COLUMN. To win the cultural and intellectual battle, Europe must staunchly defend its model, writes the economist in his column, dismantling the narrative of a 'declining' continent.
To me, “proud” is the wrong word. I didn’t do anything when it comes to founding the EU. So how can I be proud of something I didn’t do? “Grateful” is the better word in my opinion.
The culture that made that happen also played a role in making you who you are. It’s OK to be proud of that.
(And likewise, it’s good to correct for how your culture influenced you in ways that you aren’t proud of. For example, it took me a long time to realise what Black Peter must look like from the outside.)
The EU is doomed to fail if it continues centralising power though.
Its strength is in its diversity, its consensus model rather than tyranny of majority, allowing smaller countries a voice against larger ones so that Germany and France don’t entirely dominate.
The EU has a lot of good, but that doesn’t mean we need to bury our heads in the sand to its negatives either. It’s not perfect. It’s better than many similar organisations, and we should praise it for that, but praise doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism either.
I agree with that (for the most part, I think it could do with a bit more centralisation), but I don’t think it’s what “every time in history” is pointing to
The hell is your definition of a war that excludes all of those? The Hungarian revolution, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and Transnistria war were all international conflicts as well
I will also note that the Bosnian war is both part of the Yugoslav wars that I mentioned and also kicked off before the Treaty of Maastricht
Conflict is not war. War is international conflict, not two sets of dickheads doing the same thing they’ve been doing for millennia.
Here’s a hint. How many countries were involved in Bosnia and when was the first international genocide conviction in Europe since the Nuremberg trials?
Okay so if we take your definition in which a civil war isn’t a war: when the Soviet Union rolled tens of thousands of troops with tanks into Hungary, or when Turkey invaded Cyprus and made a new country out of a third of it, or when Russia put 14,000 troops in Moldova and made a new country out of the bit north of the Dniester, what exactly made those not international in your view?
How many countries were involved in Bosnia
At least three depending on what you count as a country. Again, given that it started before the EU existed, why are you saying that no wars happened between the end of WWII and the creation of the EU?
when was the first international genocide conviction in Europe since the Nuremberg trials?
The EU is the most successful multilateral group on the planet and the height of civilization.
To me, “proud” is the wrong word. I didn’t do anything when it comes to founding the EU. So how can I be proud of something I didn’t do? “Grateful” is the better word in my opinion.
The culture that made that happen also played a role in making you who you are. It’s OK to be proud of that.
(And likewise, it’s good to correct for how your culture influenced you in ways that you aren’t proud of. For example, it took me a long time to realise what Black Peter must look like from the outside.)
It was, but the power monkeys always want more power. And centralising power in Europe has failed every time in history.
Please tell me you are not trying to argue that the EU is doomed to fail because Hitler and Napoleon both failed
The EU is doomed to fail if it continues centralising power though.
Its strength is in its diversity, its consensus model rather than tyranny of majority, allowing smaller countries a voice against larger ones so that Germany and France don’t entirely dominate.
The EU has a lot of good, but that doesn’t mean we need to bury our heads in the sand to its negatives either. It’s not perfect. It’s better than many similar organisations, and we should praise it for that, but praise doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism either.
You nailed it. A cell-like structure is much harder to penetrate. Unlike a homogeneous blob with one supreme leader.
I agree with that (for the most part, I think it could do with a bit more centralisation), but I don’t think it’s what “every time in history” is pointing to
Fair.
Like the European Union?
The EU was created in 1993. There were no wars in Europe since ww2 until then. Draw your own conclusions
You have got to be taking the piss
This does not even include the many smaller-scale rebellions or anything that happened in the Caucasus
None of those are wars. Bosnia is the first international conflict (war) on European soil since 1945.
The hell is your definition of a war that excludes all of those? The Hungarian revolution, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and Transnistria war were all international conflicts as well
I will also note that the Bosnian war is both part of the Yugoslav wars that I mentioned and also kicked off before the Treaty of Maastricht
Er, the previous definition sets the current one?
Conflict is not war. War is international conflict, not two sets of dickheads doing the same thing they’ve been doing for millennia.
Here’s a hint. How many countries were involved in Bosnia and when was the first international genocide conviction in Europe since the Nuremberg trials?
Okay so if we take your definition in which a civil war isn’t a war: when the Soviet Union rolled tens of thousands of troops with tanks into Hungary, or when Turkey invaded Cyprus and made a new country out of a third of it, or when Russia put 14,000 troops in Moldova and made a new country out of the bit north of the Dniester, what exactly made those not international in your view?
At least three depending on what you count as a country. Again, given that it started before the EU existed, why are you saying that no wars happened between the end of WWII and the creation of the EU?