EU as new world leader?

WooPeeA

For many years the United States of America was seen as the only superpower in the world and the only world leading country. Strongest economy, the most powerful inteligent agency, strongest army and vast area made the other countries looks at least small. Today America is in recession. The economy is getting down...

But there is a small list of countries that seems to be willing for the position of the leader. I mean China, Russia and Middle-East countries.. To be honest, I don't wanna live in the world ruled by communist China or fundamentalist Arabians. :shock:

Moreover! I think it's not gonna be safe world anymore if we will let that ever happen. But unfortunately that's what the world is going through today.


EU has large population, one of the biggest GDP in the world. We've got financial and military potential.

My question is should we forget about differences here in Europe, build strong federal government and then, rise for the position of world leader?

Bubs101

WooPeeA wrote: »

For many years the United States of America was seen as the only superpower in the world and the only world leading country. Strongest economy, the most powerful inteligent agency, strongest army and vast area made the other countries looks at least small. Today America is in recession. The economy is getting down...

America has been the only superpower for around 15 years now, but it has never had the strongest Army. America is never going to invade Canada or Mexico so there is only so good having a massive army will do them.The intelligence agency and the area of the land make little to no difference, it's their economic power that has made them the superpower and I don't see that ending soon. Not only is America in recession, but the World is.Notice how much milk costs recently? . These things are cyclical but it looks like it's turning around, at least acording to the economic Guru, Warren Bufett so I'd say they are still the strongest of the Great nations but I don't even think they are a superpower

WooPeeA wrote: »

But there is a small list of countries that seems to be willing for the position of the leader. I mean China, Russia and Middle-East countries.. To be honest, I don't wanna live in the world ruled by communist China or fundamentalist Arabians. :shock:

Moreover! I think it's not gonna be safe world anymore if we will let that ever happen. But unfortunately that's what the world is going through today.

I see no reason why the world would be less safe if China were the only superpower. For massive amounts of Asians and Africans, having America as a superpower has made the world less safe. If anything, more people would be safe if one of the other countries you named took control. Anyway, Europe has enough technichal advantage to be safe

WooPeeA wrote: »

EU has large population, one of the biggest GDP in the world. We've got financial and military potential.

Our financial potential has already been reached. We are the worlds biggest exporters and the second biggest importers. We have however, very little military potential, for the sole reason that, despite the advances that have been made, the French and the English would be very reluctant to let their troops be led by Germans and vice versa. I don't think the EU has any military potential

WooPeeA wrote: »

My question is should we forget about differences here in Europe, build strong federal government and then, rise for the position of world leader

Quite simply, no. I can't see how a EU government, with total control would be anything but socialist, in order to avoid criticisms of bias towards certain countries, and a socialist government would never cut water. Anyway, I don't think there is a World Leader and America has shown this by their inability to act alone. Take Kyoto for example, as soon as Australia back out, the USA do as well and they had to bribe Australia with a free trade agreement to support them that long. Same with the wars. Would America have acted alone? I doubt it. A Superpower would be able to act alone

WooPeeA

Bubs101 wrote: »

America has been the only superpower for around 15 years now, but it has never had the strongest Army.

World is spending 1 trillion dollars on army. America is spending half of it. Don't forget about technology, the world only missile protection and all secret projects that we will never known.

Is it not the world strongest army?

I see no reason why the world would be less safe if China were the only superpower.

1. They are communists. We all know what happened with countries ruled by Soviet Union in the cold war.. That was different world. And we all know how hard that was to put them down.. I really don't wanna see the communists ruling the world once again...

2. No human rights. There was no communist country in the world history that had respect for human rights. Including China.

Today they have to respect western free mass media, rejections of rest of the world. But they are still torturing and killing people, persecuting opposition. I'm really afraid seeing them being not afraid of the rest and being the strongest in the world.

