guess who’s making the political weather at the moment. Well it’s Trump, Netanyahu and Putin.
This is exactly what’s being debated. You take it as given. It isn’t. Are they ‘making the weather’, or are they tools in a political machine? This is the discussion we’re trying to have that you seem to refuse to engage in.
I asked “Do you really think you’re repeating information here that ‘others aren’t noticing’”, you replied,
I don’t know because I’m not a mind reader.
Then you say
the posters who usually post in these threads have a fairly broad understanding of what’s going on in the world
Which is it? Are you confident the posters here already have a “fairly broad understanding of what’s going on in the world”, or not? If the former, then what is the purpose of repeating information already in the mainstream newspapers?
If there’s something you think I’m missing point it out and we can discuss it.
I have. I asked you several questions about who benefits most from the current discourse which you ignored.
Who benefits from the focus on single (removeable) leaders, dividing the working class, a sense of constant ‘crisis’, and the notion that information needs to be controlled by the authorities?
These should be simple questions to answer - which groups gain power and wealth most from this shift in focus?
There you go again, trying to turn it into an argument about the style, or emphasis of another poster. It feels like you’re looking for a gotya moment. Who exactly is having this discussion that you say we’re trying to have?
Now you’ve raised the issue of whether the political leaders splashed all over the media as controlling world events, are actually in control of the current human predicament, politically and economically. Or whether there are actors doing stuff behind the scenes with an agenda, hoodwinking the populous with this media machine. We can now debate that.
So tell me what you think is going on here behind the scenes and we can discuss it. You brought it up, you go first.
here you go again, trying to turn it into an argument about the style, or emphasis of another poster.
It’s not about style or emphasis. Either the Bad Men are in charge or they’re not. Either they are responsible (such that if they stopped their actions the world would improve), or they’re not. These are arguments about what actually is the case in the world, not style or emphasis.
It’s vitally important because it determines what the target of popular resistance is.
Who exactly is having this discussion that you say we’re trying to have?
We are. You (and @ssu originally) raised the theory that Trump has broken a ‘world order’ which used to exist and that this is a bad thing. That’s the crux of the thread. I’m pushing back on that by saying that nothing has actually changed, the arrangement of power that was in place before Trump is exactly the same one in all meaningful senses, as the one that is in place now. Further, that any extent to which it has changed has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with a move from steady-state capitalism to ‘Crisis Capitalism’.
We can now debate that.
Apparently we can’t, because neither you nor @ssu, will actually answer any of my questions. That does, I’m sure you see, make it a little difficult to have a ‘debate’. A debate rather hinges on the sides actually responding to one another - otherwise it’s just two teams of evangelists taking it in turns to preach.
So tell me what you think is going on here behind the scenes and we can discuss it. You brought it up, you go first.
That’s just shifting the burden of proof. @ssu raised the issue, you agreed. It’s on you to defend the position you put forward, otherwise this site is nothing more than soapboxing platform.
That isn’t an either, or, distinction.
It literally is. Either the people posting here are well informed, or they will be enlightened by information one can find in the newspapers. It cannot be both. Being well-informed means being aware of the sort of general information one finds in the newspapers.
If I start a thread (which I have) or raise an issue it’s on me to defend the ideas put forward there (which I have). @ssu started this thread, you supported the argument with…
I think Pax Americana is rupturing
then you raised a really good point about globalisation (which I thought was very pertinent but sadly didn’t go anywhere), then you said…
Trump wants to have total control over one hemisphere of the globe… This could be just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than a decline of the U.S.
Either you’re prepared to defend those points or you’re not. If you are then it’s you who needs to support them in the face of critiques such as that I offered. If you’re not, then you’re not here to discuss, you’re here to soapbox. I’m not going to speak for the site, but I strongly suspect, from reading the guidance, that this is not the intention.
You claim Pax Americana is rupturing - so now support that claim against the charge that there’s no meaningful difference in the so-called rules-based order above rhetoric and newspapers just spinning a ‘crisis’'.
