And how are we gonna do that exactly? EU runs on national interests of those footing the bill, mainly France and Germany as the largest net contributors.
When you're relying on national subsidies to build and run a factory and adjacent infrastructure in a country, you're tied to national interests and demands of those countries footing the bill for all that infrastructure.
So the likes of France and Germany aren't gonna give billions in subsidies from their taxpayers' money to semiconductor companies so that they can incorporate in Netherlands to dodge taxes and then create jobs in low-cost Poland and Romania instead of at home, even though that's already been happening to an extent in other industries over the last 20+ years.
It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later.
Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block.
The top net contributors are countries like Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc., I'm not sure where you get the idea that France and Germany are.
I will say you point out another big problem with the EU: its budget is tiny compared to the member states themselves. I do think as time goes on and millenials get in real positions of power, the idea of a more unified EU will get much broader support. So more of an EU army, much more of a single market, etc., but this will be a 25-50y timescale. I would have said it might have taken much longer, but the US and China bullying single EU countries has really displayed how exposed the current situation is.
> It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later.
> Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block.
No, that is just reasonable. Theoretically I am all for open trade in the name of efficiency, but in the coming multi-polar world, there is real advantage to having more onshored production. This also really makes me want to integrate Ukraine into the EU. Their troops are very battle-hardened at this point, and would bring ample experience to EU armies. Especially in the field of drone warfare.
Wow, how convenient that millenials who age out of military conscription , become more pro-military conscription.
Also, check the stats, majority of EU youth don't want to fight to even protect their own country, let alone other EU countries. For example Only 16% of Germans would "definitely" take up arms to defend Germany if attacked. Let that sink in.
Because why would they? What's to fight for when you can't afford to own a house and people aren't starting families anymore? Go fight and die to protect your landlord's, Blackrock's and Vanguard's wealth? N'ah bro, I'm packing my bags and fleeing across the border any way I can.
So no, the "EU army" fantasy is not happening no matter the propaganda, unless you put a gun to their head.
> I would have said it might have taken much longer, but the US and China bullying single EU countries has really displayed how exposed the current situation is.
You didn't have to wait for US and Chian to bully, you just had to watch the EU's share of global GDP completely slide into oblivion over the last 20 years compared to US and CHian to figure that when you're economically weak you become more exploitable. More EU military will not change that balance unless the EU military can somehow surpass US and CHina combined to dictate world politics and trade in their favor, which let's be real, is not happening.
> Wow, how convenient that millenials who age out of military conscription , become more pro-military conscription.
The youngest millenials are still ±30 now, they would still be eligible for conscription until 45.
> Also, check the stats, majority of EU youth don't want to fight to even protect their own country, let alone other EU countries. For example Only 16% of Germans would "definitely" take up arms to defend Germany if attacked.
First of all, you decided to be cute and pick the country that is the most reluctant about war, due to having an uneasy past. Like Japan. But let's roll with it. That poll says 16% "definitely", but also an additional 22% "probably". 59% would "probably not" fight. But of those who would not fight, 72% are women who would be unlikely to be in conscripted combat roles, so the real percentage of refusals would more likely be 17% (59% - 42%). And there's also the factor that a people gets incensed when their homeland is actually attacked, so the actual willingness is likely to be higher under pressure.
> Go fight and die to protect your landlord's, Blackrock's and Vanguard's wealth?
You're so unknowledgeable you confused BlackRock with Blackstone. Anyway, all three of those own minimal percentages of EU (or US, for that matter) housing stock.
Landlords are another matter, a huge amount of stock is in the hand of small 1-5 domicile owners. They are mostly boomers.
You are right to be irate at how millenials, gen z and gen alpha are getting the shaft right now. But that has nothing to do with war or the EU's economic situation, and everything with policy choices of the past 30-40 years that coddle boomers (housing stock, pensions, healthcare) at the cost of everyone else.
> N'ah bro, I'm packing my bags and fleeing across the border any way I can.
Good riddance, no one in the EU wants to host a seditious clown.
> So no, the "EU army" fantasy is not happening
The train of progress steams ahead unbothered. A couple of decades ago the EU or the euro "fantasy wasn't happening". And the current population is more pro-EU than ever, and the like has only been trending up since the EU's inception.
> you just had to watch the EU's share of global GDP completely slide into oblivion over the last 20 years
The EU actually had the biggest economy from 2008-2015, although that was more an artifact of exchange prices. The last decade has indeed been mismanaged but we have certainly not "slid into oblivion".
The US has had an economically amazing decade, and China was always going to become number 2 considering the population it has. And then on top of that, lots of countries in SEA, South America and some in Africa have grown to be a much larger slice of the global economic pie. And that's good! A rising tide raises all ships.
In general, the economic center of gravity was always slowly going to shift to Asia, and thus the Pacific seaboard.