3. No free media. No freedom of speech.

We have however, very little military potential, for the sole reason that, despite the advances that have been made, the French and the English would be very reluctant to let their troops be led by Germans and vice versa. I don't think the EU has any military potential

The numbers says that all EU member states put together has one of the 3 strongest army in the world (EU, USA and China). We are strong because we have one market. We are also strong because we have one Central Bank and one currency (very soon everywhere).

Probably we would be also very strong having one "EU Army" but we don't have it. So we're not strong as a invader.

However we're that close economically that I'm pretty sure that if any of EU member states would be ever invaded by anyone, all of us will react.

Being strong is being united. So in my opinion EU has not offensive but defensive military one of the biggest potential.

Anyway, I don't think there is a World Leader and America has shown this by their inability to act alone. Take Kyoto for example, as soon as Australia back out, the USA do as well and they had to bribe Australia with a free trade agreement to support them that long. Same with the wars. Would America have acted alone? I doubt it. A Superpower would be able to act alone

No. That's not superpower. A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale.

Country that can act alone is called hegemony. There was no hegemony in the history since the dominance of the Dutch Republic during the 17th Century.

There are local hagemonies like China in Asia or EU in Europe but no global.


But in my opinion there is a danger that in the next 30-50 years western civilization can lose its power on international stage. That's why I asked the main question in that thread.

sunny_days

(dont kill me for bad choice of words, i dont study english, history or politics)

Ireland was split up into seperate regions with each having their own ruler. Same with Wales. Now all these seperate regions are joined together under one name. Looking at a map of the European Union I was suddenly reminded of this. The countries are all seperate regions. Each with their own leader. Yet they are all part of the European Union. So in using the past as an example it probably wouldnt be hard for the EU to take complete control and make one massive country and make a super power BUT it is definatly not something that should happen. In fact its something i recently began worrying about. Ireland fought so hard to gain independence and now we are in the EU, with the many EU regulations that its members now have to abide by its not as if you can say Ireland is independant. Infact, even with all the money we get from the EU, I think we should leave it.

So in short - NO we should not forget about differences here in Europe, build strong federal government and then, rise for the position of world leader.

WooPeeA

sunny_days wrote: »

So in using the past as an example it probably wouldnt be hard for the EU to take complete control and make one massive country and make a super power BUT it is definatly not something that should happen.

We don't have to be a country and be still strong. We're strong economically because we are united in that case, not because we are one country.

And to be honest with you, I'm against creating one country.

In fact its something i recently began worrying about. Ireland fought so hard to gain independence and now we are in the EU, with the many EU regulations that its members now have to abide by its not as if you can say Ireland is independant. Infact, even with all the money we get from the EU, I think we should leave it.

And many brave and good people had to die...

Of course EU is not perfect. It's because it's new and young. There was nothing like European Union in the past so we cannot compare it to any other EU in the past and then find out the mistakes. EU is created from zero so we have to improve it like sculpture.


Believe me, all those people that died for Irish independence wouldn't even dream that one day their grand children, after all those bloody wars, will live in Europe with no guards on the borders.

And it's not because country-lines were changed once again but because we don't need them no more..

That's why I really believe that we are on a good way. But there's still so much we have to do. First to not give up at start..

But that's of course my own private opinion.

Manic Moran

The EU has plenty of economic clout, but that's not to say it's vulnerable to economic policies. The EU is a very population-dense entity, with limited natural resources to sustain itself. The US has a lot more room to mine or drill, and has a lot more arable land per person to farm. To a lesser extent, the EU has moved from an industrial base to something less tangible. Yes, there's a lot of GDP out there, but how much of it actually comes from 'things'? Tourism, service based industries, I'd wager a larger proportion than pretty much any other entity. Russia is definitely in a better situation there. For example, if the worst were to come to absolute worst, it would be a lot easier for the US to open up its Alaskan oil fields for drilling than the EU to further enhance the North Sea oil fields.

