Why doesn't Europe just severtheir alliance with the US if they disagree with everything the US does?

[Ashton2434]

Based on almost everything I read about the US, from the Europeans perspective, everything the US does is wrong, it's evil, it's self centered blah blah blah blah.

If that is so, why doesn't Europe sever their alliance and all their treaties with the US, the same goes for Britain, and just go their own way? Wouldn't that be easier than having to argue with another country on what to do and how to do things?

[antaeus]

Hi Ashton.

You don't have to be friends to have treaties and alliances.

But that aside, having differences of opinion does not = enemies. I dislike things my family do, that does not mean I want to rid myself of my family. One could argue that the ability to express difference of opinion is a strength in a close relationship.

[Ashton2434]

having differences of opinion does not = enemies.

It does if Europe's goal is to bring back the glory days when they were masters.

[Roma_Victrix]

It does if Europe's goal is to bring back the glory days when they were masters.

This is an extremely juvenile understanding of modern geopolitics. I'm assuming you're not yet done with high school/secondary school, but don't worry, I'm sure you will soon be offered a history class that covers the basics of the 20th century. You know, little events like World War I, World War II, the founding of NATO and the Cold War that ended only a generation ago while Russia continues saber rattling in Eastern Europe.

I'd say this entire thread is largely just bait that should be ignored by serious posters.

The UK exited the EU, not NATO. The military assets of the various European countries are not subject to EU directives - the EU is an economic union, not a military one. Militarily, Europe is unaffected by Brexit.

Correct, and the UK never adopted the Euro either. Brexit changes nothing except for the economic woes of British voters shooting themselves in the foot and suffering lost trade, businesses moving to the continent, diminished mobility abroad, worker shortages, and supply chain shortages as a result of their referendum. The United Kingdom along with France ensure that Europe is armed to the teeth with nuclear warheads and maintains the status quo of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), should Russia ever consider provoking NATO. Both sides know that a hot war is virtually impossible, and that has kept the peace for over 70 years aside from regional flareups like the Yugoslav Wars and the Russian seizure of the Crimean peninsula formerly controlled by Ukraine.

On that same note, the saber rattling against Russia in US and other Western media outlets promoted by hawkish think tanks and the military industrial complex is equally silly so long as NATO exists. If the OP doesn't understand that then that's his problem, but we should all probably collectively refrain from entertaining the OP and his amusing thread. There wasn't much effort put into the OP for that matter, or if I could steal a phrase from him to summarize his major points: "blah, blah, blah".

[Cope]

This is an extremely juvenile understanding of modern geopolitics. I'm assuming you're not yet done with high school/secondary school, but don't worry, I'm sure you will soon be offered a history class that covers the basics of the 20th century. You know, little events like World War I, World War II, the founding of NATO and the Cold War that ended only a generation ago while Russia continues saber rattling in Eastern Europe.

I'd say this entire thread is largely just bait that should be ignored by serious posters.

Yet here we all are.

Correct, and the UK never adopted the Euro either.

Mercifully.

Brexit changes nothing except for the economic woes of British voters shooting themselves in the foot and suffering lost trade, businesses moving to the continent, diminished mobility abroad, worker shortages, and supply chain shortages as a result of their referendum.

Ho hum.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The United Kingdom along with France ensure that Europe is armed to the teeth with nuclear warheads and maintains the status quo of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), should Russia ever consider provoking NATO. Both sides know that a hot war is virtually impossible, and that has kept the peace for over 70 years aside from regional flareups like the Yugoslav Wars and the Russian seizure of the Crimean peninsula formerly controlled by Ukraine.

I'm confident that the UK and France have nowhere near the nuclear stockpiles of Russia or the US. Though I agree that was/is NATO that keeps the peace in Europe (for the most part) and not, despite the claims of its keenest advocates, the EU.

On that same note, the saber rattling against Russia in US and other Western media outlets promoted by hawkish think tanks and the military industrial complex is equally silly so long as NATO exists. If the OP doesn't understand that then that's his problem, but we should all probably collectively refrain from entertaining the OP and his amusing thread. There wasn't much effort put into the OP for that matter, or if I could steal a phrase from him to summarize his major points: "blah, blah, blah".

I think we've moved on from the deficiencies in the OP.

[conon394]

Based on almost everything I read about the US, from the Europeans perspective, everything the US does is wrong, it's evil, it's self centered blah blah blah blah.