You claim Trump’s desire to ‘take over’ one hemisphere of the globe could be more dangerous than a decline of the U.S. - so now support that claim against the charge that ‘Trump’ controlling any hemisphere would be identical to any US president controlling it because his actions have, so far, had zero meaningfully different impact on the world than any other US president.
If you’re not prepared to support either argument against the charges raised against them, then you’re soapboxing, not debating.
I gather that here above is your main argument. Ok, let’s think about this.
Thus you don’t see any meaningful difference between Bush(Sr)-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Biden presidencies and Trump when it comes to the relationship with Europe or the relationship between the US and other NATO members.
Hence you don’t see ANY difference in that when the US went to Afghanistan, Article 5 was invoked and NATO deployed troops to Afghanistan, ending up with a situation with far more European NATO troops in the country than American troops. Perhaps for you those killed Danish, Estonian, German, French, British troops are as irrelevant as for Trump himself. Or that older Bush formed a huge coalition when liberating Kuwait. Or that Obama had to backtrack from a declared redline that he had drawn when NATO allies, the UK at the front, weren’t enthusiastic to attack Syria. Yes, actually US Presidents have had to give a thought to their European allies before and did try to create alliances.
That all now compared to Trump who doesn’t consult NATO countries or attempt to form any coalition with them when starting a war with Iran (only joins Israel, because otherwise Israel could have done it alone and that wouldn’t have been good for Trump). Or that Trump wrecks trade agreements that he made earlier in his first term?
No difference? Just the same old same old?
Well, sorry, but others might want to discuss the little nuances called international relations between countries and things like Atlanticism and it’s future, which seem for you to be totally irrelevant in your narrative for crisis capitalism…or something.
when it comes to the relationship with Europe or the relationship between the US and other NATO members
Exactly. A ‘relationship’ is not a meaningful thing unless it actually makes a real difference. The thing I’ve been asking for. The actual consequence on people. Real people, not politicians.
Perhaps for you those killed Danish, Estonian, German, French, British troops are as irrelevant as for Trump himself.
Why would I (or anyone for that matter) care one jot what nationality the troops were. Soldiers died. I don’t care less about them if they’re American.
Or that older Bush formed a huge coalition when liberating Kuwait.
Yes, that’s right. I don’t care if innocent people are bombed by a coalition or unilaterally. It doesn’t make any difference to bombed.
Or that Obama had to backtrack from a declared redline that he had drawn when NATO allies, the UK at the front, weren’t enthusiastic to attack Syria.
You mean like Trump’s had to backtrack on Greenland, or tariffs? Yes. US presidents are not omnipotent, thank God. Again, unless you’re claiming that Trump is omnipotent then pointing out that previous presidents have been shackled occasionally does not indicate any radical change in circumstances.
actually US Presidents have had to give a thought to their European allies before and did try to create alliances.
Who cares? I’m asking you what difference it makes. If one of the ‘European allies’ was Orban, we’d rather he wasn’t consulted.
That all now compared to Trump who doesn’t consult NATO countries or attempt to form any coalition with them when starting a war with Iran (only joins Israel, because otherwise Israel could have done it alone and that wouldn’t have been good for Trump).
You mean like in Iraq? Or Granada? Or Panama? Kosovo, Mogadishu…
Or that Trump wrecks trade agreements that he made earlier in his first term?
Again, I care if it makes a difference. Are people poorer? Has unemployment gone up. Are ordinary householders suffering more?
others might want to discuss the little nuances called international relations between countries and things like Atlanticism and it’s future, which seem for you to be totally irrelevant in your narrative for crisis capitalism…or something.
No one’s stopping you discussing them. It’s the claim that they matter I’m arguing against.
Yet he is one of the European allies and he is consulted and he does have a large effect, @Pseudonym. Seems that you have not noticed. It starts from things like the rules of the treaty organization (which some commenters don’t care at all).