Militarily, the EU is far from a superpower status as we know it today. It lacks the ability to go where it wants, when it wants, it has no power projection ability such as the US does. No nation or 'pact' does. It can lead to vulnerabilities even if not directed against them. For example, during the Tanker War, oil supply lines were threatened. The US just sent a couple of carrier battlegroups and a few other assorted warships to escort tankers in and out. Though not exactly an equivalent case, recall the panic about two years ago when a trade dispute between Ukraine and Russia was about to cut Europe's supplies of gas and oil.

NTM

Bubs101

WooPeeA wrote: »

World is spending 1 trillion dollars on army. America is spending half of it. Don't forget about technology, the world only missile protection and all secret projects that we will never known.

Is it not the world strongest army?
.

I've already said it's not. It's in many ways a useless army because it is not needed to defend it's borders, attack it's neighbors. It also lacks numbers. Nuclear weapons are absolutely irrelevant on the global stage now which takes a big advantage America has away. China on the other hand uses it's army to supress Tibet and other regions. In practice, they have the strongest army

WooPeeA wrote: »

1. They are communists. We all know what happened with countries ruled by Soviet Union in the cold war.. That was different world. And we all know how hard that was to put them down.. I really don't wanna see the communists ruling the world once again...

2. No human rights. There was no communist country in the world history that had respect for human rights. Including China.

Today they have to respect western free mass media, rejections of rest of the world. But they are still torturing and killing people, persecuting opposition. I'm really afraid seeing them being not afraid of the rest and being the strongest in the world.

3. No free media. No freedom of speech.

.

1. They were not ruled by the Soviet Union, they were the Soviet Union and they were effectively commiting treason so the USSR had to clamp down. Anyway, it's a pointless comparison because if there is a situation in your own country you have infinitly more powers than if it's outside. Take Yugoslavia for example. The USSR couldn't touch it, even though it wanted to because it was just outside of it's power. Also, you say you don't wanna see Communists rule the world again? They never have

2. Venezuela,Cuba. 2 Communist countries with respect for human rights. As for CHina torturing people, what do you think Guantanamo is for? like I said in my first post, it would not be a less safe world in general because Asians and Africans would be alot safer from America.

3. Irrelevant. The US's constitution has no power outside the U.S. Also, it's not exactly free speech. For example, there are no un rehearsed press conferences in America

WooPeeA wrote: »

The numbers says that all EU member states put together has one of the 3 strongest army in the world (EU, USA and China). We are strong because we have one market. We are also strong because we have one Central Bank and one currency (very soon everywhere).

What numbers?? Utter BS. It will never happen

WooPeeA wrote: »

Probably we would be also very strong having one "EU Army" but we don't have it. So we're not strong as a invader.

However we're that close economically that I'm pretty sure that if any of EU member states would be ever invaded by anyone, all of us will react.

Being strong is being united. So in my opinion EU has not offensive but defensive military one of the biggest potential.

Say for example that Italy was invaded. Of course Germany and France etc. would step in but it makes no difference for 2 reasons.

Give me any 1 realistic situation where an EU country could be invaded. This is not Command and Conquer

2. Every country with a mobile army would step in. Egypt, America, Russia etc. It would make no difference if the country was in the EU or not

WooPeeA wrote: »

No. That's not superpower. A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale..

That definition makes alot of states superpowers

WooPeeA wrote: »

But in my opinion there is a danger that in the next 30-50 years western civilization can lose its power on international stage. That's why I asked the main question in that thread.

No real danger of that happening. The EU is too strong economically and too many countries outside of Europe are now becoming increasingly reliant on it. Not to mention the US will not lose too much power in 50 years

Black Swan

WooPeeA wrote: »

My question is should we forget about differences here in Europe, build strong federal government and then, rise for the position of world leader?

Back to face-offs between superpowers? The Bush-McCain hawks in the USA will be delighted! France and the UK have nukes of their own they can share among colleague EU states, so the USA can be asked to leave with theirs.

Too bad a return to the cold war will not be a cure for global warming. If anything, the military buildups will contribute to it? Doubt that the military-industrial complex will be environmentally-friendly.

