Will the EU become a super power?

[Blackleaf]

I think Europe is destroying itself. And, i dont think getting Turkey as a part of the EU is a good thing. Its just not a very European country, they are more Asia-like.

But, actually i dont care much. Its the same everywhere.

Just my opinion.

633602[/snapback]

Interesting point. As long as we are in the EU, it will be difficult for them to come in....i mean we can veto them to high heaven....

Anyhow, I believe everyone is forgetting the greatest European country in every aspect: Russia. If they come in at some point, and they will evetually, then the only adversary will be China. Imagine a EU double the size, with a huge European army, far bigger and better than the US, financially backed up by the Germans and the French (and the Russians of course). Additionally, oil, which is a problem for the Eu will not be a particular problem any more (Russia is the biggest producer of the stuff). As to the point of Muslims, it is true that they have more children than the rest of us; yet, they have achieved to make themselves disliked by the western europeans (the eastern europeans are more used to them...) Anyhow, if and when Russia becomes part then the answer will be yes...

637226[/snapback]

How is Russia the greatest European country in every respect? It's economy is smaller than Germany's, Britain's, France's and Italy's, its military is no match for Britain with its rusting ships and submarines that sink and, per capita, it is very poor. So, Russia can only make the EU even more of a military laughing stock than it is now, and will not trouble the US in any way. Or even China.

And I've already states that even with Russia, the EU will still have a smaller population than China and India, and even the US, growing a lot more rapidly than the EU, will have a larger population than the EU even if the EU covered all of Europe including Russia.

[Blackleaf]

What the hell?! You have to be joking to say that the majority of Europeans will be Muslim. Hang your head in shame.

637093[/snapback]

I've already posted earlier that European aren't having enough children in order to sustain Europe's population. Without Muslims, Europe's population will decline. Muslims in Europe are breeding 3 times faster than native Europeans, so later this century, most Europeans will be Muslim.

[Blackleaf]

That’s quite interesting about Russia Vallheru.   

A bit unrelated, but I recently had to do an essay on the Single European Market and the competitive status of the EU in relation to other trading blocs, and in terms of trade, the future for both the EU and the US it is set to change quite dramatically.

Europe is setting up a Euro-Mediterranean Free-Trade Area, which combined with EFTA will give a market of 600-800 million consumers in 40 countries!  (the EU has currently 455 million consumers) LINK on EMFTA

America it seems is setting up a ‘Free Trade Area of the Americas’ comprising 34 countries (only excluding Cuba I think?) and a market of 840 million consumers, with an annual output of over $15 trillion! FTAA

In the future we are probably likely to see a Transatlantic Free Trade Area which will combine both these huge trading blocs.  I think it is amazing how much we are converging on a global scale! 

637251[/snapback]

There is a difference between a "Free Trade Area" and a "Free Trade Area with aspirations of becoming a superstate."

NAFTA has NO intention of becoming a superstate. The US, Canada and Mexico will always remain independent nations. The EU, though, is just PRETENDING to be a Free Trade Area. It is trying to become one country, to try and rival the United States, and is very anti-American with everything it does. The EU now has its own currency for its Member States, its own police force (Europol) and even its trying to get its own Constitution. The EU even has its own Parliament. What kind of Free Trade Area needs its own currency, police force, Constitution and Parliament?

But look at NAFTA and you will see that the US, Canada and Mexico all have different currencies, different police forces and different constitutions. They are not trying to become united as one nation.

So don't compare the EU to NAFTA. A better thing to compare the EU to would be the USSR.

[Blackleaf]

Analysis: EU world's next superpower?

By Gareth Harding - UPI Chief European Correspondent

BRUSSELS -- Could the European Union become a superpower to rival the global might of the United States? The question is not just being asked in Brussels and other European capitals, but is increasingly being chewed over by policy wonks inside the Beltway.

In raw statistical terms, the EU is already a fledgling superpower.

A controversial book by Washington Post writer T.R. Reid titled "The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy," has become an unlikely best-seller, while a recent article in Foreign Policy by Brookings Institution analyst Parag Khanna likened the "stylish" EU to a "Metrosexual Superpower" strutting past the "bumbling" United States on the catwalk of global diplomacy.

