Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

EU was formed 'to beat the US'


questionmark

Recommended Posts

Quote

Donald Trump has claimed that the European Union was created to “beat the United States when it comes to making money” in an interview with NBC News.

Speaking to Chuck Todd, whom the Republican nominee has repeatedly berated as “sleepy-eyed”, Trump also said of the EU “the reason that it got together was like a consortium so that it could compete with the United States”.

The European Union was founded as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 in an effort to promote strong cross-border ties in Europe and avoid future wars. It has since evolved to a customs union and eventually to the transnational entity devoted to removing internal trade barriers, building a common market and a fiscal union. Its development and growth has been repeatedly supported by the United States under presidents of both parties.

Read more on The Guardian

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know you're obviously posting this to mock how deluded he is, but I think that probably was the aim at the back of their minds, probably from the start, or certainly that was how the leaders' ambition developed, even if ti wasn't planned right from the start. Of course, it eventually evolved into an obedient satellite of the United States Global Empire, so perhaps the founders would be disappointed at how it came out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the USA needn't have worried then or now the EU is not even in the same League as the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is becoming somewhat of a pattern with Donald Trump. He makes an outragous statement, he is mocked for it, and yet.... he is actually quite correct !

I'm not suggesting that the EU was formed to somehow "spite" the USA, but it WAS created to make as much money as possible. And it is getting close; something like $14 Trillion GDP to the USA's £18 Trillion.

You know what they say... a trillion here, a trillion there, it soon adds up to serious money ! :P

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I though it was common knowledge that one of the reasons behind the formation of the EU, was to enable the European nations to compete internationally with other "trading blocs". As the US is part of a few "trading blocs", as well as being a strong presence in international trade on it's own, then Trump's claim is both part truth and part lie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was formed to facilitate internal trading. Much like the 50 States in the US can do. When the Post WW2 Europeans saw the US doing so well, doubtless they asked themselves why they couldn't at least do as well, considering that the Americans are little more then barbarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I thought it was formed to facilitate internal trading. Much like the 50 States in the US can do. When the Post WW2 Europeans saw the US doing so well, doubtless they asked themselves why they couldn't at least do as well, considering that the Americans are little more then barbarians.

That also is one of the reasons. There is no single reason the EU was formed, which is why Trump's claim is both a truth and a lie.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

That also is one of the reasons. There is no single reason the EU was formed, which is why Trump's claim is both a truth and a lie.

I don't know if I would agree on that. The reason was to unify the French and German coal and steel industries as that would most likely avoid the German and French to be at its others throat (thus breaking a long European tradition)... the rest was played by ear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, questionmark said:

I don't know if I would agree on that. The reason was to unify the French and German coal and steel industries as that would most likely avoid the German and French to be at its others throat (thus breaking a long European tradition)... the rest was played by ear.

While I accept the EU historically began after WWII as a political effort to prevent further conflicts between European neighbour states, and that the agreement to unify the French and German coal and steel industries was a linchpin of that beginning, I strongly suspect Trump is not speaking of the historical EU (which only encompassed a few member states and did not, afaik, have the intention to expand into the "borderless", single-currency union it has become) but the EU in it's modern guise. I'm not certain whether economic union to the point of a single currency was actually envisaged when the notion of the EU was mooted back in the late 1940's.

Like most other nation-entities, the EU evolved as different issues arose so, while we can certainly say the EU that formed in the 1940's was the foundation for the EU of today, we cannot state that those who brought about that foundation envisaged for the EU what it has become. While we can mull over the intricacies of this formation, Trump would be unconcerned about what pressures brought about the formation of the EU 60-odd years ago, and is only concerned with the EU of today and it's ability to compete with the US in the international market. He is speaking to an audience concerned about the now, not the past. In that respect, when he speaks of the why of the EU's formation he is viewing the EU as it is today, and all the reasons it is as it is.

So, when he refers to just a single reason as being the "why" of the modern EU, he is both right and wrong - because there are many reasons the EU exists as at does.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember one of the reasons for maintaining it was to have a large enough body to keep the US in line if that ever became a problem ...... nice idea but it didn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Well the USA needn't have worried then or now the EU is not even in the same League as the USA.

US GDP is $18 trillion with 320 million citizens

EU GDP is $18.5 trillion with nearly 510 million citizens (Eastern Europe is still poor following WW2 and the Iron Curtain).

The EU also has the better army when the forces of all its member states are combined.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the EU does have a larger military when counting soldiers, but when counting large naval craft, and strategic bombs, and tanks, and attack aircraft the US has a touch (20%?) more, I think.

So if by some chance, all the US military faced off against all the European military, they would be in the same league, but I think the US would have several advantages. We have superior CCC in my opinion also.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-states-of-america

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#National_militaries

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Well, it has a larger military when counting soldiers, but when counting naval craft, and strategic bombs, and tanks, (and maybe military aircraft?) the US has overwhelmingly more, I think.