If that is so, why doesn't Europe sever their alliance and all their treaties with the US, the same goes for Britain, and just go their own way? Wouldn't that be easier than having to argue with another country on what to do and how to do things?

Err but in reality Europe does not absoultly disagree with the US on Everything you have to reading some fairly biased sources to come to that conclusion.

Second last I checked there is no monolithic Europe - quite of a bit disagreement exists under the hood of that description.

Third A world without treaties is a very ugly place.

----

It does if Europe's goal is to bring back the glory days when they were masters.

Glory if you are not the one fighting and dying to make them happen. Or working long hows for little pay to make the industrial revolution happen and dying at 30 if lucky.

[Ludicus]

]Err but in reality Europe does not absoultly disagree with the US on Everything

Indeed. For example, Europe, U.S. try to appear united in face off with Russia over ...

Second last I checked there is no monolithic Europe - quite of a bit disagreement exists under the hood of that description.

Absolutely. It is dependent on a number of factors, namely the balance of three or four dominant European powers -and their political parties.
In fact, as EmperorBatman999 has pointed out, "Brussels lacks the authority yet to assert its rule". That's because the EU is ruled by an illegal and antidemocratic ( "informal", as they say) Eurogroup.
This is the reason why I stand up for a different Europe,
“This project can be adopted and applied as it stands by the countries who so wish, with no single country being able to block those who want to advance”. Read the Manifesto. Project, Budget, and Treaty are clearly detailed. Manifesto for the democratization of Europe

Don’t miss the explanatory statement. Key excerpts,

The Euro Group, an informal forum bringing together the finance ministers of the States whose currency is the Euro, has become the linchpin of this new Europe which emerged from the crisis.
(...) this significant strengthening of the executive capacity of European institutions in the field of economic, budgetary, fiscal and social policy has taken place without the parallel involvement of parliaments in its steering and control. The European Parliament has been largely excluded from this economic goverment.
(...) As it increases citizen disaffection towards the European project, this deficit of democratic legitimacy, together with the inability to meet the challenges Europe currently faces, carry the risk of a breakup of the European Union and national closure.
(...) Europe will only reconnect with its citizens if its proves it has the ability to bring about a genuine European solidarity, by having the main beneficiaries of the globalization process fairly contribute to the financing of the public goods Europe desperately needs.
(...) only a European Assembly composed of national and European representatives elected by universal suffrage has today the legitimacy needed to steer and control its action

---
Read the 21 articles of the Treaty on democratization of the economic and social government of the Union. By the people and for the people.

[EmperorBatman999]

It largely comes from the fact that Europe is weak on its own. It has no army and Brussels lacks the authority yet to assert its rule as law across the Member States. Although the EU fancies itself to be its own political bloc and a superpower of sorts, it has yet to have consolidated into the federalized entity necessary to put it on par with US, Russia, and China. This is especially the case militarily without the United Kingdom anymore (France was Europe's Army, Britain Europe's navy, and Germany is Europe's economy). Without the US partnership, this divided Europe wouldn't be able to stand to the predations of Russia or the economic colonialism of China. At the very least, Europe can still say they are in a partnership with their fellow democracy, the United States. In the manner of smug superiority, Europe can say that they get America's protection without actually needing to contribute much back to the United States.

[Ashton2434]

It largely comes from the fact that Europe is weak on its own.

Woah woah woah, they wouldn't like that answer.

Not only that, but in a USA vs. Europe war, they'll win, according to them. Heck I've even read that Britain could do it on their own, according to the British, which begs the question the question why they haven't declared war yet.

[Ludicus]

They say.. one day Europa will regain their lost glory and will crush..any who stands in their way, and they will build a better world.

You are absolutely right. That's our Manifest Destiny.Whoever controls the core of Europe controls the entire continent, and whoever controls all of Europe can dominate the world.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A good troll is one who trolls trollers.

[Kissaki]

This is especially the case militarily without the United Kingdom anymore (France was Europe's Army, Britain Europe's navy, and Germany is Europe's economy).

The UK exited the EU, not NATO. The military assets of the various European countries are not subject to EU directives - the EU is an economic union, not a military one. Militarily, Europe is unaffected by Brexit.

[Cope]

The UK exited the EU, not NATO. The military assets of the various European countries are not subject to EU directives - the EU is an economic union, not a military one. Militarily, Europe is unaffected by Brexit.