The latest, and perhaps most nuanced, contribution to the debate comes from the National Intelligence Council, a Washington-based think-tank with close links to the CIA. In a report titled "Mapping the Global Future," it concludes the EU has the potential to become a major world player, but only if it undertakes radical reforms to boost economic growth and stem population losses.

In raw statistical terms, the EU is already a fledgling superpower. With 458 million citizens, its current population dwarfs that of the United States and is third only to India and China. It is also the world's largest and most powerful economic bloc, with a bigger gross domestic product than America, China or Japan.

"By most measures -- market size, single currency, highly skilled work force, stable democratic governments, unified trade bloc, and GDP -- an enlarged Europe will have the ability to increase its weight on the international scene," says the NIC report.

Clearly, Europe is in no position to rival the United States' military might, but its use of "soft power" -- the EU is the world's largest aid donor -- is attractive to such emerging world players as China and India. "Europe's strength may be in providing, through its commitment to multilateralism, a model of global and regional governance to the rising powers, particularly if they are searching for a "Western" alternative to strong reliance on the United States," says the NIC study, which describes an EU-China alliance as "unlikely" but "no longer unthinkable."

European leaders are keen to point out to their anxious American counterparts that strengthening the Union's nascent defense arm does not mean weakening the North Atlantic alliance. However, the NIC report predicts: "The EU, rather than NATO, will increasingly become the primary institution for Europe, and the role which Europeans shape for themselves on the world stage is most likely to be projected through it."

So far, so good for believers in a strong, unified Europe acting with greater confidence on the world stage. The problem is, the EU may have already reached the high-point of its power and could be on course for a prolonged period of decline.

Fertility rates in Europe are about 1.4 children per woman, well below the 2.1 level needed to keep the population stable. If these rates continue, the working-age population will be almost 20 percent smaller than the current one by 2050, while the numbers of those over 65 years will have increased by 60 percent. The European Commission estimates the economic impact of such a decline would be to shave the already feeble current growth rate of 2-2.25 a year to 1.25 percent by 2040.

"Either European countries adapt their work forces, reform their social welfare, education, and tax systems, and accommodate growing immigrant populations (chiefly from Muslim countries), or they face a period of protracted economic stasis that could threaten the huge successes made in creating a more United Europe," warns the NIC report, which aims to predict global trends up to 2020.

Failure to reform could lead to member states "going it alone" in foreign affairs, an end to the enlargement process -- barring the entry of Turkey and the Balkan states -- and the "splintering, or at worst, disintegration of the European Union," says the CIA-sponsored study.

This may sound apocalyptic, but there are some in Brussels who share the view that "business as usual" policies will result in the death of the European dream. A report drawn up for the commission by former Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok in November said Europe was losing ground to the United States and would fail to meet its goal of becoming the world's most competitive economy by the end of the decade without radical reforms. Calling on leaders to rise to, rather than shirk, their responsibilities, it concluded: "Nothing less than the future prosperity of the European model is at stake."

There are encouraging signs the commission understands the gravity of the situation Europe finds itself in. Newly appointed president Jose Manuel Barroso has made creating jobs and promoting growth the two priorities of his five-year stint at the helm of the EU executive and has assembled the most fervently pro-market team of commissioners ever seen in Brussels.

The problem is that economic policy is still largely decided in national capitals, and here there is less urgency to free up highly regulated labor markets, trim bloated welfare systems and invest in education and research and development.

Europeans are still fabulously wealthy and cosseted compared with most other peoples in the world, but there is an almost unanimous agreement on both sides of the Atlantic that this cannot last. The NIC report estimates that the GDP of China will overtake that of Britain this year, Germany before the end of the decade and Japan by 2015. The only compensation for Euro-enthusiasts obsessed with one-upping the United States is that Chinese wealth is set to outstrip America's by 2040.

The EU becoming a superpower beyond what it may JUST about be? dream on.