There’s a huge difference if Europe has a security arrangement like NATO …or it hasn’t.
Without that NATO, we could have a major war between Greece and Turkey. Or Hungary and Romania. Who knows? There really is a reason for European integration and that comes from having two catastrophic wars in Europe. Basically without security structures it’s a more dangerous World.
In the Middle East one time Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Pakistan were allies. If they would have stayed allies, we might have seen a lot less war.
But since for you there seems to be no difference in the Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and, well, perhaps the latest war that the US started, I think this is quite meaningless to continue debating with you.
Why go through these, because for you they are all the same?
Wars like the Yugoslav Civil War or the Ukraine war do matter. My life would be different without them. But you seem to think that these issues don’t affect you.
Well, don’t know if you have a car, but some people will feel these things on the gas pump for starters. Until Trump decides that he has had enough of mowing the lawn for now, that is. Yet things can get even worse.
Now I see what your point is as you’ve repeated it.
That nothing has changed, it’s business as usual. The underlying business, that is. And all this news we’re all shouting about because Trump likes to cause chaos is only a distraction, while crisis capitalism creams off from the turbulence in the markets.
Well I did agree with you at the beginning, about capitalism and the underlying malaise. But the American dream is falling apart, it has been for a few decades. Slowly at first and faster when clowns like Trump get into office.
What this thread is about is the failures in U.S. foreign policy as a symptom of this malaise. There are big geopolitical changes happening in which the U.S. is losing its unipolar status. Trump is trying to stop this and re-assert the U.S.dominance, but he’s not very good at it and it’s just making the situation worse. If the U.S. loses it’s unipole status, it will be holed below the water and nothing will be able to stop it sinking.
Lol. Again changing the subject. Orban’s actions have changed a lot of what the EU and NATO has been able to do when it comes to Ukraine. But that doesn’t matter as you are interested in “what is for the normal people”.
You think the Kosovo war was an “unilateral military action by the US”? Something equivalent to Operation Just Cause? Read some history about the Yugoslav Civil War for starters.
It’s really meaningless to even start to correct your knowledge about European post WW2 history, because it doesn’t further this discussion as you will dismiss everything.
Well, the thread is about if in the future there will be one, or if it will just the website or if it goes the similar path as it’s fellow American treaty organizations, CENTO and SEATO.
Just ask yourself: why are Iceland and Norway thinking about joining the EU now?
These are the kind of things that are happening, which you disregard as nothing has changed. Both article btw. tell quite clearly the reasons for this sudden change in attitudes toward the EU.
No. But oil prices over 100 dollars act like a handbrake to the global economy, especially if it would last longer. And the issue was that since you turned this discussion to “what about the ordinary people”, well, “ordinary people” will notice the effects of high oil prices (when they double). Hence Trump has a lot of talking to do to get them down…
This is the main point. Americans don’t understand just how much of their prosperity has happened because of them being the Superpower that the West has been allied to.
Trump simply doesn’t understand that the leadership role the US has been the one important cornerstone of US being the sole Superpower and that the old European Great Powers and Japan have actually been happy with the system. It really takes an effort to convince any sovereign state to rely in it’s defense in an alliance. The problem of leadership in European security matters was also solved when the US did see European security as important to itself and was backing the whole system. Yet Leadership isn’t the same as subjugation. Just how the former Warsaw Pact members and former states of the Soviet Union acted after the Soviet Union collapsed tells the difference to the US lead system compared to the more traditional rule-by-bayonets of the Soviet Empire.
Yet Trump just thinks that the EU is there to fuck the US and that all other members of NATO have been free riders. And that the US doesn’t need basically anybody (except Israel, with whom the US is the ally partner).
The real issue is that a lot of harm has already been done, even if a democrat President will follow Trump and start to get things back to “normal”. The time of the “lets wait until things get back to normal”-response is over in Europe.
