[Comrade Ogilvy]

Well it has been occuring for some time but I was wondering how the EU's economic success or rise has faltered, Americas power and how would the USA try to counter this?

[Boondock Saint]

Well it has been occuring for some time but I was wondering how the EU's economic success or rise has faltered

I dont think so, its at such a young state that really all it can do is increase.

Americas power

I would say that Americas power has decreased due to its lack of influence with two very prominent European nations and its ever decreasing influence with the other European nations and lets not even talk about the image that the US has in Europe right now. Now, when I say power I should say influence ... as American power still remains strong in Europe as can be seen by the military bases present and those planned.

Militarily speaking on a globaly scale the US has never been more powerful save perhaps during WWII. The problem is that the US isnt up to the challenge ... with a professional volunteer military the US cannot properly control enough territory outside its own borders as it could if it had a conscript military ...

The manpower just isnt there unless the civilian population is tapped.

how would the USA try to counter this?

Well for one the US will invade nations to make sure it remains ahead of the EU in the economic game. The US doesnt want the EU to become an equal, the US wants the EU to be a little brother type entity ... so like we see in Iraq the US will invade another nation regardless of world opinion. The EU at this current time does not possess the fortitude nor the ability to do so ... nor is the EU unified in the sense that the US is ...

Not saying that the EU won't one day be as capable as the US in its ability to project military power ...

[Batko]

True.
Though,

The EU at this current time does not possess the fortitude nor the ability to do so ...

Maybe the Europeans just don't desire to do so...
(I mean the European people of course)

[Bonjour!]

EU is quickly becoming more powerful

[Hamilcar]

The EU has far less influence than it could.

[Bonjour!]

The EU has far less influence than it could.

After the EU expansion things will change.

Where are you from?

[Hamilcar]

After the EU expansion things will change.

Where are you from?

The forever EU-free Switzerland. But I'm currently in American "exile".

[Bonjour!]

After the EU expansion things will change.

Where are you from?

The forever EU-free Switzerland. But I'm currently in American "exile".

Don't be so sure that Schweiz is forever EU-free. However I must tell you that I am a Swissophile.

What do you mean you're currently in American exile? you live in the US right now, or you are an american who left?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The only thing I see coming out of the EU is hot air.
The EU is totally dependent on the US for military protection. By themselves and if you take out the Germans they have nothing. Germany has a pretty good military that could be vastly better but will not ever be because of monetary and political contraints.
The French? They are a military joke as always.
The EU military aspect does not even deserve discussion.

Now, I am one of those that does not believe the EU can nor will survive.
Estonians and Spaniards have nothing in common. This can be said all across the EU. It's not meant to disparage the Europeans but the fact is there. I think as long as things go well the EU will continue but if there is a serious economic or military crisis then it will fall appart.

The differences are glossed over constantly but are there for all to see.
Germans are not about to turn over their military to French Generals and the French are not about to allow German troops in any number into France.
It's telling that the Luftwaffe has a training base at Alamogordo, New Mexico and not in Europe!
I think that the EUs weakness is tying Britain to the US instead of Europe and that it keeps Britain out of the EU.
The EU is great shakes as a "common market" but that is where it ends.

Europeans are basking in the Pax Americana - bought and paid for by the US and maintained by US power, and talk big about their potential, but potential gets one nothing.
Dream all you want but Europe is totally dependent on the US for everything and is a complete ingrate of no worth as seen from my perspecive here in Texas.
One bombing in Spain and they turn tail and run like rabbits.
That pretty much says it all.
It certainly was not the EU that brought down the Soviet Union.
All Europeans know to do is talk. Talk and wish.

[Liberal]

True, EU is not strong enough.....yet.
EU is moving towards a federation. That means a stronger conncetion between the federal parts(states). Like it or no, the EU is becoming stronger each day. The EU forces were established last year. That is teh begguning of the cooperation on military basis. The furure of the European countries is in EU. I think that the majority of the people know that. The sucessful refferendums held in the new 10 show that clearly.
As for UK...well, that`s a different thing. We have Blair who is very pro-EU (compared to the previouse governments). But, because of the fact that USA is the major power now, Tony tries to make a balance between EU and USA (that`s what Britain is really good at, making balances). As for the terrorist attacks...well, they are a big problem for EU countries...and precortion is needed. EU is not that strong...yet.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

True, EU is not strong enough.....yet.