 

The things Europe has to prepare for are different than what the USA is preparing for. Most Europeans are mostly concerned with their own backyard and small incursions into their former colonies. The US wants to play world policeman. And that requires totally different types of armaments. Besides that, European economies are not so dependent on the military-industrial complexes, so it is much less likely that they'll spend money for something the industry can produce but has no immediate application or added strategical value.

It may be true that other armies have more naval craft, but the Europeans have the only (known to this point) 99% undetectable submarine, so that would easily offset that. They might have less tanks, but most use the German Leo II, which if not the best around is certainly a contender... and so on.

You can solve a problem without throwing lots of money at it. Something we have yet to learn.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

US GDP is $18 trillion with 320 million citizens

EU GDP is $18.5 trillion with nearly 510 million citizens (Eastern Europe is still poor following WW2 and the Iron Curtain).

The EU also has the better army when the forces of all its member states are combined.

 

Yes, paper tiger - America is still the worlds only super power. Who had to rescue us in Europe, in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. The US Marine Corps alone are bigger than the UK armed forces. and the UK is the best military in Europe. - Spain has 39 Eurofighters of that number just 6 are operational. Germany Pavania Tornado, 38 deployable fighters out of an inventory of 198. If Donald Trump calls nato members to account then Europe is fecked.

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

Yes, paper tiger - America is still the worlds only super power. Who had to rescue us in Europe, in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. The US Marine Corps alone are bigger than the UK armed forces. and the UK is the best military in Europe. - Spain has 39 Eurofighters of that number just 6 are operational. Germany Pavania Tornado, 38 deployable fighters out of an inventory of 198. If Donald Trump calls nato members to account then Europe is fecked.

Um, America has rescued us in Libya, Syria and ukraine? How has its contributions helped in any way in any of those? In most of them its interference was largely responsible for the mess in the first place. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

Um, America has rescued us in Libya, Syria and ukraine? How has its contributions helped in any way in any of those? In most of them its interference was largely responsible for the mess in the first place. 

 

Libya was European led, remember the UN sessions on the lead up to it, it was conducted by the European powers. The Americans took somewhat of a back seat almost hesitant after previous Iraqi and Afghan interventions. from early 2011 the foot work was being done by France and Britain sanctions and diplomatic options were being proposed at the UN. If i remember correctly the French started military action flying from their aircraft carrier the Charles de Gaulle. a few days later NATO got involved allowing the USA a route into the action. just 10 NATO countries took part, of that 10 only Canada and the USA were not European. -  on the fall of Gaddafi's Libya before the dust had even settled - remember Cameron and Sarkcozy in Benghazi. (video below infograph)

Assets used in Libya.

Click to enlarge.

Libya_Coalition_Sorties1200.jpg
 

Ukraine. Yet again, Foreign Policy failing by the European powers. EU expansionism into Ukraine was always going to invoke the Russian Bear. The Moment Ivan rolled West the European Powers gulped. Crimea Fell and annexed and Europe powerless in the face of the advance. NATO to the rescue, I say NATO to the rescue but that's double speak for the USA.

Syria, I'll give you that.and as you say interference was largely responsible, it was more or less a cluster **** by everyone involved, the US and European powers.

We in Europe do Defence on the cheap, relying on the muscle that is the good ol' USofA. Without the USA backing us up or leading the way Ivan would be steam rolling. especially the former soviet satellite states.

0527-for-webATTACKS-300.png

 

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Ukraine. Yet again, Foreign Policy failing by the European powers. EU expansionism into Ukraine was always going to invoke the Russian Bear. The Moment Ivan rolled West the European Powers gulped. Crimea Fell and annexed and Europe powerless in the face of the advance. NATO to the rescue, I say NATO to the rescue but that's double speak for the USA.