When earlier Great Powers sought to use the divide and rule strategy, that had obvious negative issues: the countries that were the targets of the divide et impera strategy were not so happy about it. This is the difference with the US and it’s relation to Europe in the Post-war era. The US accepted and favored European integration, which was one of reasons for Atlanticism to prosper for so long. NATO and EU prospered together happily side by side: EU didn’t see it as important to have it’s own defense as the vast majority of countries were in NATO. As I pointed out above to @Pseudonym, that both Iceland and Norway now are contemplating EU membership shows how times are changing.
I watched a Netflix movie last night : Eden, based on real events. After world war 1, a German doctor, disgusted with European civilization, moved to an uninhabited island, with his non-wife, to get away from corrupted human Culture, and back to pristine Nature. While there, he sent philosophical letters back home, which due to the seemingly idyllic story, were published in newspapers. Soon others, attracted by the romantic notion of living more like carefree animals, and without the discontents of modern civilization, also came to setup camp on the volcanic island of Galapagos.
The doctor was annoyed by the encroaching tourists, and began to lecture them about Reality. One snide remark about cycles of history reminded me of this thread : “Democracy . . . Fascism . . . War . . . Repeat”. That sentiment reminded me of Hegel’s “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” referring to philosophical & historical cycles of Conflict, Contradiction, and Resolution : rinse and repeat.
Personally, I grew-up, in mid-20th century, indoctrinated with the post-WWII ideals of American Democracy, and was disillusioned as the American Dream began to crumble and evolve, in the 21st century, back toward Autocracy . But history indicates that humanity has survived the ups & downs of human nature & culture for eons. Ironically, the current dinosaur in the china shop, is also the “leader of the free world”.
Meanwhile, philosophy also evolved through cycles of Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism. Stoicism in particular, reminds me of how the early shrew-like mammals survived, underfoot of massive dinosaurs : by keeping their heads down, not by direct competition. Even Plato’s ideal republic was proto-fascist. So, a motto of downtrodden people throughout history has been : ”This too shall pass”. Which encourages equanimity and emotional balance, acknowledging that life is constantly in flux.
If all those famous philosophers couldn’t agree on the path to Utopia, I’ll just have to leave it to the flux of society to find a temporary resolution to the current “rupture” of America.
Disadvantages of Democracy : Inefficiency and Instability
Vulnerability to Populism
Majoritarianism and Minority Rights
Slow Decision-Making
Unequal Influence
Disadvantages of Fascism Suppression of Human Rights
Totalitarian Control
Violence and Militarism
Cult of Personality and Unreality
Economic Exploitation and Corruption
Social Division
There are big geopolitical changes happening in which the U.S. is losing its unipolar status.
That may be true, but that’s not what was argued in the OP. The OP was about the loss of a ‘rules-based order’. I’m arguing there never was such an order.
Geopolitical power may well switch from the US to China, or even Europe (if it gets its act together). It will make no difference to anyone because the fundamental economic structures which dictate people’s lives will remain the same.
The CEOs will just jump ship, the political class will move, the multinationals will relocate and everything will carry on.
We’re long past the point where battles between countries actually dictated world events.
It’s the opening sentence of your OP. I asked you what’s changed. That’s not changing the subject. It’s literally the subject.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Is your contention that ordinary people aren’t sufficiently important here?
No. The opening sentence of the OP wasn’t “The times might change soon”, was it? You quoted…
the international order isn’t any more just shows that something big has happened.
Past tense. ‘isn’t’, ‘has’. Not ‘might not be’, ‘may’… Your claim is about what has happened, now you want to backtrack to “what might happen in the future”.
Maybe for similar reasons to why all the other countries joined piecemeal through the decades.
Joining (and leaving) the EU is not some unprecedented world-shaking event. It’s been a pretty steady flow since the 80s.
No they don’t. They tell you what the respective editors want to publish. Anyone not born yesterday knows that’s not the same thing.
No one’s arguing they’re not. The argument is that it’s not remotely unprecedented. Volatility in basic supplies is run of the mill capitalism.
