[LatteLazy]

I think we’re at risk of confusing 2 issues here

1. Has the pressure for more intervention and an EU armed forces gone up?

2. What will that look like, who will pay for it, who will control it, will Germany dominate it etc

I am just saying trump is driving point (1). How or whether (2) is solved is another matter and a more complex thing.

I personally think as need goes up, ways are found. So far people have been unwilling because the points above (2) outweigh the need (1). If trump invaded Greenland then I imagine people would be much more willing to engage even if it meant paying, accepting German leadership (or Germany accepting less oversight despite paying?) etc.

We have already seen France unilaterally extend its nuclear umbrella.

That is what happened with finances: Germany wouldn’t accept EU wide debt, and many countries wouldn’t accept German style fiscal constraints. Then the euro crisis forced both sides to compromise and here we are with both.

I hope it doesn’t take an actual military crisis to force the matter here. But one (two actually, trump on one side, Russia on the other) is looking available…

[lycopodiopsida]

I see EU as a failing project exactly because everyone can veto, so every decision is watered down until it means nothing. I can rather imagine that the current EU will be silently given up and something like EU-2 will be formed instead, including France, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, etc. Because current state of affairs is not satisfying, independent of being an EU proponent or sceptic. The mole which is Orban's Hungary shows that current decision mechanics are not viable. The EU has to account for the opinion of a corrupt mafia state, it cannot work.

There is also no german leadership. Germany does not want to lead - it has enough of own problems and it is not like external affairs count that much in german politics, as a usual deflection tactic.

Regarding fiscal politics - current administration is willing to make big debts, so it should not be an issue.

[LatteLazy]

I broadly agree.

Since us brits left I wondered if there would be a big move to more effective government. But apparently not?

I think the most interesting thing about the EU is we’re watching the formation of a country but over ~100 years. The US had a few milestones (war of independence, civil war, ww2) where it got things together and centralised etc. the EU has not had (yet) crises of that scale.

It took the euro debt crisis to get fiscal stuff moving. Maybe Ukraine/Trump is what is needed to do the same for armed forces?

[lycopodiopsida]

We could imagine it, but...

First of all, not in the scope of current EU. I can't imagine Netherlands landing in one country with Romania or Hungary for reasons of politics and economics.

Second, even if we take some countries with good ties, similar economics and politics - let us say Netherlands, France, Germany - there is more to a country than that. I was in Belgium the other month. Very funny - you leave Brussels on a train, ride for 20 min., get off the train in Antwerp. Different language, different people, they do not even care doubling descriptions in a museum in french. There is more to a country than just a name, and I am not sure a stable nation can be born just like that. There is more to it than politics.

[linhns]

Seriously I don’t know why Hungary hasn’t been booted yet. Corruption is rife, culturally different and Putin-hugging. Well perhaps only good things to come out are paprika and salami

[lycopodiopsida]

It is almost impossible to boot someone out of the EU - there is no protocol, nothing in the contracts. The EU as a construct is pretty much child of 90s - end of history and such nonsense. There are no safeguards and it is not reformable, since a lot of small countries who have veto rights would all have to give it up.

[tomp]

This is contradictory:

> The US has spent decades preventing and delaying the EU becoming a defacto state

> I am just saying trump is driving [pressure for EU armed forces]

So which is it, is US stopping EU from federalizing, or accelerating it?

The best possible reading is, before Trump US was stopping, now it's accelerating, but that's what I asked - what's your source / data / facts / circumstantial evidence that US used to try to prevent / delay EU federalizing?

I don't see it, or if there was, it was completely in-consequential, because there was enough hesitancy within EU already.

[LatteLazy]

Before trump the us was stopping it

Trump is encouraging it.

And specifically in the area of defence.

Source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-its-time-reconsider-europe...

It’s quiet widely discussed here (UK, we’re kind of on the edge but want in, but maybe not too in for obvious reasons)