It's a bit like with congress in the US, where de facto the president and his administration gets to decide for the most part and congress just approves things. The difference is that the president in the US is elected whereas the Commission is not. — ChatteringMonkey

Again here, if you elect the Comission directly by EU voters, you seriously undermine the nation states and national sovereignty. The European Council has no say to the Comission. It basically creates just parallel organizations that structurally aren't cooperating. And the voting? It's basically just Germans, the Spanish, the Italians and the French can choose the leader. What do other nations think, who cares?



Secondly, if the Comissars are elected even nationally, the Comission isn't responsible to the. And just for what position are they electing?



Perhaps Estonians (1,37 million) can be happy that their former president is now (to the anger of Trump & Putin) the High Representative for EU, but would that position be decided by voters? Surely not.

The aid was not the most important part, it's the access to the free market that was very beneficial for them. — ChatteringMonkey

Yep. That's the intention in having the common market. It was also very beneficial to Germany. Countries that don't have competitive economies, it isn't so great.

I'm more than fine to respect the cultural heritage and sovereignity of the states where that makes sense. But I don't think it does make a lot of sense on foreign policy, certainly not when it pertains to geo-politics or international trade, because de facto the security and intelligence is already organisated on the supra-national level of NATO, or for trade in larger European trade-agreements. — ChatteringMonkey

It seems like that, but just focus a bit more in the actions of each member state, be they in EU or NATO. Let's take defense and security policy. For my country it's all about Russia. But for Spain and Portugal, it's North Africa, which is totally logical. If Morocco collapsed into a bloody civil war like in Syria, for Portugal and Spain it would a real problem. For Finland, not so. But then, if "Russian volunteers" marched over the border of Estonia to help to Russian minority in Estonia, this would be a serious issue for Finland. Yet for Portugal and Spain it's far away. Yet the cooperation does work, Spain, Portugal and Finland are in the "Coalition of the Willing" when it comes to Ukraine, yet this cooperation is done by sovereign states from their own national interests. If it would be Brussels deciding where to send your country's armed forces, that is totally different that it's your country's elected government making that decision.

Things change. Percentage of world GDP goes down, debts go up... the US was already in the process of losing its position of global hegemon. At some point you have to face reality, the longer you deny it, the harder the fall. — ChatteringMonkey

Actively destroying everything older generations have worked for since WW2 isn't facing reality, it's sheer stupidity.

I wonder just how much is the Kremlin budget for international bribes. It effects are quite awesome compared to constructing new tanks.

, good question. :grin: You can get a lot of Gill-bribes for the price of a tank. A dozen tanks might buy a fair bit of division/polarization.

Actively destroying everything older generations have worked for since WW2 isn't facing reality, it's sheer stupidity. — ssu

And it's playing into the hands of adversaries. Seems like the Coalition of the willing works well as a supplement.

Again here, if you elect the Comission directly by EU voters, you seriously undermine the nation states and national sovereignty. The European Council has no say to the Comission. It basically creates just parallel organizations that structurally aren't cooperating. And the voting? It's basically just Germans, the Spanish, the Italians and the French can choose the leader. What do other nations think, who cares? — ssu

Ok I agree that it would be difficult to find a good formula, but it's not as if nation states have more sovereignty by remaining subservient to an unelected bureaucracy.

It seems like that, but just focus a bit more in the actions of each member state, be they in EU or NATO. Let's take defense and security policy. For my country it's all about Russia. But for Spain and Portugal, it's North Africa, which is totally logical. If Morocco collapsed into a bloody civil war like in Syria, for Portugal and Spain it would a real problem. For Finland, not so. But then, if "Russian volunteers" marched over the border of Estonia to help to Russian minority in Estonia, this would be a serious issue for Finland. Yet for Portugal and Spain it's far away. Yet the cooperation does work, Spain, Portugal and Finland are in the "Coalition of the Willing" when it comes to Ukraine, yet this cooperation is done by sovereign states from their own national interests. If it would be Brussels deciding where to send your country's armed forces, that is totally different that it's your country's elected government making that decision. — ssu

Coalition of the willing will always be reactive. There's no way to project power proactively like that, and so you will effectively be at the mercy of other great powers. The choice is not between sovereignty or Brussels, but between Brussels or Washington... or Peking or Moscow.

Actively destroying everything older generations have worked for since WW2 isn't facing reality, it's sheer stupidity. — ssu

No, older generations have left the younger generations without perspective.

What Europe needs is a NATO without the US, and subsequently to dissolve the European Union.