Never will be. The reason being is as I stated. The EU nations are way too disparate to ever closely unite.
That came out just before the US invaded Iraq. The most eastern nations in the EU, the smaller ones support the US while Germany and France did everything they could and still do everything they can to stab the US in the back. Both nations are good at that. Really good.
They talk big but the smaller nations know they are nothing but hot air and when push comes to shove they run to the US for help.
That help may be very slow in coming from now on. Americans are really fed up with the Europeans. We know where our friends are and Germany-France are not it.
Anyway, the EU looks pretty stupid with some nations having troops in Iraq while the biggest talkers do not.
That is in no way any indication of unity.
There never will be a really united Europe.
The proof is in the fact that the differences really come to light whenever a crisis appears.
United Europe is all talk.
The closer you look at the real differences the more problems you see.
Just ask Germans if they want a French General leading the Wehrmacht.

Or ask Belgians how they feel about German troops on their soil.
Or even funnier ask the French how they feel PAYING for a Euro army and all that.
France is wonderful in volunteering other nations but is very slow and very loath to actually do anything besides maybe send a battlion of troops somewhere IF the going is not too tough.
Otherwise they come crying to US.

Now, here is another indicator to kick around.
If the EU nations have nothing to worry about from other EU nations, why do they all have their separate military? Hmmmmm?
Why do they even need a military?

[Liberal]

As I said, EU is not strong enough...yet.
True, there are differences. That is what makes EU unique. The differences is what make European countries unite(apart from the economic, poltical and other benefitions...). I dont think that you are right about Germany and France...
Their cooperation and friendship is what made EU. They created EU in the first place (together with 4 other countries...Italy, Belgum, Holland Luxembourg..).
As for the separate millitary...well, as i said...EU is not a federation, yet.
The EU forces have been created, and they will be are the core of the EU army. We will be seeing much of EU in the future..

[Maxim Litvinov]

Rostem - I can see you got a High Distinction in Europe-Bashing but only a Credit in Logic.

Of course there's opposition to European Union. But in the course of twenty years, Europe as a united entity has come along in leaps and bounds, from the time where a common agricultural policy was novel to the status where there is a common currency, there are heavy restrictions on financial markets and there is a European Parliament which exercises more power in certain areas than national counterparts.

Now, this is not to say that European Union is a positive thing. But it is to admit that Europe is much more united than it once was. And really, some of the major hurdles - which were economic - have now been overcome by basically selling Europe's fiscal policy to a bunch of Brussels bankers.

You seem to be talking about foreign policy, however. There are a number of things to point out on this score. First, that the European POPULATIONS have been very unified in the Iraq war dispute. Simply put, every major European city has seen anti-war protests and no European country has had a majority supporting the war. This is one indicator of unity.

In terms of the unity of political administrations, well this is something that ebbs and flows. I mean, three years from now possible none of the UK, US, Australia or Spain will have governments who supported the Iraq war -- let alone small countries in Eastern Europe.

If you want to talk about political trends, then you have to look at the influences on foreign policy. Eastern Europe saw a great deal of American investment, and had Americans at the forefront of those advising former Soviet bloc nations how to reorganise their communities along free market, democratic lines. In the 1990s. Now this short-term connection from reconstruction with the US is starting to fade. NATO - as a Europeanised entity - is growing and the European Union is growing. Member states are economically bound to Europe. They are culturally integrated with Western Europe. In the long term, it seems this should facilitate a closer alliance than ever before.

So in terms of populations and administrations I think the European Union is only going to grow more integrated. The real question, perhaps, is what effect traditional ties of nationalism might have in stopping any complete integration. I suspect, in the end, there will be the facade of national autonomy, but that ultimately in the military area - just like in the economic one currently - nations of Europe will be closely united.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Rostem - I can see you got a High Distinction in Europe-Bashing but only a Credit in Logic.

Not at all. I simply point out how I see Europe.
The US and Canada have extremely close ties and share the longest undefended border in the world, but we are not about to unite.
There is a reason for that, even though both nations resemble each other very closely and have super-close economic ties. In a lot of ways US and Canada are a micro EU. We will work very closely, but we are not about to get married.
You Euros are nowhere near as close as the US and Canada but you want to talk about a union. Not in our lifetime.