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/Mark_Word...super1-13.shtml

[Erikl]

The EU isn't a superpower because it has no way to influence global affairs militarily according to all it's member's agreement, because it lacks the military power for that.

It is a superpower economically and beginning to be one diplomatically (naturally, as it unites three countries with huge international influence, with two of them being permanent members and veto right in the security council of the UN).

Once the EU will decide to create a common military of it's own, that will include France's and Britain's nuclear arsenals, and will be seperate from NATO, then we could say the EU is a full fledged superpower.

Till then it is still a forming superpower.

[Tommy]

Blackleaf, there is a multiple quote feature if you want to quote more than 1 person instead of triple or quad-posting.

There is a difference between a "Free Trade Area" and a "Free Trade Area with aspirations of becoming a superstate."

637871[/snapback]

The EU is actually not a Free Trade Area, nor pretending to be one. A Free trade Area is usually considered the first stage of regional economic integration. The later stages being a Customs Union, a Common Market, an Economic Union and finally an Economic and Monetary Union. It is in fact the last stage of these that the EU is, on it’s path to be a complete Political Union.

I was talking about the future of trade in the EU compared with the US and the consequences of converging into much larger trading blocs, which seems to be the way things are going.

So don't compare the EU to NAFTA.  A better thing to compare the EU to would be the USSR.

You say not to compare the EU to NAFTA, however Europe, the US and Japan make up the ‘triad’, which is considered to be the engine of trade around the world. These 3 blocs count for over 60% of all world imports and 50% of all exports, as well as accounting for 80% of global FDI, so making the comparison for trade is natural.

I don’t want to dwell on this point as this thread is about the EU becoming a superstate, and not about trade. I only made the point in passing as I thought it was interesting to see where the future of trade is going.

[Vallheru]

Brittain is not a match to Russia, any way you see it. Has plenty of resources, huge working force, huge country. This myth about old rusting army, is at least laughable..( I reckon they have also 30.000 rusting nuclear warheads...)

For all brits who would like to object, I say just one word: Roman....

Anyhow, this military super-power thing, is just a created overblown theory.

if the us are such a huuuge super power, why do they have SO BIG problems holding a starved, under-armed nation as Iraq? As to the brits...well at least they know their place and only go to war as a sidekick to the Americans...something like a support troop....what a shame for the leading army in the second world war...a pitty.

Anyhow, if we can have one day Germany and Russia in EU, say goodbye to everyone else....simple logic folks...

[Erikl]

Brittain is not a match to Russia, any way you see it. Has plenty of resources, huge working force, huge country. This myth about old rusting army, is at least laughable..( I reckon they have also 30.000 rusting nuclear warheads...)

I agree.

Also, it should be noted that the Russian military produces very advanced and modern weapons to this day, though the problem is that it lacks the money to buy it (so this makes Russia one of the world's most leading producer of high-tech weaponry) .

This is Russia's eternal problem - it has so many resources, but lacks the ability to properly manage them.

Anyhow, if we can have one day Germany and Russia in EU, say goodbye to everyone else....simple logic folks...

There is another huge western power in the area you are forgetting, and that is Israel.

With the IAF joining the RAF in an all-European military, even the USAF won't be able to stop it.

Also, Israel has one of the most advanced armour corp in the world, with thousands of state of the art Merkava mark 4 tanks. Israel also developed very advanced technologies in avionics and balistic missiles.

If Israel will ever join the EU, even without Russia, I can assure you that the EU will have the strongest military in the world (a military that will combine the IDF and the militaries of Britain and France is virtually unstoppable by any military force) .

[Blackleaf]

Whither EU? Prospect of superpower fading

Rebuffs of constitution may set Europe on less ambitious course

By Robert H. Reid

The Associated Press

Updated: 5:28 p.m. ET June 1, 2005

LONDON - The dramatic Dutch rejection of the European Union constitution, following France’s “no,” could shift the EU onto a much less ambitious course, diminishing the chances the U.S. will face a rival European superpower anytime soon.

