[extropy-chat] Re: POL(L): The Constitution of Europe

[JDP]

Dirk Bruere wrote:

>>Suppose a situation similar to WWII, with fascist Germany invading
>>nearby countries, and causing a potentially global threat, and where the
>>US got involved. Will a politically loose Europe manage to make the
>>decision to get involved, or will it stay irresolute and passive while
>>no clear agreement can be reached by the member States, except on the
>>most extreme cases?
> 
> 
> Hopefully, it would stay out of other peoples business.

Do you mean that the involvement of the US in France in WWII is regrettable?

I don't buy "staying out of other people's business" as an absolute rule
in individual matters, and I don't buy it in inter-national matters
either. Sometimes it is good to get involved, though of course
potentially messy.

I believe in the possibility of benevolent power ("benevolent" here not 
meaning "exclusively altruistic"), and in fact powerless benevolence is 
generally quite useless.

>>In other words, can Europe really leverage its military (and economic)
>>power as a bloc while preserving the freedom and independence of its
>>member States? Can you have the advantages of being a big State when you
>>are a loose, ad hoc federation?
> 
> 
> I do not call neo-imperialism and a huge military/industrial complex an
> 'advantage'.

I was reasoning in terms of adequacy to certain ends. I was trying to 
take your initial answer to "why do we need a formal Europe at all" and 
question the fact that the bloc benefit you mentioned as an answer could 
be had without the political unity.

But I understand your answer to be that the bloc benefit is about 
preserving one's independence while staying out of other people 
business, and that you think a European Confederation is a necessary and 
adequate way to this end. Thanks for your answer.

Jacques