Is the EU an Empire?

[pithorr]

See, I get your point about uniting all the lost tribes of Slavdom under their rightful ruler, but why Svalbard? that is pretty much just polar bears and Norwegians.

The Russians rent a mine there so that clay belongs to Mother Russia!

 

[wingo]

Without much repression? What about the Prague Spring end by invasion? Is that peaceful?! The communist regime was much worse in Czech than the Austrian one. Our economy went from 8th to in the second half of Europe.

Yeah, because the Prague spring was in the 80s... oh wait! And still, compared to what Great powers or superpowers used to do to dissent, it vas a pretty light repression (of course helped by the fact there wasn`t organized active resistance). I`m not saying it was good or a smart move (there was zero chance Czechoslovakia would suddenly switch to capitalism, democracy and immediately join NATO) and it was the turning point for a lot of people who became disillusioned with communism and their "big brother" USSR (nicely portrayed in movie Pelíšky), but the repression is on a whole different level compared to what was the norm elsewhere, like Africa, Latin america, Asia... or Europe before, during and shortly after WW2.

Maybe in Slovakia a referendum on leaving the EU would fail. Slovakia is slightly poorer though and well yeah had a rougher time in Hungary before Czech united with Slovakia (not that Slovakia thanked Czechs for that). However in a Czech referendum about leaving the EU between 60-80% of Czechs would vote to leave and so it would end probably with us leaving. What is the EU doing for us? It was giving us money, but the price for that money is loss of territorial sovereignty, loss of our legislation. Havel himself later became an EU sceptic and changed his mind about joining the EU and wanted Czech to leave. It does give us some benefits certainly but the price for those benefits is loss of our sovereignty and legislation. Also where is this sizable minority of pro-EU in Czech unless you mean the KSCM supporters and even then only around 17% of Czechs are not actively EU sceptic. Anyway the EU might be a benevolent empire but it is an empire nonetheless even if it has limited power

Yeah, I now see you are completely out of touch with reality, especially economic reality. Nice touch ignoring the part where I pointed out to you every country that wants to cooperate on some level has to abide by agreed rules of cooperation. But don`t let me stop you when you`re rolling
By all means, try to sever all ties with EU, see where it will get you. Don`t worry, nobody in power is even remotely as stupid as to do that. Going the same way as Norway might be a sensible approach, but we are back to my point - if you want to cooperate, you still need to abide by rules. Yes, slightly less rules (no immigrant quotas, yeah!), but all those economic ones? You still need to follow them if you want to be part of the single european market area, and doing it this way means you have zero chance to influence these rules apart from leaving the single market completely, as one Norwegian pointed out in another thread few months ago. Leaving completely would put you not where Norway, but where Albania is (of course with much better starting economic position, but still). You have no idea how much has the tight integration with European (especially German) economy helped your economy. The European funds everyone (including you) keeps talking about are peanuts compared to that effect.

About thanking Czechs for a common state - what? It wasn˙t the Czechs who rode like White knights and freed the Slovaks from Hungary, it was a joint effort of Czech and Slovak elites with the Entente powers to be granted a united state after WW1. We parted peacefully despite you stealing the flag we both agreed will NOT be used after dissolution (what is that blue in the flag meant to represent now, Slovak immigrants in Czech republic?), have good relations, tight cooperation on all levels, people remembering Czechoslovakia (especially the interwar one) fondly, history taught at school and portrayed by mainstream with Czechoslovakia as the best thing to happen after WW1, it`s dissolution as a consequence of Hitler agression as a bad thing... what else do you expect? Official letter thanking you every month, with a gift attached? I`m out of words... that is just so wrong on so many levels, you really ARE out of touch with reality Also, don`t forget Carpathian Ruthenians!

One more question, as this got me really curious - KSCM (communist party consistently getting over 10% of votes for those who silently watch in awe, or are just eating popcorn reading this while giggling like teenage girls ) voters are supporting EU? And you think those are the only ones? Really? I don`t even...

 

[Czert]

Not yet...

with unofficial queen Angela I of Hamburg

 

[Geriander]

with unofficial Kaiserin Angela I of Hamburg

FIFY. No mere queen can rule the Empire of Europa!

 

[Czert]

FIFY. No mere queen can rule the Empire of Europa!

So who should rule eu empire ?

 

[Geriander]

So who should rule eu empire ?

Huh? I fixed the text in my quote of you to give Merkel her correct title. I wasn't proposing an alternative sovreign.

 

[Czert]

Huh? I fixed the text in my quote of you to give Merkel her correct title. I wasn't proposing an alternative sovreign.

sorry, didnt relized fixing of title in my quote.

 

[Health]

I enjoyed this Slav-off.

 

[XYN]

Need to define empire first. In some loose sense, it probably is.

I enjoyed this Slav-off.

That's because you are secret Slavophobe.

They were banished from OT for a reason!

 

[Blaaat]

Agreed - the US and the EU aren't comparable kinds of organizations.

I think they are comparable organisations. Which is to say 18th century USA, particularly under the Articles of Confederation, is comparable to the EU. Modern USA, on the other hand, is not.

 

[gagenater]

I think they are comparable organisations. Which is to say 18th century USA, particularly under the Articles of Confederation, is comparable to the EU. Modern USA, on the other hand, is not.

That’s probably true. Although the articles of confederation were replaced so soon after independence it’s hard to study the period very easily. Independence was declared in 1776, independence was won by treaty in 1783. The articles of confederation were drafted in 1777, ratified and put in force in 1781. The drafting of the constitution started and ended just 6years later in 1787, and it was ratified and in force by 1790. Effectively the articles of confederation were only in force during the end of the war and it’s immediate aftermath. They were the ‘law of the land’ less than 6 years before their replacement was formally made, and replacement was widely expected even before the drafting of the constitution started. By contrast the EU has been far more durable.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

By contrast the EU has been far more durable.