The EU is a political union. The Treaty on European Union provides for common defence policies (see Title V, Section II, Articles 42-46). I don't think Lisbon amended these provisions.

[EmperorBatman999]

The UK exited the EU, not NATO. The military assets of the various European countries are not subject to EU directives - the EU is an economic union, not a military one. Militarily, Europe is unaffected by Brexit.

I was speaking about the hypothetical European Union common army which some EU officials have been trying to create for years. Obviously the UK would not participate in a continental European army at this point.

There are even some concerns about what an EU Army's relationship might be with NATO, considering that some member countries like Austria are constitutionally barred from joining NATO or any other defense alliance. This is also why Austria only joined the EU as a full member in 1995, after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and when it appeared the EU's common defense clause wouldn't put Austria in direct conflict with any competing alliance blocs.

[Heathen Hammer]

Most Westerners (with few notable exceptions) are in the same boat, we are all stuck in this corrupt "representative democracy" oligarchy, where we get to chose between 2-3 "centrist" boomers that work for same corporations and funded by same billionaires and NGOs.
I'd also add that "European perspective" can be easily misrepresented. For example, CBC hardly represents what Canadians think, while CNN doesn't represent what Americans think, nor would, say PressTV represent everyone in Iran, so it is fair to apply same logic to legacy media in EU. Most of Western legacy media are just corporate propaganda outlets and it would be a mistake to consider them as objective sources of information or some kind of representation of public opinion.
At the end of the day, we are not that different - and our enemy is the same - corrupt degenerate ruling classes, that want to steal our taxes and reign over us indefinitely.

[Ashton2434]

we are not that different

Not according to the Europeans and Canadians I've been talking to.

They say they are far superior to the US and one day Europa will regain their lost glory and will crush the USA and any who stands in their way, and they will build a better world.

[antaeus]

Not according to the Europeans and Canadians I've been talking to.

They say they are far superior to the US and one day Europa will regain their lost glory and will crush the USA and any who stands in their way, and they will build a better world.

Exactly what percentage of Europeans and Canadians have you been polling for opinions on which to base your view?

I suspect your sample may not be representative of mainstream opinion in Europe towards the US. Real views are complex depending on the topic, but not overly negative.

[EmperorBatman999]

Woah woah woah, they wouldn't like that answer.

Not only that, but in a USA vs. Europe war, they'll win, according to them. Heck I've even read that Britain could do it on their own, according to the British, which begs the question the question why they haven't declared war yet.

I'm not sure if you're serious. Who is "them," the Europeans? Furthermore, what sort of Brit would ever entertain the idea of going to war with America? If anything, for Britain, the only countries for it to turn to now are the rest of the Anglosphere, including the United States, when it comes to international trade and multilateral civil and military cooperation. This also doesn't even consider that Britain no longer considers itself part of Europe anyway, and that at least since the Napoleonic Wars, they have recognized themselves to be separate from Europe to a certain degree.

Finally, we need to simply regard frank truths here that Europe could not stand to any other superpower alone. I have highlighted that it is too decentralized and lacks a common army. Furthermore, the roadmap to getting to a federalized European government and army is quite lengthy, even without British interference into Brussels's integration schemes. There are two many issues of sovereignty at stake, and we already see the minor Member States digging their heels in to protest growing encroachment of the European Council, which pretty much serves to issue French and German Diktats to the rest of the members.

How would Europe make a Common Army? What would be the language of command? One country would be the big winner (I reckon France) while all other countries would be the loser, forced to learn. But even the matter of command language wouldn't solve communication problems, as the mishaps of the Austro-Hungarian Army attest. How would you compile, include, and respect the distinct military traditions of all the Member States' armies? You would need to consider everything from command structure, tactical doctrine, to the way soldiers salute their CO.

[Heathen Hammer]

This is the reason why I stand up for a different Europe,
“This project can be adopted and applied as it stands by the countries who so wish, with no single country being able to block those who want to advance”. Read the Manifesto. Project, Budget, and Treaty are clearly detailed. Manifesto for the democratization of Europe

It sounds like something written by a college freshman for an elective non-STEM course who is trying to reinvent keynesian economics for some odd reason. It is certainly written by people who desperately want to remain stuck in the past century.

[Ludicus]

It sounds like something written by a college freshman

God give me patience, you're talking (ignorant) nonsense with an unbelievable speed.