Of course, whatever side you are on will be the right side, and the other side will be wrong. Then again, what's the old saying in politics? Today's enemies will be tomorrow's bedfellows (and visa versa)?

This reminds me of a song my Da loves from the old Kingston Trio of the 1960's:

"But we can be thankful,
Tranquil and proud,
That man's been endowed
With the mushroomed shaped cloud.

And I know for certain,
That some lovely day,
Someone will touch the spark off,
And we will all be blown away!"

Oh, this song is best sung swinging and drinking a pint of Guinness with your mates!;)

silverharp

demographics say no, too much gov debt and aging population is not a recipe for a new empire or superpower.

WooPeeA

Bubs101 wrote: »

1. They were not ruled by the Soviet Union, they were the Soviet Union and they were effectively commiting treason so the USSR had to clamp down.

Not all of them. Let's take Poland. They never were USSR, although Russians had their military bases in all of communist countries.

2. Venezuela,Cuba. 2 Communist countries with respect for human rights.

None of them has respect for human rights.

CUBA
Political persecution, execution of General Arnaldo Ochoa, many people that support opposition have no right of health care and their children has no right for education..

Since 1990, The United States has presented various resolutions to the annual UN Human Rights Commission criticizing Cuba’s human rights record. The proposals and subsequent diplomatic disagreements have been described as a "nearly annual ritual".

Also Amnesty International confirms that.


I don't know much about Venezuela so I'll stay quiet.

Give me any 1 realistic situation where an EU country could be invaded. This is not Command and Conquer

Fundamentalists.. They are in many middle-east governments at the moment. For ex. Syria, many locations of Sudan, Iran...

They are dengerous because they are sick. Having nuclear weapon will make them even more dangerous.

We live probably in the savest period of history here in Europe but we cannot ignore dangers that still exist and still rise in many regions.

That definition makes alot of states superpowers

Today it's probably only USA, China and EU. But in the future another two countries will reach for it, it's India and Brazil.

fly_agaric

Manic Moran wrote: »

Militarily, the EU is far from a superpower status as we know it today. It lacks the ability to go where it wants, when it wants, it has no power projection ability such as the US does.

The EU has the technology and resourses to develop the capability to project military power in this way if it decides to at some point.

The obtacles are political.
1. There needs to be agreement on goals among the different member states with often different objectives and foriegn policy and building of trust between the different nations in the EU so that this common military capability can be developed. I'm unsure if most people in the EU want to see this happen.

2. The US is prepared to underwrite EU security. Even if it bellyaches about the cost of this now and again it seems (IMO) the US far prefers the current situation to emergance of an autonomous EU military capability.

Bubs101 wrote:

Nuclear weapons are absolutely irrelevant on the global stage now

If that is so, why are so many states trying to develop nuclear weapons and icbms to put them on...its easy to say they are irrelevant when two EU states have enough nuclear warheads and icbms to lay waste to any country on Earth and we can also shelter under the cosy umbrella of the USs huge nuclear arsenal...

PHB

I do think the EU has a role to play on the world stage, and I do think that effective hard power is important (which is why I welcome the new battle-groups).

However I'm not too worried about anyone ruling the world.
American military power has been exposed as something of a myth. What's even more important is that the people are no longer really willing to tolerate war in any sort of long-term sense (over a year) a trend which also exists in Europe. There is too much information out there, public support can't really be maintained.

There is no real military threat to the EU currently. America is better at winning a war in Iraq than the EU, but in terms of a real threat from a country, military threats aren't really an issue anymore for any of the big 4 (US, EU, Russia, China)

The issue is about how good the countries are at invading smaller countries in order to ensure their continued dominance. That's where the US used to be top. That however is changing. The US over extended, the EU is becoming more a rationalised military, especially with the bulwarcks of Denmark and Ireland being worked around, and China is modernising.