That's one possible interpretation I suppose. Another might be that the Russian Bear did that in response to the coup that was instigated, or at the very least given generous under-the-counter help, by Obama's criminally stupid State Department, led by the charming Victoria Nuland (whose response in a phone conversation to concerns about what the EU might want was "**** the EU, Yats is the guy". (the puppet leader the State Dept wished to put in place as PM.)) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe so. When the EU formed the USA was knocked for a loop. I would be willing to claim that indirectly the EU has caused a good chunk of our economic collapse. How? Not a very simple process to explain, but let's start with our fundamental differences within our own American union and the European union. In Europe, each country retains sovereignty and the EU power is limited in what it can force each country to do for the benefit of the union. In America, each state is subjected to the will of our Federal government that over-rules state sovereignty and demands a centralized Washington power. Because of this difference the social attitude of American upper classes had deteriorated in the subsequent years since the EU formed in 1993. High level secretive dissidence in America was then magnified with the introduction of the Euro currency on January 1, 1999. This unification of the currency proved a greater power than the unification of the governments. This completed unification further exemplified the power of sovereignty within EU nation-states that wasn't so clearly seen before then. High level Americans, seeing the power of state sovereignty in the EU dissented increasingly throughout the 2000's and into the 2010's where nowadays we have conspiracies so elaborate and so beyond anything before that it has an unprecedented effect on how America has been run during these last several years. Power hungry Americans chip away at Federal rule in the frenetic desire to live like kings and queens within independent American nation-states. So hungry they are for this power they are willing to sabotage America's reputation as one of the highest quality exporters in the world and they are willing to sabotage America's economy to obtain this power even though ancient logic dictates that without a healthy economy the state would fall into poverty and the re-conquest of the state would be inevitable. These new modern power hungry self-destructivists aren't concerned with long-term sustainability beyond the end of their own lives because it's all about the power and that pipe-dream of obtaining absolute tyranny. The EU feeds this dissent and impossible dream on an individual level within the social circles of America's upper classes, promising an allied backing of their America sabotaging goals. This partnership is untraceable on a government level because there are no contracts, treatises or documentations involved. Only the promise of power and the behind-the-scenes corruption to obtain it. The main goal is to strip America of it's power and subjugate the American people into permanent poverty. True stuff. You should research some of it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a supra state in Europe was already around in the 19th century. Victor Hugo was a promoter. The idea was copied on the United States of America, and was called The United States of Europe. In the 19th century, some bigger states were formed for many small states, micro-state  and city state. Germany and Italy among them, just to name the biggest. The idea was to make a kind of big France with a lots of nations. To stop war was one goal, but to improve the economy and travels was another. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2016 at 6:48 AM, RabidMongoose said:

US GDP is $18 trillion with 320 million citizens

EU GDP is $18.5 trillion with nearly 510 million citizens (Eastern Europe is still poor following WW2 and the Iron Curtain).

The EU also has the better army when the forces of all its member states are combined.

 

If that's the case - and I don't know one way or the other - why did it take NATO 6 months to kind of pacify Libya -WITH US help?  I think the EU needs to handle it's own defenses totally and then we can compare such things more equitably.  If, before Obama leaves office, Vlad decides to change some facts on the ground and he sends in some airborne divisions or maybe just "little green men" into some of the Baltic states, Obama will basically do nothing and then we'll see what Europe's best are capable of, yes?  Such a scenario is possible and it just might be humiliating enough to give rise to that "superstate" we heard a bit about after Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, and then said:

If that's the case - and I don't know one way or the other - why did it take NATO 6 months to kind of pacify Libya -WITH US help?  I think the EU needs to handle it's own defenses totally and then we can compare such things more equitably.  If, before Obama leaves office, Vlad decides to change some facts on the ground and he sends in some airborne divisions or maybe just "little green men" into some of the Baltic states, Obama will basically do nothing and then we'll see what Europe's best are capable of, yes?  Such a scenario is possible and it just might be humiliating enough to give rise to that "superstate" we heard a bit about after Brexit.

NATO (UK, France and Italy) were officially only allowed to bomb Gaddafi forces which were attacking the civil uprising. Unofficially they had special forces on the ground training the rebels in the art of warfare while providing them with arms and intelligence. But it was not a NATO land invasion because the UN resolution didn't allow for that.

Putin won't invade other Eastern European states and the suggestion he would do is sabre-rattling to prop up the falling popularity of Western Politicians. From the Russian perspective Crimea was historically an area of Russia gifted to the Ukraine when the Iron Curtain came down. It is largely populated with Russians and people of mixed Russian/Ukrainian decent. And when the Coup in the Ukraine put a Government in charge that legislated to make Russia citizenship and the Russian language illegal with the punishment being up to 10 years in prison then the Russians intervened to protect the rights of those people.

You are obviously on the internet. If you want to see if what your media tells you is true then look at the news sites of other countries which are neutral towards your own. Look at loads of them from all around the world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

If that's the case - and I don't know one way or the other - why did it take NATO 6 months to kind of pacify Libya -WITH US help?  I think the EU needs to handle it's own defenses totally and then we can compare such things more equitably.  If, before Obama leaves office, Vlad decides to change some facts on the ground and he sends in some airborne divisions or maybe just "little green men" into some of the Baltic states, Obama will basically do nothing and then we'll see what Europe's best are capable of, yes?  Such a scenario is possible and it just might be humiliating enough to give rise to that "superstate" we heard a bit about after Brexit.

I don't understand why there's this paranoia that Vlad is just itching to invade Eastern Europe. Why the heck would he possibly want to? None of them are exactly thriving economies that have anything in particular he might want. The only basis for this argument seems to be that "it's just the kind of thing he'd want to do, because he's a megalomaniac". That's to completely ignore the facts behind the Ukraine/Crimea situation (and the well documented involvement of Obama's government).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.