Do you like the EU?

[robocop666]

yes

no

not from the EU

[nightdrot]

Well, at the most fundamental level, the European Union is only the sum of its member state's national interests and those national interests conflict. Thus the EU has what I call a "least common denominator foreign policy." That is, a foreign policy defined by what can be agreed among the member states whose own interests often conflict.

It further to be added that it was not the original intent of the EU - which began as the European Common Market, evolved into the "European Community" and has now only, rather recently, become the European Union with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. It further being added that actually, in terms of the relations between its member states, the EU is something of a political giant.

The EU was born in the ashes of two world wars. Those wars, to some extent mistakenly, were attributed to the rise of nationalism. Itself a reaction to the Enlightenment, whose central animating idea was that man was a rational and social being, born with natural rights. However, pre-rational ideas had resulted in cultural and legal divisions that corrupted man's basic nature.

The idea was that if law was made in conformance with natural law, including the laws of economics, man would revert to his rational and social nature and peace and prosperity would follow. These natural laws transcending narrower national, ethnic, religious and other ideas. Thus did Adam Smith write, "The merchant has no country."

The EU, then, was born in the idea that if a sufficient legal, institutional and diplomatic framework could be established. Economics would replace national interests and in time economic and financial connections would replace national interests.

It sort of worked out that way. In effect, the EU - significantly and not unimportantly abetted by NATO - has anchored Germany into the European security framework. Germany, of whom Kissinger said that its' fundamental problem was that it is "too weak to rule the world but too strong to fit securely within Europe." This reassured France, which in time has come to use German economic strength - Germany has the world's fourth largest economy - to underpin France's military and foreign policy at a global level.

Into this Italy plays a balancing role. Tending to side with Germany in foreign and defense policy questions while siding with France on economic, financial and cultural questions.

As to Britain, this interestingly reflecting the United Kingdom's historic foreign policy of "splendid isolation." In which the UK - Europe's other world power along with France - stayed aloof from continental affairs unless the balance of power was threatened. (Thus, ultimately, the UK's less than enthusiastic embrace of "Europe" and ultimately was "Brexit" born.)

The various other states of Europe have also played out their historic national interests within the legal, institutional and diplomatic framework of the EU. Thus the EU - and NATO - stabilized Europe.

However, what the EU's founders did not anticipate was that those national interests are deeply rooted and not accidental. Thus such interests have not been eliminated by the economic relationships within the EU. Further, with there position in Europe more or less secured, the bigger states of Europe - see the UK (until Brexit), France, Germany and Italy - have felt secure enough to pursue those wider global interests.

Those interests again often in conflict. See also Germany's very different relationship to Russia as against France's. See also the states of Europe varying relationships to the United States, China and India.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

These conflicting interests mean that the EU, for all its undoubted material strengths, is confined to the limited compromises and deals that they can strike among themselves. Thereby leaving a relatively wan and somewhat vague policy agenda and usually no agreed policy for executing that agenda. It being further added that where the states disagree, as sovereign states, they will then pursue their own interests quite forthrightly.

There is plenty more - including the aging if Europe's population and other factors contributing to a decline in Europe's global position since WWII, but this is, in essence, why the EU remains an economic giant but a diplomatic middleweight, at best. At an irreducible level, the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

[KostasKouvalis]

As a political entity, NO

[robocop666]

the public opinion is very low. If it collapses the currency will collapse like the soviet union and everyone will be earning 400-500 a month for 40 years till the economies develop.

[KostasKouvalis]

That's THEIR problem. When the Euro is strong they want to stay, when the Euro is weak they want to leave

[robocop666]

every empire in history collapsed but when the gold standard went this meant that the currency went to 0 and you had hyper inflation and became poor. Like the soviet union. The eu will one day collapse and we will be poor.

[KostasKouvalis]

The EU hardly equates to an empire

[KostasKouvalis]

It's more of an economic league

[Anonymous]

well i'm no longer part of the EU... I was youngish when Brexit was happening so the main arguments I was seeing for it was xenophobia/keeping out migrants so I was more on the Remain side. Now I'm older and seeing the economic repercussions and definitely on Remain but it's too late now...

[robocop666]

the EU punishes you for leaving. You paid more than you got out of it for 40 out of 41 years. If your happy paying to be screwed over thats fine.

[Guy13]

Not really as their is no purpose outside of conglomerating an area of country where it can be global government governed.

[PraviteliNahuiValite]

I grew up in a country where atrazine is banned, I'm thankful for it.