Really? Even as a European conservative I have to take issue with this statement. Ireland is one of my favorite examples of fiscal liberalism that has led to boom, yet I have to admit that it has also created asymmetry in the relation between corporate development and the capacity to digest the growth created, especially in relation to the low (disappearing low) influential power that Ireland has on equalizing policies of the EU. The end result is an economy that doesn’t quite know how to deal with the influx of finance, human resources and enterprise in relation to the concessions forced upon it by her sister states in the Union.
A US equivalent would be if Delaware would suddenly start attracting not only corporation, but also real enterprise and human resources and then suddenly was hit by a nation wide depression such as is presently. How could a state this small grow fast enough within the boundaries that the equalizing policies set in interstate trade and fiscal policy? Ireland might have been a miracle in how to create a boom, but it is turning out to be a tragedy in how to manage the after effects in a downwards-oriented business cycle.
Although I am strictly opposed to the overt statist nature of our member states one has to be more objective than as to just paint all of the EU with a Socialist paint brush.
As to the present discussion and hardware fantasizing, with ensuing masturbatory comparisons of this or that carrier ships – a rather silly pastime if you ask me, but whatever.
A much more interesting exercise would be to look towards the very serious and active conflict that does exist between our two unions, namely the trade war. The casualties are daily losses of human endeavor and richess and the costs of the petty fighting through trade tariffs, sanctions and point taxation that both sides engage in is staggering. It’s time for peace, but as long as the vast majority doesn’t even realize we are at war… how could we ever get our dimwitted governments to lay down the fiscal arms that they counterproductively engage in the name of prosperity. You can never win a trade war if you aren’t totally dominant, and the US and the EU are doomed to live in stalemate in that respect. In any case it is morally reprehensible.
Absolutely agreed (on both points). Armed conflict isn’t going to happen, and whether the EU could take on more conflicts or peacekeeping roles is not really an issue (although I can’t help but jump in where posts are factually incorrect, apologies). I can’t see either power gaining enough of an advantage over the other to make anything but a stalemate possible, competition be damned.
Just a quick comment which won’t be relevant at all to the majority - I think I finally understand your position now, Sparc. I’ll leave it at that.
</hikack>
On the thread itself:- the bottom line is that the EU militarily will never be as strong as the US while it’s member countries can still differ on foreign policy. I have a feeling that they won’t give up that power for a long time.
Sam,
The EU doesn’t necessarily have to match US spending to be able to project force for one mid-sized war . After all US forces are spread over several theatres and in principle are supposed to be able to fight two simulataneous wars. Plus the EU may have second-mover advantage in the fact that engineering technology is much more sophisticated than when the US was building its weapons.
However even with all that your one trillion dollars over ten years is just an increase of 1% of GDP pa. That is just a modest shift in priorities not some kind of fundamental transformation. Once again let me say that I don’t expect the EU to do this but it is a matter of choice not necessity. They have calculated,probably correctly, that military power simply doesn’t benefit them much.
I don’t disagree with anything said here. I think it’s silly to suggest an impending war between the EU and the U.S. Military comparisons are also questionable, because we aren’t talking about what the military would be needed for. THe U.S. has a huge military because it has to project its force into multiple places across an ocean. If the EU were fighting a defensive war against the U.S., it wouldn’t need nearly as much in the way of military resources as it would if it were going to attack the United States at home.
I was merely answering questions people were asking about how much it would cost to build the various pieces of hardware.
Anyway, Sparc is exactly right in that the major conflict today is the ongoing series of destructive trade wars. But this ‘war’ can be ended unilaterally by either side, by simply refusing to play the game. The thing most people don’t understand about trade is that even if your trading partner puts tariffs on your goods, the best thing you can do is just sell your own goods freely. Retaliatory tariffs are kind of like chopping off your foot because your opponent stepped on it.
In principle, you shouldn’t compare the EU to the US in trade matters. Instead, you should compare the EU to the NAFTA countries. Part of the purpose of NAFTA, after all, is to serve as a counterweight to the EU in trade wars.
However, the NAFTA countries are, as yet, nowhere near as economically integrated as the EU countries have become. (And show no interest in becoming so, I might add–Canada seems to be positively resisting further economic integration, and the US seems largely indifferent. And 9/11 hasn’t helped matters, either.)
The Deutschlandlied (“Deutschland, Deutschland Über Alles”) dates back to the 1840’s, and is not exclusively identified with Nazi Germany. Personally, I associate the song and the phrase as much with Bismarckian imperialism as with Hitlerian imperialism, although actually the Deutschlandlied did not officially become the German national anthem until 1922, under the liberal Weimar Republic. A portion of the Deutschlandlied–though without the “Germany, Germany above all” verse–is still the national anthem of the Federal Republic of Germany. Also, it is usually said that the song was originally meant as a call for national unity–Germany over Bavaria and Prussia and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and so forth–rather than a call for world hegemony. Of course, the original first verse does say “Germany, Germany above all, above all else in the world”, but I suppose that meant only that Germans should be loyal to Germany first, the way Frenchman are loyal to France or Americans are loyal to the U.S. or Canadians are loyal to Canada, and the way newly naturalized American citizens must forswear any allegiance or fidelity to any foreign princes, potentates, states, or sovreignties.