The charter was meant to bestow some of the trappings of statehood — a flag, a president, an anthem — on the alliance and lay the foundation for a political entity of 450 million people accounting for a quarter of the world’s economic output, bigger and richer than the United States.

But the document must be ratified by all 25 member states, and voters in France and the Netherlands — both founding members of the EU — have clearly not bought into the grand vision of Europe championed by their political elite.

European leaders will discuss what to do next at a summit in about two weeks. The task is not simply to find a legal way out of the constitutional impasse but to rethink the direction of Europe, including plans for adding new members and deepening political integration.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the result of the French and Dutch votes “raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe.”

The character of the constitutional debate differed somewhat in France and the Netherlands.

Anger and fear

In France, anger with President Jacques Chirac and fears of an “Anglo-Saxon” Europe under the spell of free-market principles clearly influenced the outcome. Leading French supporters of the charter complained that many voters were more interested in sending a message to Chirac than making a reasoned judgment on the constitution.

But the Netherlands already follows the pro-U.S., free-market policies that alarm the French. Instead, Dutch liberals feared the country would will lose its independence over such socially liberal policies as euthanasia and marijuana. Conservatives fretted about immigration policies being decided at EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

The common thread appears to be public rejection of the notion — at least for now — of a European superstate. That is a goal never explicitly articulated by national leaders who support the charter and even denied by some, yet it is implicit in the structures the constitution would establish.

To many of the constitution’s champions, a united Europe would serve as a major pillar of a multipolar world, capable of standing up to the United States and competing economically with the Americans and the rising Asian economic powerhouses China and India.

That goal now seems at best more distant.

‘History’

“The constitution, in this version, is history,” Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a critic of the charter, said after the French vote. “My fears — that the European constitution, with the ambitions it had, would not contribute to the unification of Europe, but will damage the process of European integration — were fulfilled.”

After the French rejected the charter Sunday, European leaders were quick to declare that ratification should continue in other EU nations.

However, there are strong opposition blocs in several of the undecided countries, most notably Britain. If Chirac was unable to sell the constitution in France despite the support of most major media and political parties, many wonder how British Prime Minister Tony Blair can do it in the most “Euroskeptic” of the big EU members.

The second time around?

In theory, electorates in countries that reject the constitution could be asked to vote again — as happened when the Irish turned down an EU treaty in 2001, only to approve it in a second vote the following year.

That wouldn’t be easy in France without major changes to the document, which German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder already has ruled out. Chirac’s government is so unpopular it would take a miracle to sell a charter already rejected by voters from across the political spectrum.

EU leaders will review their options at their summer summit in Brussels on June 16-17. Rather than a firm decision, what seems likely is pulling back for a “period of reflection,” as called for by Blair.

Among other options, the EU could postpone the November 2006 deadline for members to ratify the charter, buying politicians time either to try to promote the charter or decide what to do next.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063654

Edited June 2, 2005 by Blackleaf

[Blackleaf]

Brittain is not a match to Russia, any way you see it. Has plenty of resources, huge working force, huge country. This myth about old rusting army, is at least laughable..( I reckon they have also 30.000 rusting nuclear warheads...)

You have to remember that Russian subamarines are so old and decrepit that they have a tendency to sink - but not "sink" in the way they were designed to do.

Also, having 30,000 rusting nuclear warheads is pointless and can do no-one any harm.

And the Russian Navy is no match for the Royal Navy - the Royal Navy is the second most power navy in the world and the Royal Navy and US Navy are the ONLY two true "Blue Water" navies in the world.

And the US and UK and the only two countries in the world that are able to project their forces to anywhere in the world within 24 hours. The French, Russians and Chinese can't do that. Nor the Israelis.

[Blackleaf]

.

If Israel will ever join the EU.

No chance. The EU is anti-Israel and pro-Palestine.

[Blackleaf]

And remember that Britain spends MORE, per capita, on its soldiers than any other country in the world after the United States.

Militarily, US and UK are the top two.

The Continental European countries have spent so much on their social welfare and hardly any on their militaries that the militaries have become decrepit and couldn't invade one another even if they wanted to.