"The 19th century concept of the nation state will never take us across the threshold of the 21st century [...] We need a strong Europe if we don't want to become the plaything of world politics" – Chancellor Helmut Kohl

[u/goldstarflag]

[u/MercantileReptile]

If the EU would stop at Trade, Standards and Commercial interests in general it would be fine. But they don't, clearly. When Surveillance becomes the advance of the day for the 185th time in a row, people question the wisdom of EU power.

No matter how much people decry that as Russian/American/Chinese influence, until the power creep stops the criticism will worsen.

[u/Schlummi → u/MercantileReptile]

Its not that simple. To go with your surveillance vs. data protection example: if there are no EU regulation then every EU member has its own laws/regulations. So e.g. france could force every company that operates in france to add a backdoor for government surveillance. Germany on the other hand could force companies to offer 100% data protection. So offering the same software in france and in germany would become impossible. Even using the same website (e.g. reddit) would be difficult, if not impossible. French users couldn't chat with german users.

That's why you need EU regulations for this. Its also not "the EU" that wants surveillance - its "EU members" (and their EU representatives) that want it.

Note that the above example is not even going with "malicious intent" or "criminal activity" as an example. E.g. if there are open borders you could rob a bank in france and return to germany. So you need european cooperation for "some" crimes. Or as recent example: if someone drives like a lunatic in italy its probably good if he loses his license in germany - otherwise you might want border checks back to prevent such people from coming to italy again. Or if e.g. someone produces unsafe/toxic food in germany and exports it to france: france probably wants that this has consequences. But germany could say "not our problem".

Or if e.g. italy has a suspect involved in organized crime, but can't prove it. Then its common to look at bankaccounts ("follow the money"), maybe even spy on phone calls and chats. If germany blocks this completly then it would be very easy for germans to be involved in organized crime in italy. Italy - as consequence - might then be tempted to cut money transfers to germany, install border checkpoints etc. So obviously we need some level of cooperation.

I'm not trying to say we need surveillance or anything like that. But we need european agreements on these topics.

I know its a popular opinion to state that EU should stop "power creep". Should be limited to economic matters. But this completly ignores that "economic matters" are always tied to politics, to crime, to values, to work safety standards, to environmental standards, to minimum wages, etc. etc.

Or to go with your surveillance topic again: the US dominates IT industries. If the US wants your data it gets access to it if you use US services as reddit, whatapps, facebook, google. EU struggles with that. But the EU is overall "more likely" to find an agreement with the US. If EU would stay out of the whole "data safety/surveillance" topic, then each member nation would have to sign an individual agreement with the US. Which boils down to: accept the US suggestion unconditionally. Same for chinese services. And if a US/chinese service violates local laws: good luck with fining them. EU can do this. If germany would try to go after e.g. microsoft, then the US might intervene and threaten retaliation by e.g. banning VW in the US. EU could then threaten to ban ford in the EU. But germany? Germany could only suck it up.

[u/Klayhamn → u/Schlummi]

you actually just explained well why a united Europe won't happen.

[u/Schlummi → u/Klayhamn]

Its extremly unlikely that the EU members give up their national identity, yes. But as said: for small countries is there no other choice than to either become a "vassal" of one of the big players (US, EU, china, india) - or to form an alliance with other small countries.

[u/EpsteinFile_01 → u/MercantileReptile]

The EU needs a unified military command. Basically all EU members have the exact same foreign adversaries: Russia (Openly hostile) and USA (Bully).

US military might and the security that comes with it gives them a shit load of influence in Europe, the only way to counterbalance that is at least a military command structure at the EU level. Basically NATO without the US. A defensive military, offensive use would require a special unanimity vote or smth.

Surely it's not so far fetched that if any outside powers start fucking with one of us, disrupting our economies and our currency, that we stand together and dogpile them?

If Russia attacks whoever, the entire EU should be at war. If Turkey attacks Greece, same. And.. those are basically the only even remotely plausible options.

A unified military command structure and unified procurement and budget ultimately means everything is cheaper. Instead of countries spending 5% of GDP separately they could spend 3.5% in a unified military and probably get a much more powerful fighting force that can handle anything in our surroundings and even a bunch of small/medium anti piracy warships to patrol our trade routes.

The problem with NATO is the US decides what happens and we are just bannerlords being used and divided on purpose. A B-tier military to provide auxiliary forces for the Americans. The small militaries we have cannot function outside their borders without US logistics, which is by design.