> More EU military will not change that balance unless the EU military can somehow surpass US and CHina combined
The US military doesn't surpass the combined militaries of China and the EU either.. nor has it used its hegemon power to "dictate world politics", even if it has meddled in other's affairs sometimes. The main mission of the US military is (was?) security for itself and global stability & free shipping lanes to allow as much trade for the US as possible.
No, I was talking about Blackrock specifically, don't put words in my mouth. BlackRock is a significant shareholder in many of the EU's biggest corporations, who are the ones lobbying and dictating policies you have to live by.
> people gets incensed when their homeland is actually attacked
That's why the whole EU if full of military aged Ukrainian males, because they all love defending their homeland ... from their apartment in Berlin.
>Good riddance, no one in the EU wants to host a seditious clown
I'd rather be called a clown by losers on the internet and survive, than be a virtue signaling "patriot" online dying in someone else's war.
> And the current population is more pro-EU than ever,
Yeah, the EU population is so pro-EU, that the EU has to constantly buy propaganda ads on radio, TV and social media to remind us to be pro-EU, and then ban/censor/arrest those saying mean things about the EU in public.
Since when is the quality of arguments and the understanding of economics and politics tied to the age of your account? Is this how arguments are won here? Age discrimination goes against HN rules. Your opinion on global events is not automatically more correct than others just because you've been on HN 10 years longer than others.
>posting doubious takes like this
Universally recognized and factually proven facts = dubious to you?
What (counter-)arguments do you actually bring to this discussion, other than throwing ageism and baseless accusations at people as your strategy to discredit their opinions you dislike?
That's exactly the opposite of the HN rules.
I agree, its a rather shady approach. But here you go, we'll get more and more of this, its a conveneient method to discredit discussion partners with unwanted opinions.
You’re asserting that account age shouldn’t matter, and that any scrutiny is morally illegitimate.
Nobody is discriminating against you. It’s just that account age is one of the few signals that an online platform has to go by.
HN absolutely recognizes this in their policy, considering that they give new accounts an entirely different color to make them stand out from the rest, and that they don’t allow downvotes unless your account has achieved a certain karma level.
Look across the Atlantic for what will eventually happen once you concentrate the power.
I say the power should remain close to the people, decentralized and democratic, not centralised and concentrated.
As for the EU, you have the Commission who are unelected and the Parliament who are elected. The Parliament has to confirm laws like chat control.
If a majority of Parliament votes in chat control (they haven't and probably won't), that means a majority of the people want chat control. Or think they want it, anyway.
I'm also not sure why you think the EU is the pinnacle of central government. It carries vastly less power over its constituent countries than the US does over its constituent states.
How is this not communist tyranny with extra steps?
How do you expect those people footing most of the bill to give up their status quo and voluntarily sign up for something like this? Oh wait, I remember, that's why they're pushing chat control and digital-ID on us.
If you do not see how someone like US or China can play 27 individual countries and divide Europe by propping one nation and discrediting another, for example recent Trump admin meddling with Poland, or Musk fiddling with German and Spanish government, then it's going to be difficult having this discussion with you.
Another aspect... Spain stopped being a dictatorship 51 years ago, half of the continent was under Soviet influence until something like 35 years ago, communist for that matter. The continent has been consolidated over the last half a century. Painting EU as the root of all evil is not a way forward.
Isn’t this exactly how the United States and every other country works?
Secondly, even if the US as a country is tighter integrated and more financially successful than the EU as a union, the US is not a successful model example of a well functioning society that people in the EU would aspire to emulate, on the contrary, they'd rather preserve the status quo than turning into something resembling what the US has become.
It has zero to do with communism.
EU is not a country. It's a political and economic union. And I think it can't become a country since peoples of member states desire to keep a degree of national sovereignty.
There indeed won't be equal benefits, but instead France, Germany etc are going to benefit a lot more in this kind of situation than without the integration. We've already seen the massive benefits of the single market integration for example for the German economy and industry. It'd be strange to think that further erosion of barriers and better integration wouldn't bring further benefits to the economies involved.
> How is this not communist tyranny with extra steps?
Um, by the fact that the EU wouldn't be taking over the means of production when it'd be integrating? Like come on, this is just silly, to call a block dedicated to free market principles and social capitalism "communist tyranny".
I swear, this kind of economic illiteracy is going to be the end of us all.
> How do you expect those people footing most of the bill to give up their status quo and voluntarily sign up for something like this? Oh wait, I remember, that's why they're pushing chat control and digital-ID on us.
The EU isn't pushing for the Chat Control and whatever, it's only certain member countries like Denmark doing that. They should absolutely be reprimanded for that, but nevertheless the difference is important.
Also, the people "footing most of the bill" would also be benefiting massively, for example by making sure that we would no longer have a situation like the Greek debt crisis messing everything up for the entire currency block.
Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it - at least not anymore then any other unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence
What part of my original statement you quoted
"EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block"
>unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence
Maybe reading comprehension or understanding of international politics within the EU is not your strength, but I gave you the evidence and arguments in the comment you quoted. Maybe you don't like to hear what I said, but that's another thing entirely.