Yes, Europe is more united today than ever before but that is because there are no external pressures and no crises. This is in no way any kind of a sign for unity since the entire planet is much closer today than what was only 50 years ago.
However, once you get past economics there are no ties that bind.
That is just the way it is with the US and Canada, who share the same language, the same peoples, the same economic status and many other similarities.
Europeans have a 3000 year history of animosity towards each other, have no common language, have disparate cultures and economic standing. Forget it.
Sure, on a trade and economic basis the EU will do fine, but I think you folks have gone about as far as possible.
This is not Euro bashing. It's the truth.
You accuse me of Eurobashing but you did not address the really important points I raised. You whistled right past them, hoping they will go away. The sins of the Germans have not been forgotten in the East, nor have the Belgians or Dutch. Yes, you can trade, but don't get too close. France is not every well liked by any Eurpean nation for a lot of reasons. The little nations have always had much to fear from Germany and France and for good reason. You don't brush that aside after only 60 years of peace. Sixty years of peace is nothing compared to the 3000 years on constant warfare on the European continent.
Don't get me wrong, I would not mind seeing a free and democratic Europe. I just happen to be a realist and don't think we have entered into any kind of age of Aquarius-Kumbayah kind of blissful existance.
War and calamity will again come to Europe. From what direction I do not know, but it's obvious the Moslems could come at you or the bear might wake up again or the starving Africans might get tired of starving.
You just never know.
Let's enjoy the peace and plenty we have, but don't expect it to last forever.
The US paid a terrible price for unity just about 140 years ago and the American states were always much closer than the EU nations will ever be.
So, for you Euros to think it's going to be a cakewalk is just a huge mistake. It's wishful thinking.

[Tesl]

Well it has been occuring for some time but I was wondering how the EU's economic success or rise has faltered, Americas power and how would the USA try to counter this?

since when has the EU been an economic success? Oddly enough i see the exact opposite.

The EU is a disaster waiting to happen; and i really hope to god we dont see it progressing much further. The only people who appear to be in favour of the EU are those who detest America, and that just isnt a good enough reason IMO. Im sure it will all collapse eventually; il probably just have to leave before it does

[Maxim Litvinov]

First - I am not European. I don't see how I inferred I was, but anyway.

You make a comparison between Canada and the US and the states of Europe. It is interesting, and deserves thought. To my mind, although there is a much greater cultural diversity between the European states, they are much more unified in terms of governance and economic ties. European states *already* have unified laws that US and Canada have never really considered.

These economic restrictions seriously curtail the ability of each nation in Europe to make 'non-unified' decisions - such as take out certain loans, impose tariffs and subsidies, restrict entry to the work force, change welfare policy, significantly change health and education policy etc. When comparing these effects to the rather limited effects on governance that NAFTA requires, it is a joke to call the US and Canada a 'micro EU'. My point about the EU has consistently been - no matter how improbable you might hypothetically think Union is, the fact is that the political integration of European states is far in advance that which has not even be contemplated yet in North America.

Again - this is not to triumph the idea of Union as a good one. This is just a straight comparison of levels of integration. Sure Canada and the US basically speak the same language. But lack of cultural integration has posed few barriers for the EU thus far.

Now, you think I am dismissing the animosity of European nations. I really don't think it is as palpable as you make out. Culturally there are many more ties that bind European nations and cultures than North American nations. Perhaps only the nations of South-East Asia have similar 'joint cultural identities'. But, I don't think culture is really a point. If European countries have citizens that are willing to sign themselves up to restricted sovereignty and rule by Brussels in an economic sphere, I cannot see any logic that dictates that they will suddenly freeze somewhere down the line when a proposal of a joint military is put into place. Indeed, for the past few decades many of the military operations of European nations have been joint already - under the auspices of the UN or NATO.

To say that the EU is not going to 'go' any further is something I don't understand the logic of. I am not saying that Europe will one day be some homogenous group. But I can't see what 'magical hurdle' is suddenly going to get in the way of further integration - eg welfare, transportation, defence - above that which has already reared its head. Why is the Frenchman who supported devolution of economic power to Brussels and political power to Brussels all of a sudden going to say 'Non! Non!' to the prospect that a French military might all of a sudden conduct its actions on the basis of Brussels?

The trade between Germany and Poland is significant. And so are the cultural ties. If anything, the centralisation of military decision-making in the EU would be welcomed by the Poles if they are - as you claim - still smarting from the German invasion of 1939. Because an EU military would never allow such nationalist aggression as happened in the rise of the Third Reich. Equally so, the effect of 'Moslems' or 'starving Africans' invading Europe - as you like to put forward as a rather absurd hypothetical - would most likely be to unite Europe. That is, to make the idea of a common immigration and common defence policy which would mean a united effort AGAINST the other being put into practice.

Perhaps you aren't Euro bashing. But instead of thinking up absurd reasons how European relations could suddenly be strained again, I would prefer you to think up a practical and highly possible barrier that is about to halt the tide of integration that is engulfing all the states of Europe.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I would say that Americas power has decreased due to its lack of influence with two very prominent European nations and its ever decreasing influence with the other European nations and lets not even talk about the image that the US has in Europe right now.