[quote=“ssu, post:50, topic:203”]
you turned this discussion to “what about the ordinary people”[/quote]
No. I ‘changed’ the discussion to what ordinary people will notice that they hadn’t noticed before. It’s your argument that “the times are changing” remember? Spikes in oil prices are perfectly normal. As are wars, as are diplomatic spats, as are countries joining and leaving the EU, as are breaking international rules (as and when it suits)…
The ‘separation of church & state’ plank in the constitution aimed to keep the state out of church affairs. Good idea! The 1776 theists didn’t anticipate anti-enlightenment / fundamentalists (who didn’t exist yet) occupying high office, elected or appointed. The camel got its nose into the tent decades ago, and is now occupying the tent.
There are real differences between your ‘disadvantages’ list, but it leaves out an important factor: the economic system underlying either fascism or democracy.
The benefits of a democratic political system can be greatly diminished by the highly negative effects of rampant capitalism. Further, the ‘command economy’ of fascist and authoritarian states tends not to work well for the masses, either.
Democracy works better during periods when capitalists (the wealthy owners of so much of the economy) are even slightly constrained (by high levels of taxation, for instance). We are currently in a period of minimal restraint (and low taxation on the rich).
I think that in the US, just actually as in many other Western countries, there is the right-wing populist nativist crowd which usually just lurks in the corner passively. When the right populist comes around, they finally “get their voice” as the Overton window changes. This is extremely crucial for any authoritarianism or fascism to get roots. Otherwise such talk would be “fringe” or simply voices of cranks and lunatics that can be sidelined.
Perhaps it’s not so Hegelian as thesis- anti-thesis - synthesis, but simply when the moderates forces have been in power for long and economic growth isn’t rapid and inequality spreads, then part of the people are willing to go with the before fringe movements.
Perhaps for this thread it’s important to notice that here Europe and the US have not gone the same route. Yes, there are rulers like Victor Orban in Europe, but they are a small minority. Even my country has had it’s share with populism with the True Finns -party and anti-immigration parties you can find basically in every country, but in an political environment where coalition governments are the norm, being in the ruling administration has been extremely toxic for populists. With all their bravado and anti-immigration policies, their supporters have been disappointed as the coalition government mean that things don’t change so rapidly. Hence the True Finns party has divided into two parties once already simply after being in the government. Now they are the second time in the government and they aren’t so popular anymore.
Hence I would argue that Europe still is that “old moderate” type either with Euro social democrats (or in the case of UK, Labour government) or conservative governments that aren’t populists. In many countries the populists (or extreme right) have been contained. And some, like in Italy, do not appear in the end to be very radical once in power.
The difference is when a populist movement gets total control in a democracy. This can happen with it forming a government and having the majority or super majority in the Parliament. Then the effects are different. Then the most outrageous ideologues can take power and create the new normal. Populist usually try to siege the moment, as they don’t see other parties as opposition, but basically the enemy, the evil elite that they have to fight against. This has happened in the US. Someone like Stephen Miller simply couldn’t be part of the previous Republican party and in his role in let’s say the administration of Reagan or Bush sr. Even the neocons of the Bush W era were different, and then it was a small cabal that at it’s own surprise found itself to hold power. (Well, some of them have found the “bored-of-peace” Trump to be brilliant)
This has created a situation where Europe and the US are also ideologically separating. At least for now.
Yes, you may be right if by rules based order you mean capitalism. But that’s not the rule based order being described, it was the post war settlement including the UN and the ICC.That the U.S., the West,(the NATO alliance) was calling the shots and Russia and China were contained.
Yes, the underlying economic structures will remain the same to begin with. But will they stay the same?
This is to ignore the other changes.
There are big changes going on economically. Chinese economics works on the long game. It isn’t dictated by profit in quarters, or years. It is all about building foundations upon which future growth can be built. In the U.S. economic growth has been propped up by investment bubbles, corporate takeovers, printing money, which the global reserve currency can do and the protectionism of wealth buying influence in politics and the media.