The circumstances are so wildly different that is not necessarily a true statement.

 

[fredinno]

In some ways, the EU might be indeed an empire. However it does not have a monarch, countries can leave without warring the EU. As for it having a unified currency it doesn't. Some countries do use the Euro but others like Czech Republic, UK don't use the Euro and are very unlikely to ever use the euro (one due to Brexit, the other due to public opinion). Also weak countries and small can leave the EU or not join it and still survive. Trade is dealt with by the EEA not the EU, Switzerland has a free trade agreement with EU but is not part of the EU and even so countries could survive leaving the EU. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, etc. all did relatively well even before the EU in terms of GDP growth rate and survived 8 years as capitalist countries without the EU, so the EU isn't necessary to survive. The EU certainly de Jure can pass legislation over one of the EU members, but de facto like the HRE, it can only pass legislation if the countries are willing to pass it themselves. Every EU legislation if blocked by a country who refused to apply it, the EU has no power or influence to make a rebelling country follow the order due to the country mostly being part of NATO and the EU being only an economic alliance. Well it can sanction, but sanctioning is limited in its effectivenes. Iran was sanctioned yet survived, Italy managed to survive sanctions too. So I would argue it's more like a loose confederation of states, then an empire

The 3rd French Republic was an empire, and lacked a monarchy.

Plus, the unifed banking system gave a very good leverage to 'convince' nations to go by their rules once in. Once the proposal to make a unifed EU army goes in, any notion of the EU not having a proper enforcement for its member states is over. From then on, the path to full autocracy is clear.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/eu-army-inevitable-says-senior-german-official/

 

[fredinno]

There's nothing about the term empire that requires or implies anything with respect to benevolence or harshness. However I would have to say, the US isn't currently in Empire. It was at one time, but that period was over by 1946, when it gave up the last of it's consequential territories. As of now it's merely a superpower.

Well, it still has Puerto Rico...

But, honest talk, the issue with defining 'empire' vs 'nation-state' is the difference is fairly slim. We usually think of a nation-state as a nationalistically organized, unifed state- but that's not the case for most places outside Europe and the Americas. Case in point, all of Sub Saharan Africa, and Indonesia.

'Empire' was a term more used in the past, since it was prestigious to be an empire- until fairly recently.

From a Balkan perspective the Austrians helped us fight off the Ottoman invasions and set up the foundations of our future states in terms of infrastructure,culture and the legal system.

Not to mention the prettiest parts of my country were constructed during that era.

As such living here you kind of get the impression that the people who use to rule you 100 years ago were more competent than the ones ruling you now.

It isnt helped by the fact that masses of my people had to go to work in Austria and Germany because the economy is so bad,as such bringing Austria to us would seem like a solution.

And i didnt say Austria-Hungary,i said the Austrian Empire.

The bonus part is that the Austrian Empire didnt give the Hungarians any special treatment,included Northern Italy and didnt include Bosnia.


From my perspective being centralized and oppressive and run by a bunch of Germanic people is a positive.

Id be fine with a sort of Mittleuropa thing with the Germanics and Central Europe tied together and rejecting everyone else,since at this point most of them are just dead weight or more trouble than they are worth.

Instead of praying for anarchy and giving back into Russian sphere, we should stay with Germans. For our both economical and political stability.

The nice part about the EU is that it's still dominated by Germans Oh yeah, and political stability.

I was being genuine,no need to assume someones intentions.

Back to EU empire or not topic.

I personally consider the EU more of a bloated Holy Roman Empire in modern day.

It has theoretical leadership that has little actual control over the various members,has different layers of autonomy going from full member eurozone states to non-eurozone members,then you have Norway and Switzerland who arent members but have deep ties etc.

I doubt its even possible for it to consolidate into an empire of sorts since that would require an unprecedented level of national consensus.

The difference with the HRE is that the EU government actually has the ability to enforce laws, unlike the HRE- and unlike the Habsburgs, the EU government has been very successful at consolidating power.



Can we go back to the main topic?

 

[gagenater]

The circumstances are so wildly different that is not necessarily a true statement.

Absolutely. Both statements are true simultaneously. The EU is more durable than the articles of confederation and so different as to be difficult to compare.

 

[gagenater]

Well, it still has Puerto Rico...

Can we go back to the main topic?

Hence my statement ‘substantial’. There are a bunch of other places besides Puerto Rico that are in some form of association with the US but they all have very low populations, very little economic significance, or both. Puerto Rico is the possible outlier. Given that it’s size, economy and population are all less than 1% of the parent country I don’t think it’s significant. If you think Puerto Rico IS significant then Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and the UK all still deserve the empire label and that’s hardly realistic.

I think this is all part of the main topic. If we can’t agree on what makes something an empire, then we can’t figure out how the EU fits in that framework.

 

[adriankowaty]

The nice part about the EU is that it's still dominated by Germans Oh yeah, and political stability.

What is a problem with that?
It's major payer for the EU funds.

 

[HuzzButt]

What is a problem with that?
It's major payer for the EU funds.

Bring back the weighed vote

 

[adriankowaty]

Bring back the weighed vote

EU is now a technocracy as far as I see.
And that's good.

 

[Czert]

EU is now a technocracy as far as I see.
And that's good.

RLY ?
actualy EU is SLOWING down development. just look at airbus helicopters (eurocopter), at time of founding - 1992 - in which eu burocracy was weak, thier designs were considered more advanced and better than from us bell. today ? with way more stronger buro ? airbus heliopters are years behind bell, especialy when it comes to high-tech/futuretech implemeantion.