That way countries can run their own affairs as they have successfully done for centuries, while still enjoying collective security.

Europe does not need the US in ANY capacity, and to have a distant great power meddling in security affairs on the European mainland is a recipe for disaster - as disaster which is already starting to unfold before our eyes and which will have a singular destination: war with Russia and the destruction of Europe, the beneficiary of which will be the US (as it was during WW2).

I don't disagree generally, but it's maybe a bit simplistic to just do away with the EU. There's some things that probably are to our benefit, like the single market to name one. I don't see how you stay competitive for instance if you simply fall back to the nation state of old... the world has changed you know.

I don't see how you stay competitive for instance if you simply fall back to the nation state of old. — ChatteringMonkey

The other 150+ countries seem to be getting by just fine.

I don't think a lot of them are doing that great to be honest. And those that are doing fine, have other supra-national organisations or agreements, like say ASEAN.

good question. :grin: You can get a lot of Gill-bribes for the price of a tank. A dozen tanks might buy a fair bit of division/polarization. — jorndoe

That is the worrisome thing. Yet the case of Nathan Gill shows just how this works: Gill has publicly stated that he is for Ukraine and against the Russian invasion, but then did speak on behalf of the pro-Russian Ukrainians that bribed him. So a small bribe goes so far.

With others, those who are basically Western talking heads of Putin and reurgitate the Kremlin line and never, ever speak anything negative about Russia and Putin are obviously on the payroll. Perfect example of this is prof Jeffrey Sachs, who earlier was actually a professor focused on global poverty and now is a full on Kremlin spokesperson.

Yet what do you get with the big money? Already the White House has basically given Russia what was their main goal in their military doctrine and Russia is extremely happy with the National Security Strategy.

Seems like the Coalition of the willing works well as a supplement. — jorndoe

It's the result when the US abandons it's allies. Even if after Trump the democrats take power and steer back the US to the traditional alliances, the damage has been already done.

What Europe needs is a NATO without the US, and subsequently to dissolve the European Union.

That way countries can run their own affairs as they have successfully done for centuries, while still enjoying collective security. — Tzeentch

Doesn't make sense. What will happen that NATO without US will come closer to the EU. Already you have things like the European Defence Industry Program in the EU, which benefits hugely the NATO without the US. Then there's SAFE (Security Action for Europe), which even Canada has joined!

(Dec 1st,2025) Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced the conclusion of negotiations for Canada’s participation in SAFE – unlocking billions of dollars in potential defence opportunities for Canadian businesses. SAFE provides up to $244 billion in loans to EU Member States to support large-scale defence projects, including acquiring critical capabilities such as ammunition, missiles, drones, artillery systems, and infantry weapons. As all 27 EU Member States increase defence investments, greater cooperation on procurement opens massive new opportunities for Canadian manufacturers to build and export Canadian-made technologies and capabilities.

As EU countries strengthen their defence capabilities through SAFE, Canadian participation will give our defence industry expanded access to the European market, attract new reliable suppliers for the Canadian Armed Forces, and catalyse massive private investment in Canada – creating higher-paying careers, growing Canadian industries, and bolstering transatlantic defence readiness. With this agreement, Canada will become the only country outside of Europe with preferential access.

Many agree that the EU should be improved, be more transparent and seriously tackle corruption and bureacracy, yet those arguing for the dissolution of the European Union now usually are the Putinists.

And those that are doing fine, have other supra-national organisation or agreements, like say ASEAN. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, lets then opt for those 'other' types of agreements, rather than the abomination that is the EU.

Well sure, like I said I don't disagree generally, the question is what kind of arrangement we do want.

I think that is best left up to countries themselves. What we have with the EU is a typical 'one size fits none'.

Besides, I think by now it is corrupt and porous beyond redemption. Reform is a pipe-dream, especially with these clownish leaders who jump on every opportunity to declare crises, so they can seize even more power.

it seems Trump and Putin would be in agreement with you.

I object to the framing that anyone who wants to get rid of the EU is one the side of Putin. The fact that Putin or Trump happen to want a similar thing shouldn't prevent us from evaluating something on its own merits.

This is a tactic that has been shown to been dangerous and contra-productive, for instance in the case of immigration where any discussion of the topic has for the longest time been made virtually impossible because of various accusations of racism, fascism or Nazism and the like as soon as the issue was brought up.

You should know better.

Perhaps if that’s what I said, but it isn’t. I said Putin would agree that the EU should be got rid of too. That’s all.

You're absolutely right, but it's unfortunately what I've come to expect from this forum.