Each time the influence of the U.S. retreats somewhere in the world, China moves in and invests in infrastructure. China has already won the economic game.
Globalisation theory (as it relates to economic power) is at odds with nation-state dependency theories. Your point that globalisation has affected the balance of power is a neo-marxist one, but then you fall back on traditional dependency theory when discussing Trump and/or Putin. There’s an incoherence there.
Yes, you may be right if by rules based order you mean capitalism.
I don’t. I mean the kind of rules-based order you go on to describe. As I pointed out to @ssu, unilateral military action is completely normal with a long history, as is breaking trade agreements, tariff wars (recall the Banana Wars?), and ignoring international law (most of which America aren’t even signed up to). Case in point…
the ICC
… you do know that America has never fully recognised the jurisdiction of the ICC and Biden hosted Netanyahu, despite being wanted for war crimes.
This is the sort of brain-rot this whole ‘Evil Trump’ storyline perpetuates. There never were any rules. America did whatever it wanted whenever it wanted and still does.
All that’s changed is the gloss. Where one time a gloss of sensible diplomacy went down well with the voters, now a sense of maverick nationalism goes down well. None of the gloss has any impact on policy because the people influencing policy are far too concerned about their net profits to allow trivialities like nationalism to get in the way.
Yes, the underlying economic structures will remain the same to begin with. But will they stay the same?
I think you can guess my answer to that. If the people in power are profiting from a set of circumstances, why would they change them?
And if the people in power don’t have the power to control circumstances, then they’re not the people in power. By definition, being in power means having the ability to control circumstances.
Chinese economics works on the long game. It isn’t dictated by profit in quarters, or years. It is all about building foundations upon which future growth can be built. In the U.S. economic growth has been propped up by investment bubbles, corporate takeovers, printing money, which the global reserve currency can do and the protectionism of wealth buying influence in politics and the media.
Good point. Again, though you ignore the incompatibility of this view with your views on Trump. If China play this long game, against the general economic picture of Western capitalism, then a gadfly like Trump is going to make no difference at all.
China’s set up to take advantage of western capitalism’s implosions. It’ll do so regardless of who’s president because the implosions are inherent to the system, not caused by any micro changes in policy.
Each time the influence of the U.S. retreats somewhere in the world, China moves in and invests in infrastructure. China has already won the economic game.
Yes, but as you say above, this waning influence has nothing to do with diplomacy, rules-based orders, or Trump acting like a dick. It’s to do with inherent economic realities.
If Hegel’s up & down political cycles don’t explain the rise from the ashes of Fascism in Europe and USA, perhaps the old folk tale of City Mouse vs Country Mouse1 has some explanatory value . . . . at least in the US. Here, the conservative Red vs liberal Blue states are characterized primarily by Ruralism & Rusticity versus Urbanism & Cosmopolitanism .
Unlike Europe, the US is a big country with dense populations on East & West coasts, and a big emptiness in the middle. Those wide-open spaces foster pioneer attitudes of independence & self-sufficiency, versus the dependent & cooperative networks of urban areas. The cities are jam-packed with immigrants & ghettos, while most of the country people consider themselves “natives”.
Europe is not quite as geographically clear-cut, but I suspect that the Us vs Them attitudes preached by Autocrats may still find receptive audiences in those who prefer slow & stable habitats versus the rapid change & fast-paced lifestyles of the modern megalopolis. Fear of Change2, and the unfamiliar encourages conservatism.
However, you make a good point. My over-the-hill generation arose after WWII when Fascism was out of fashion. And eight decades of "Milquetoast"3 moderate politics has ruled for several generations “who knew not Pharaoh”4. So young people today, painfully aware of the “disadvantages of Democracy” may view seemingly powerful leaders as dynamic messiahs to lead them out of urbanized chaos & wage slavery into the Promised Land of milk & honey.
