[calpaterson]

> increasingly interdependent world where European nation-states are decreasingly relevant.

I find this (fairly common) statement pretty opaque. I'd appreciate someone explaining what he means and why it's a good argument.

[mercurial]

My take on it: the EU works by having state surrender part of their national sovereignty, and instead go for a set of commonly-agreed rules.

However, transcontinental treaties like TTIP and its ISDS provision would effectively remove a big chunk of each nation's (and the EU's as a whole) capacity to make decision which could be seen as "business-unfriendly". Additionally, the fact that modern economies are so intertwined make them quite fragile (witness the way the financial crisis crossed oceans), which in turn mean less control by national governments.

[toyg]

Except France, nobody in Europe has the defence budget to be relevant anywhere in the world. Likewise, there is no appetite for increasing such budgets; but a combination of all of them and the economic muscle they have behind, is mighty enough to be paid attention to. A boycott by this or that market is fairly irrelevant in the global scheme of things, but an EU-wide blockade is an existential threat for a lot of people (including recalcitrant actors like China and Israel).

[narag]

I'm not sure. But it could be about EU legislation. So called "directives" are actually legally binding and of higher rank than national laws.

Also ask Tsipras if he has any idea what this is about :)