient to have it notionally be a unit of the EU for most EU members - and by extension, most NATO-ex-US countries.
- coffeebeqn 2y ago
  It would be a problem for also any EU country with an actually functioning armed forces or some semblance of hard power strategy like Poland or Finland. Would they want to hand over the reins to a EU army that probably sucks and put their national security in the hands of countries or bureaucrats who have no clue about Russia or war fighting post WW2

hagbard_c 2y ago

> Compared to what large bureaucracy? ... Large bureaucracies tend to be a little crazy. So there's a good reason not to subject yourself to large bureaucracies any more than you have to. > NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative Not really, Norway is already part of NORDEFCO and the Nordic Council, they're not 'alone'.

rich_sasha 2y ago
> So there's a good reason not to subject yourself to large bureaucracies any more than you have to. Some things require scale. As I say elsewhere in the thread, UK left for this very reason and is worse off in every single metric they were hoping to improve - GDP growth, immigration control, quality of governance, environmental concerns, amount of red tape... The workings of a bureaucracy are not the same as the final outputs. IMO and IME the quality of EU outputs is generally high.
- gghhzzgghhzz 2y ago
  as a standards body, yes some of the output is high. I think it serves a useful function. on the macro level though I can't see it myself. EU area had everything going for it in terms of being able to make drastic progressive shifts forward in multiple areas. but instead since 2008 its been doing little but dealing with the contradictions of its own self-imposed constraints. be that debt crisis, energy policy, fortress border policy, emigration issues, Brexit and endless political dramas over reactionary political movements. It's now fixated with re-armament, something that threatens to produce yet another lost decade. Meanwhile, China and other parts of Asia have taken these same 20 years to create entire new sectors and lead the world in them.
  - rich_sasha 2y ago
    Yeah, Europe needs to find its mojo again, that's for sure. But I wouldn't blame the EU for that. There was a general preference for consumption vs investment, if anything the EU was driving investment more than member states. The rearmament might actually inject a good chunk of investment - let's see.