1 Liberal City Mouse vs Conservative Country Mouse : The difference lies in their lifestyles and values: the City Mouse enjoys luxury, excitement, and abundant food but lives in constant fear of predators (like cats and humans). The Country Mouse lives a simple, peaceful, and safe life with basic food (like acorns and roots) but lacks the city’s comforts, ultimately preferring safety over thrills, according to the fable’s moral. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=city+mouse+country+mouse
2 Fear of Change : Fear of changing, known as metathesiophobia, is a common, often subconscious, anxiety rooted in a fear of the unknown, loss of control, or fear of failure.
Stemming from a desire for comfort, this fear often links to a fear of the unknown, loss of control, fear of losing one’s identity or past self, or traumatic past experiences. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fear+of+change
3 Milquetoast : slang for a person who is timid, meek, spineless, or overly submissive.
A weak-willed, cowardly, or ineffectual person.
Often used as an insult to describe someone who panders or refuses to stand up for themselves, such as a “milquetoast politician”. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=milk+toast+meaning+slang
4 Knew not Pharaoh : “Who knew not” most commonly refers to a new Pharaoh in Exodus 1:8 who did not recognize or acknowledge Joseph’s contributions to Egypt, leading to the enslavement of the Israelites. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=who+knew+not
PS___In this context, it refers to a later generation who did not endure slavery, and looked back to Egypt as the pinnacle of orderly civilization.
I think it’s quite universal to have a difference between the cities and the countryside, yet I don’t think it’s a reason for the current political movements we have seen. It’s more the result of gerrymandering that US countryside votes Republican and the bigger cities Democrat than just the fact that minorities and new immigrants seldom live in the countryside.
Of course, Europe is a group of nation states with their own languages and cultures, which means that people simply cannot move easily to other places as in the US simply starting with the language barrier, even if there is the “lingua franca”, English. This is the natural limitation for a truly common market or EU federalization: it simply isn’t a single country. It should be noted that in many East European countries where populism and anti-immigration has had success don’t actually have at all so many immigrants or foreigners.
So you don’t know (or care).
Actually Norway negotiated at the same time as Sweden, Finland and Austria for EU membership, and through the simple math that it would have to pay more than it would get it opted out. Hence in a 1994 referendum, the Norwegians voted “no” for membership. That math hasn’t changed, Norway is as rich like Switzerland, so now the need isn’t about economics.
The Icelandic referendum also isn’t about economics. Earlier after the financial crisis Iceland did hold negotiations, but they didn’t go anywhere.
Both countries are alread in the European Economic Area and in the Schengen agreement.
Wow. That’s the laziest refutation I’ve read in a while. Let’s take the Icelandic referendum just to give an example. How is Iceland holding a referendum on EU just what an editor has chose? That doesn’t make sense.
How about this then, just why this is linked to security:
As Eiríkur Bergmann, Professor of Politics at Bifröst University, toldThe New Union Post, although Iceland can be considered a “de facto member of the EU,” it does not sit at the EU table “where the decisions that we accept under the agreements are made.”
Two factors are driving the debate on EU membership: monetary policy and security. First, as the Icelandic króna fluctuates “significantly,” joining the Eurozone may address the challenges faced by a small economy, including high living costs. Second, “Trump’s ambiguity regarding the defence commitment,” together with repeated threats to annex neighbouring Greenland, are leading the country to rely more on Europe.
As Bergmann explained, two key issues are likely to influence the vote.
Or how about what former Icelandic Prime Minister Þorsteinn Pálsson writes, without the need to be diplomatic as he isn’t in office, of the current state of affairs between the US and his country:
The United States creates uncertainty around Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty
European leaders face a serious dilemma. Most of them try to speak as though nothing has changed. Everyone knows, however, that the ideological foundation of relations between Europe and the United States now belongs to the past.
Many political scientists believe that flattery toward the President of the United States is necessary while Europe buys time to adapt.