Also China is not a communist country. China is just a country. Internally how it works is kinda irrelevant (and even then it isn't Communist) It's foreign policy actions are pretty much identical to the US and the EU in terms of how they do business.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Doubt that the military-industrial complex will be environmentally-friendly.

You'd be surprised. The military's environmental rules tend to put the civvy side to shame. Endangered species in military training areas tend to bounce back a lot faster than outside the training areas. Look at the wolves of Germany, the desert shrimp of Ft Irwin, or some bizarre form of heather which now only exists in Camp Roberts, CA. I very rarely see a civilian truck out in the countryside with drip pans placed under it in case of oil leak (And heaven help you if you do leak oil on the ground). Except in case of war, I can't even break off branches to camouflage my vehicle for training.

The EU has the technology and resourses to develop the capability to project military power in this way if it decides to at some point.

The obtacles are political.

True, subject to two caveats. One is the sheer amount of time and effort required. The US Army is increasing its strength by about 60,000. They've allocated 5 years to do it. To get a strength equivalent to the US Navy and Air Force would take not just a lot of cash, but also a lot of training. It also doesn't help that the EU forces all use different languages, technologies, and tactics. This was a long-standing problem within NATO. As it stands, I'm not convinced that the EU countries all combined together can put an equivalent to a Marine Expeditionary Brigade anywhere in the world, certainly not an MEF. To be a true Superpower today, you need to have the capability to have one or two on standby at any time, in various places around the world. For the EU to get to that level would be no small or quick task.

American military power has been exposed as something of a myth

It would be a very foolish country, even today, to try their luck against the US military. Do not mistake the current difficulties of sorting Iraq out with an inability to blow the crap out of things, even using just what's left over.

NTM

fly_agaric

Manic Moran wrote:

One is the sheer amount of time and effort required.

Yes. And the jobs you never actually begin tend to take the longest.

If the EU could build the capacity to deal with Yugoslavia-type situations within or close to its own borders without begging for US aid that would be great progress. It would be a more realistic aim than thinking of projecting power globally like a "superpower"/"world leader".

rowlandbrowner

WooPeeA wrote: »

CUBA
Political persecution, execution of General Arnaldo Ochoa, many people that support opposition have no right of health care and their children has no right for education..

Cuba has the worlds biggest military superpower 75 miles across the water, and they have been trying for the past 50 years to kill the cuban heads of government and destroy everything they have built, any “human rights violations” attritubted to cuba - if they are even true - are necessary measures Cuba have had to take. I have deep respect for the advances Cuba have made towards equality for all persons. Example: Women in Ireland have less rights than Cuban women and they are less represented in goverment.

Hotblack Desiato

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

any “human rights violations” attritubted to cuba - if they are even true - are necessary measures Cuba have had to take.

Nonsense. Cuba is ruled by a brutal oppressive regime and the sooner the whole stinking house of cards collapses the better for all Cubans. I find it impossible to believe in this day and age, with all the information available to us (because we're not living in a regime like Cuba) people still believe this stuff. As for "necessary", how would you like it if it were your human rights going up the Swannee "for the good of the State" ? Not a bit, I'm sure.

kowloon

A United States of Europe would never work like the USA, the cultures clash too much. I don't think many people see themselves as Europeans.

As for a superpower military, each nation has its own equipment, doctrine and language. A whole new European military system would have to be built and its formation would become a minefield of political interference.
If the old national armies were kept as they are now they would never be able to cooperate properly and mesh into a european army.
The US military establishment by comparison is fairly well standardised and while interpretation accounts for variance at least they're all reading from the same manuals and in the same language.

rowlandbrowner

ninja900 wrote: »

Nonsense. Cuba is ruled by a brutal oppressive regime

thats nonsense.

if i lived in country that was under constant opression from the us empire i would understand the need to limit certain freedoms. just as england did when it was under threat from nazi-germany. infact the us-anglo empire has recently limited its citizens freedoms in the wake of terrorist attacks.

rowlandbrowner

also. these days the rights of women and lgbt persons are more respected in cuba than in ireland (for example).

long live the castros and the cuban people!