Bah! I can chalk most of this up to schadenfreude.
Germans and French siding against the US is no surprise. Both nations wannabe King of the Hill but neither nor both combined can accomplish this.

The Euros are the ones that lost out over Iraq. Lost a lot of business, lost prestige as they did everything they could to stop the US and it amounted to a fly crapping on an elephant.
Some EU nations back the US some don't and some ran like hell at the first sign of trouble. That is Europe. No surprises and no unity either.
The US now has total control over the Mid East oil and you Euros talk about being the winner. Yeah right. As long as the US lets you think that way.
Kosovo showed the world what Europe is all about. Hot air and talk.
The EU had a golden opportunity to just say "Not in our backyard, not ever again" and instead came running to the US for help.
The whole world saw it and knows it.
Don't talk about EU power. There is no will, there is no strength, there is no power. Only talk.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The trade between Germany and Poland is significant. And so are the cultural ties. If anything, the centralisation of military decision-making in the EU would be welcomed by the Poles if they are - as you claim - still smarting from the German invasion of 1939. Because an EU military would never allow such nationalist aggression as happened in the rise of the Third Reich.

No, you can't dismiss what happened 60 years ago by just waving your hand. I don't think the Poles and a lot of other peoples have either. Poland has a problem with the Russians to the east and the Germans to the west. That is a historic problem that is just as real today as it was 60 years ago. The difference is the Poles joined the EU. It's the best and only real way to have any influence. It's not love, it's not anything but what is good for Poland. The same can be said for all the 15 late-comers to the EU. They are squeezed between their historic tormentors, the Russians, Germans and French.
That is not to say that Poland will ever again allow any of those nations to dominate them without using military force. Their action in Iraq for the US and against the EU reads loud and clear.
The French effort to shut up the 15 new-comers just proves my point.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Umm. You can ignore what I say. I'd suggest, for the sake of argument, you don't.

Here's my take on your analysis:

Poland:
* Historically has been invaded by Germany and Russia.
* Therefore Poles don't like Germany and Russia.
* Therefore Poles are scared of Europe.
* Therefore Poles don't like the idea of the EU.
* This explains why, despite Poland joining the EU, they sent troops to Iraq. This was because they like American and not Europe, because they don't like Germany and Germany is in Europe.
* There are lots of Polands in Europe - therefore, there is never going to be European unity.

Now, that's a pretty good elucidation, if I do say so myself. I think it is a very poor argument though. Here's why.

Poland
* Historically, has been invaded by Germany and Russia, but then again has its closest cultural ties with these two countries (not counting Lithuania). Has significant German and Russian diasporas.
* Poland has strong ties with other European nations too - especially France.
* Therefore, Poles themselves are ambivalent about Europe to some extent.
* Whilst their governments, post 1989, saw it prudent to follow US economic advice in the establishment of a free market and the rule of law, increasingly these governments have been rooted in Europe.
* The people of Poland have also sided with common European consensus - with the populations of every European nation being united against the American-led war in Iraq. Of course some governments supported the war, but most probably for short-term monetary gain rather than any deep ideological motives - and certainly not with popular support.
* If Poles didn't like the idea of the EU then they wouldn't support it. As it is, both the people AND the government have supported it in the steps taken thus far.
* Furthermore, the idea of Poles being 'traumatised' by the German invasion and therefore not joining the EU is counter-intuitive, from the point of view (already specified) that a Germany and Poland whose military was controlled from Brussels would actually give Poland an INCREASED sense of security from any national-based invasion as occurred in 1939. An EU would actually *water down* the current military dominance that countries like France and Germany have over Poland. That is, even from your own argument's perspective you are back-to-front.
* You have to be able to distinguish between the people's will, the current administration's will, and the general government will. In terms of general popular opinion and general government policy, despite any hurdles between Poland being integrated in Europe, over the last decade Poland has actually rushed to join various EU groups. It has done this, not surprisingly, because Poles see this as in their economic self-interest.
* Thus, while there are hurdles to a more integrated EU, you have still to address my major question, which is this:

In the last twenty years, European countries have made significant steps towards integration. These steps - with a few hiccups - have been broadly supported by most European countries, both in terms of their governments and the populace. What significant hurdle is destined to come up in the near future that would turn the opinion of populace and government and prevent further integration (eg immigration, defence, welfare, judicial system)?

[Hamilcar]

Don't be so sure that Schweiz is forever EU-free. However I must tell you that I am a Swissophile.

There will never be a majority of Swiss that would vote to join the EU. We value our direct democracy, independence and low taxes too much.