Here are the signatories,
Sébastien Adalid, juriste, professeur à l’Université du Havre
Michel Aglietta, économiste, professeur à l’Université Paris-Nanterre
Nacho Alvarez, en charge du secteur Economie à Podemos, professeurassocié à l’Université Autonome de Madrid, Espagne
Julie Bailleux, politiste, maîtresse de conférence à l’Université Paris 2
Marija Bartl, juriste, professeure à l’Université d’Amsterdam, Pays-Bas
Marie-Layre Basilien-Gainche, juriste, professeure à l’Université Lyon 3
Myriam Benlolo Carabot, professeure de droit à l’Université Paris-Nanterre
Loïc Blondiaux, politiste, professeur à l’Université Paris 1-Sorbonne
Karolina Borońska, politiste, Universitéde Wroclaw, Pologne
Andreas Botsch, syndicaliste, conseiller spécial du président du syndicat à laDeutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB),Allemagne
Patrick Boucheron, historien, professeur au Collège de France
Manon Bouju, économiste
Emmanuel Bouju, professeur à la Sorbonne Nouvelle et membre de l’InstitutUniversitaire de France
Begnina Boza-Kiss, chercheuseà l’International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis deVienne, Autriche
Hauke Brunkhorst, sociologue, professeur de sociologie, Université de Flensburg, Allemagne
Bojan Bugarič, juriste, professeur à l’Université de Ljubljana, Slovénie
Klaus Busch, professeur à l’Université d’Osnabrück, Allemagne
Julia Cagé, économiste professeure à Sciences Po Paris
Véronique Champeil Desplats, professeure de droit à l’Université de Paris-Nanterre
Lucas Chancel, économiste, co-directeur du World InequalityLab
Christophe Charle, historien, professeur à l’Université Paris 1 Sorbonne
Christian Chavagneux, éditorialiste à Alternatives Économiques
Denis Cogneau, économiste, professeur associé à l’École d’Économie de Paris(PSE)
Amandine Crespy, politiste, professeure à l’Université de Bruxelles, Belgique
Massimo D’Alema, ancien premier ministre italien
Fabio De Masi, député au Bundestag, Die Linke, Allemagne
Boaventura De Sousa Santos, sociologue, professeur à l’Université de Coimbra, Portugal
Anne-Laure Delatte, économiste, chargée de recherche au CNRS
Gabriele Della Morte, juriste, professeur associé à l’Université Catholique deMilan, Italie
Donatella Della Porta, politiste, professeure à l’École Normale supérieure deFlorence, Italie
Yves Deloye, politiste, professeur à Sciences Po Bordeaux
Paul Dermine, juriste, professeur à l’Université de Maastricht, Pays-Bas
Brigitte Dormont, professeure à l’Université Paris Dauphine
Guillaume Duval, éditorialiste à Alternatives Économiques
Susanne Elsen, sociologue, professeurà l’Université Libre de Bolzano, Italie
Cristina Faciaben, Secretary ofInternational and Cooperation CCOO
Olivier Faure, député et premiersecrétaire du Parti socialiste
Emanuele Ferragina, sociologue, professeur à Sciences Po Paris
Bastien François, président de la Fondation de l’écologie politique,professeur à l’Université Paris 1-Sorbonne
Philippe Frémeaux, éditorialiste à Alternatives Économiques
Diane Fromage, politiste, professeur associé à l’Université deMaastricht, Pays-Bas
Miguel Gotor, historien, ancien sénateur du Partito Démocratico et Articolo 1-Mdp, Italie
Julien Grenet, économiste, professeur associé à l’École d’Économie de Paris
Ulrike Guérot, politiste, professeure à l’Université du Danube, Autriche
Gabor Halmai, juriste, professeur à l’Institut Universitaire Européen deFlorence, Italie
Pierre-Cyrille Hautcoeur, économiste, directeur d’étude à l’EGESS et professeur à PSE
Stéphanie Hennette, juriste, professeure à l’Université deParis-Nanterre
Rudolf Hickel, économiste, professeur à l’Université de Brème, Allemagne
Mario Hübler, secrétaire général de la fondation ItalianiEuropei, Italie
Peter Huber, Élise Huillery, économiste, professeure à l’Université Paris-Dauphine
Simon Ilse, membre Fondation Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Allemagne
Liora Israel, sociologue, maîtresse de conférence en sociologie à l’EHESS
Michael Jacobs, économiste, professeur à l’Université de Sheffield, Royaume Uni
Yannick Jadot, député européen Europe Écologie Les Verts