Hotblack Desiato

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

also. these days the rights of women and lgbt persons are more respected in cuba than in ireland (for example).

Yes, the highly developed state of women's rights is why the country isn't run by a pair of septugenarian despotic brothers. Oh, wait.

Meanwhile here in oppressed Ireland, women and *gasp* gays can stand for election, cast a vote in an election that means something, speak out against the government without being locked up. I hope we will see the error of our ways soon, comrade.

long live the castros

Only kings and dictators rule for life, neither is a desirable system of government.


On-topic: I think the EU will have enough to be getting on with achieving greater economic convergence with 27 states over the next ten years or so (and would hope that a very cautious approach is taken towards future enlargement for some time to come.) without entertaining ambitions to become a military superpower - which, as has been pointed out, EU citizens don't want, national governments don't want. Any peacekeeping etc. involving Germany is going to be a sore point fro some countries for decades to come and will have to tread carefully. The EU will become a stronger economic power and this in itself will increase its influence. The EU Foreign Minister etc. that Lisbon proposes will be limited in what it can achieve, as consensus among 27 governments will be required. Ultimately the EU is far too diverse politically, linguistically, culturally, to become the kind of superpower the USA or USSR is/was.

oscarBravo

Discussion of Cuba is off-topic for this forum.

Kev_ps3

WooPeeA wrote: »

For many years the United States of America was seen as the only superpower in the world and the only world leading country. Strongest economy, the most powerful inteligent agency, strongest army and vast area made the other countries looks at least small. Today America is in recession. The economy is getting down...

But there is a small list of countries that seems to be willing for the position of the leader. I mean China, Russia and Middle-East countries.. To be honest, I don't wanna live in the world ruled by communist China or fundamentalist Arabians. :shock:

Moreover! I think it's not gonna be safe world anymore if we will let that ever happen. But unfortunately that's what the world is going through today.


EU has large population, one of the biggest GDP in the world. We've got financial and military potential.

My question is should we forget about differences here in Europe, build strong federal government and then, rise for the position of world leader?

No. We should pull out of europe and concentrate on our own people and economy.

WooPeeA

The funny thing is that EU-skeptics wants for their countries to be independent of American or Chinese domination at the same time staying out of Europe United which is impossible. In today's world little European countries are too small even to negotate with them and can be only ruled by their economical decisions, and they will be even smaller in next 20 years when powers like China or India will rise to even bigger size on international stage.

Staying separated today might have smashing results tomorrow. And tomorrow might be too late to take any action.

Kev_ps3

WooPeeA wrote: »

The funny thing is that EU-skeptics wants for their countries to be independent of American or Chinese domination at the same time staying out of Europe United which is impossible. In today's world little European countries are too small even to negotate with them and can be only ruled by their economical decisions, and they will be even smaller in next 20 years when powers like China or India will rise to even bigger size on international stage.

Staying separated today might have smashing results tomorrow. And tomorrow might be too late to take any action.

What are you on about? Chinese or American domination?!

sink

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

What are you on about? Chinese or American domination?!

He's not talking about physical domination. He is talking about domination of trade and other bi-lateral agreements. Which would definitely happen. Look at all the European countries outside the European Economic Area (that does not include Norway, Iceland or Switzerland as they are part of common market), they can't negotiate any sort of mutualy benefitial arangement. Even with the EU itself.

WooPeeA

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

What are you on about? Chinese or American domination?!

Yes. Economically independent country is the country which doesn't have to import food or energy from foreigns. Countries like Russia (gas) or China (most of the things) are telling us how much do we have to pay for our life (petrol, bills..etc..) and how much will we get in return.

World of tomorrow will be the world of super-powers like China, India, Middle-East.. Countries with hundreds of millions of citizens, vast areas, goods underground and giant economies.

