lunachick

I hate to say it, but I think it could be a good thing. Hopefully, it'll be a balance to America's sole superpower status, and keep America "honest", as it were. Too much rides on the stability of US politics and the dollar in the world. And the times, they are a-changing.

Of course, infighting could mean that it all turns to custard.

There is an Asian alliance, isn't there, Answerer? An economic one, anyway? I'm sure NZ is even in there somewhere? But I could be wrong...

matthias j.

Blair's opinion is worth two times nothing. Blair isolated himself in the EU, he's lost all control, the initiative is now back in the hands of France and Germany. That seems a rather good thing to me, don't get me wrong, I really love the UK, great country, great humour -just love the BBC- but lousy politicians. To the people on the continent it seems as if Britain only joined the EU to block every reasonable proposition. They can't stay that ambiguous about Europe, either you're in or you're not.

Yet I don't think an European army is a good thing, but that's because I don't see the need for an army. The NY Times once wrote an article about how incompetent and small the belgian army was, that made rather proud (and a belgian being proud of his country, that's very, very unusual). I like the way our army is: just some DC 130's and a large medical department for humanitarian missions, that's what an army should be about imho.

Cap'n Jack

A little off topic, but the UK has a real hard time with some of the laws coming out of Brussels, a lot of businesses have suffered here due to some highly illogical laws. As for our politicians the UK population vote for them, yes they do a some idiotic things, but that can be said of any government.

Erm sorry for that rant, back to the topic.

matthias j.

The illogic laws british companies suffer from are probably not those Britain veto-ed (hmm spelling?) don't you think?

(off topic but I justed wanted to say it's not about every day laws, some of them are ruthlesly liberal I know, but it's things like Shengen and the Euro I'm talking about)

Mark

Which laws are you reffering to, Cap'n Jack?

meritocrat

That's true. I recall once that the EU stated all cucumbers must be five inches in length or something.

Misso

Warshaw Pact wasn't started untill 1955, 6 years after NATO's birth. Also, just three former Warshaw Pact members are members of the NATO, plus Russia as a sort of "supporter".

Plans for a EU army are quite old, but so far nothing has come out of it. I don't think there will be much change in the coming years, despite all the good intention.


In addition:
(part from the quote in the OP)
Those other two countries are Belgium and Luxembourg.

matthias j.

Untrue, that's an urban legend created by the tory press. There was a post about that somewhere here but my searching skills have once again proven to be limited

Mark

meritocrat, that's a half-truth. The EU said "Cucumbers have to be straight and must not arch more than 10mm for every 10mm of their length so people can tell how many are in a box."

But, it doesn't mean anything that isn't like this is not a cucumber.
Cucumbers do not have to be straight. There are grading rules, which were called for by representatives from the industry to enable buyers in one country to know what quality and quantity they would get when purchasing a box, unseen, from another country. Nothing is banned under these rules: they simply help to inform traders of particular specifications. The EU Single Market rules are identical to pre-existing standards set down both by the UN/OECD and the UK.

leonarde

From the OP:I don't quite get this last comment:

1) if it is meant ironically, then I disagree: a new ALLIANCE doesn't necessarily require increased armament. Especially if the new alliance doesn't figure to do much fighting any time soon.

2) but if it is meant seriously (ie unironically) then it manages, apparently in spite of itself, to hit the nail on the head: if these core nations (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg) couldn't be convinced that military action was necessary against Saddam Hussein, it's unlikely they will bestir themselves in any region outside Europe as an alliance (France handles most of the messes in Africa unilaterally). And since Europe's last two small wars (Kosovo and Bosnia Hercegovina) were settled largely by US/UK bombing (in the case of Kosovo), and by US arm-twisting (at Dayton where the peace treaty between Serbia/Bosnia was signed) AND US/UK bombing in the case of Bosnia-Hercegovina, there's a good chance that even in the case of Europe this new alliance will be superfluous in concrete situations: where military action is truly needed it will be done by NATO (if NATO survives) or a US/UK coalition of ad hoc "willing".

3) the EU military alliance figures to be an alliance for pacifists. Perhaps it can do a bit of "peace-keeping" for the UN.

Cheers!
------------------------------------------------------------------