Statements by the U.S. administration about annexing Canada and taking over Greenland are regarded as unrealistic by many. Nevertheless, they reflect complete disrespect for the sovereignty of nations that have, until now, been allies.
The President of the United States recently proposed himself as a mediator between Russia and NATO. This means that the United States does not view itself as a NATO country when it comes to the war in Ukraine. In other cases, however, the United States acts as though it controls the alliance.
It is an understatement to say that the U.S. administration has created significant uncertainty about the core of the North Atlantic Treaty, embodied in its Article 5. Uncertainty alone reduces the alliance’s deterrent power.
The United States abandons Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty
Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty stipulates that member states shall engage in economic and commercial cooperation with one another.
This is the treaty’s second main pillar. It is built on the ideology that free trade and economic cooperation not only matter for growth and welfare but, above all, promote peaceful relations between nations.
Internal cooperation among EU member states, and cooperation between the EU and individual member countries with the United States, has reflected these commitments.
Thus, NATO’s obligations on defence and economic cooperation are two sides of the same coin.
Through its tariff war against allied nations, just as against all other countries, the United States is grinding this fundamental pillar of the treaty into dust.
Iceland and new hybrid threats
What impact do these radical changes within the alliance of free nations have on a small country like Iceland?
Like other European states, Icelandic authorities have tried to speak as though nothing has changed.
The 1951 defence agreement has been the cornerstone of relations between Iceland and the United States. We assume that U.S. commitments under it remain intact.
Until now, nations that may pose a threat to us, such as Russia, have had no reason to assume otherwise. But do they still see it that way? That is a pressing question, and the value of the agreement may ultimately depend on the answer.
The defence agreement does not address new circumstances such as hybrid threats, which now pose the greatest danger to Iceland. In this respect, we must strengthen cooperation with other Nordic countries and the European Union. The Icelandic government has taken this task firmly in hand. This represents an important adaptation to changed circumstances.
A response to an attack on Icelanders’ vital interests
It can be said that the 15% tariff imposed by the United States on Icelandic exports is the most serious economic attack on Iceland in a long time. Yet it is little discussed, because people want, for as long as possible, to close their eyes to the fundamental change in relations between the nations that it represents.
At present, no one can foresee how the United States’ global trade war will develop. What is fairly obvious, however, is that nations across different markets will need to take a wide range of countermeasures in the coming years, and possibly decades.
In such conflicts, larger nations and state blocs are in a stronger position than small states.
For three decades, Iceland has been part of the EU’s internal market while remaining outside the customs union. In this, we share a position with Norway, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Iceland’s vital interests continue to rest on free trade governed by international rules.
Since the United States abandoned free trade policy, the European Union is the only shelter for nations in and around the North Atlantic that want to secure their position in the world’s largest free market.
The U.S. attack on Iceland’s vital interests changes matters fundamentally. It has long been clear that full Icelandic membership in the European Union would be sensible, but now it is hardly avoidable if we intend to defend our interests in the long term.
(see whole article here)
I hope you would find the time to read the above comment by the ex-prime minister of Iceland. His last sentence makes it obvious what the referendum is about now. It simply tells just what is happening here and why I call it’s not like before.
Another issue what I’d like to comment:
(I btw replied that things like the Kosovo war simply was truly not an unilateral military action, but moving along…)
If perhaps your opinion would be here like The US has behaved in this way for a long time in Central America and the Caribbean, so now it’s just Europe is getting that same treatment, then I agree. But this is in fact what Mark Carney in his speech already acknowledged.
The Difference is that Europe isn’t Central America. Europe has nuclear armed countries and EU has a similar size GDP. Central America, even the whole Latin America, isn’t similar. What Europeans remember is the Marshall Aid and the US did come to fight Nazi Germany in WW2 (made very easy with Hitler declaring war). Above all, the Europeans truly believed in the US. Some leftists obviously didn’t (and believed then in the Soviet Union), but it was common that Atlanticism was a firm institution between the US and Europe. Now it seems not to be anymore.