So what do you think countries like Ireland or Portugal can do in the world of tomorrow staying alone? Only depend themselves on others.

conchubhar1

hey heres a tought

how about- we work out any differences we have as humans instead of vieing to be the richest,best,most militarised so we can further push down ''2nd'' and ''3rd world'' countries

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

hey heres a tought

how about- we work out any differences we have as humans instead of vieing to be the richest,best,most militarised so we can further push down ''2nd'' and ''3rd world'' countries

That is what we do through supra-national organisations such as the UN. When has the EU ever threatened another country with force? Please give me an example.

Kev_ps3

WooPeeA wrote: »

Yes. Economically independent country is the country which doesn't have to import food or energy from foreigns. Countries like Russia (gas) or China (most of the things) are telling us how much do we have to pay for our life (petrol, bills..etc..) and how much will we get in return.

World of tomorrow will be the world of super-powers like China, India, Middle-East.. Countries with hundreds of millions of citizens, vast areas, goods underground and giant economies.

So what do you think countries like Ireland or Portugal can do in the world of tomorrow staying alone? Only depend themselves on others.

We should become totally indepeneant. We should build thousands of wind and sea turbines and also build nuclear power stations. Also build our own electric car and power it ourselves. Same goes for food. Our aim should be 100% independent. At present our aim is to be 0% independent.

sink

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

We should become totally indepeneant. We should build thousands of wind and sea turbines and also build nuclear power stations. Also build our own electric car and power it ourselves. Same goes for food. Our aim should be 100% independent. At present our aim is to be 0% independent.

Em kev, do you realise that most of us would either become unemployed or at least under-employed. The average national wage would plummet and the relative cost of a PS3 would more that quadruple. Please find out more about economics it is in your own interest.

ixtlan

Coming back to the topic, I think that in matters of diplomacy and negotiation the EU has the potential to be a world leader.

Let's be practical, the EU is never going to become a military super-power. It would require all 27 states to agree on any involvement and I cannot see that happening in any future scenario outside a total breakdown of civilization, at which point it will be the least of our problems.

What we will have is a lot of economic clout and the respect of the world on those matters where there is agreement between the 27 countries unanimously and where the new foreign representative can speak for us all. Unfortunately this is only going to be for issues where it's pretty much a no-brainer.

If you are paranoid about this, look at it this way. Ireland will have all 27 countries on our side for some foreign policy matters, and for those we have disagreements about, no change to the current situation.

ix.

djpbarry

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

We should become totally indepeneant. We should build thousands of wind and sea turbines and also build nuclear power stations. Also build our own electric car and power it ourselves. Same goes for food. Our aim should be 100% independent. At present our aim is to be 0% independent.

Some reccomended reading for Kev.

ixtlan wrote: »

Let's be practical, the EU is never going to become a military super-power.

I'm not sure why anyone feels we should aspire to be one?

ixtlan

Just to clarify myself, I don't have aspirations for the EU to be a military super-power, and I don't think it will happen.

However, at the same time I don't have a problem with the EU battlegroups concept, which it should be pointed out is something the UN would like to see in operation (Kofi Annan said this but sorry I don't have a link). This is because the UN has no standing army and it takes too long to mobilise forces at present.

This kind of military operation is a far cry from being a super-power, and of course I have to repeat again that Ireland does not have to send any troops anywhere on any live operation without a UN mandate and a Dail vote.

I'll add as an aside that while I am not supporting any foreign military adventures, I find it apalling that we surrendered all our military policy to the UN (not the EU). We are probably the only country in the world that cannot send our military where we choose. I'll give an example... suppose some minister was visiting some country in Africa and was kidnapped. Suppose we got intelligence that they were in some compound about to be killed, and there were Irish troops over the border on peace-keeping. Can we send them in to try a rescue? Nope... we would have to get a UN security council mandate. Quite ridiculous. I'm not saying this would ever happen but to tie our hands like this is amazing, especially when it was to appease people who believed that the EU would control military policy. Now in effect our military activities are controlled by Britain, France, China, Russia and the US.

Ix.