Luis Jimena Quesada, juriste, professeur à l’Université de Valence, Espagne, et ancien président du Comité Européen desDroits Sociaux
Christian Joerges, professeur de droit à la Hertie School à Berlin, Allemagne
Kädtler Jürgen, SoziologischesForschungsinstitut Göttingen (SOFI),professeur de sociologie Georg-August-Universität, Allemagne
Iphigénie Kamtsidou, juriste, professeure à l’Université de Thessaloniqueet présidente du Centre national pour l’administration publique et legouvernement local, Grèce
Jakob Kapeller, économiste, directeur de l’Institut for Comprehensive Analysis ofthe Economy, Université Johannes Kepler de Linz, Autriche
Pascale Laborier, politiste, professeure à l’Université Paris-Nanterre
Justine Lacroix, politiste, professeure à l’Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgique
Sylvie Lambert, directrice de recherches à l’INRA
Camille Landais, économiste, professeur à la London Schoolof Economics,Royaume Uni
Sandra Laugier, philosophe, professeure à l’Université Paris 1-Sorbonne
Didier Le Bret, diplomate
Arnaud Lechevalier, économiste,maître de conférence à l’Université Paris 1-Sorbonne
Rémi Lefebvre, politiste, professeur à l’Université de Lille
Steffen Lehndorff, économiste, research fellow àl’Institut travail et qualification, université de Duisburg-Essen, Allemagne
Nicolas Leron, politiste, chercheur associé au Centre d’études européennes deSciences Po Paris
Ulrike Liebert, politiste, professeureà Brème, Allemagne
Pascal Lokiec, juriste, professeur à l’Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
Philippe Maddalon, juriste, professeur à l’Université Paris 1-Sorbonne
Mikael Madsen, juriste, professeur à l’Université de Copenhague, Danemark
Paul Magnette, maire de Charleroi, membre du parti socialiste belge
Maria Malatesta, historienne, professeure à l’Université de Bologne, Italie
Francesco Martucci, juriste, professeur à l’Université Paris 2
Frédérique Matonti, politiste, professeure à l’Université Paris 1-Sorbonne
Dominique Meda, sociologue, professeure à l’Université Paris Dauphine
Robert Menasse, écrivain, traducteur et essayiste autrichien
Wolfgang Merkel, politiste, professeur au Wissenschaftszentrum Berlinfor Sozialforschung(WZB), Allemagne
Sophie Meunier, politiste, directrice du programme Europe à l’Université dePrinceton, États-Unis
Zoltan Miklosi, politiste, professeur à l’Université d’Europe Centrale deBudapest, Hongrie
Eric Millard, professeur de droit à l’Université Paris-Nanterre
Robert Misik, journaliste et écrivain autrichien
Éric Monnet, économiste, enseignant associé à l’École d’Économie de Paris
Alberto Montero, député Podemos et professeur d’économie associé à l’Université deMalaga, Espagne
Daniel Mouchard, politiste, professeur à l’Université Sorbonne-Nouvelle
Ulrich Mückenberger, juriste, professeur à l’Université de Brème, Allemagne
Jan-Wener Muller, politiste, professeur à l’Université de Princeton, États-Unis
Olivier Nay, politiste professeur à Paris 1-Sorbonne
Sighard Neckel, professeur à l’Université de Hambourg, Allemagne
Fernanda Nicola, juriste, professeure à l’American Universityde Washington, États-Unis
Silke Ötsch, sociologue, Priv.-Doz., Innsbruck, Autriche
Walter Ötsch, économiste, professeur d’économie, Institut d’économie, Cusanus Hochschule,Allemagne
Bruno Palier, politiste, directeur de recherche au CNRS, Sciences PoParis
Mazarine Pingeot, écrivaine et professeure à l’Université Paris 8
Martin Pigeon, chercheur militant au CEO (CorporateEuropean Observatory),Belgique
Thomas Piketty, économiste, directeur d’études à l’EHESS
Sébastien Platon, juriste, professeur à l’Université de Bordeaux
Thomas Porcher, économiste
Christophe Prochasson, historien, président de l’Ecole des hautes études ensciences sociales
Thomas Ribemont, président d’Action Contre la Faim
Julie Ringelheim, juriste, professeure à l’Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgique
Daniel Roche, historien, professeur au Collège de France
Pierre Rosanvallon, historien, professeur au Collège de France
Ruth Rubio Marin, juriste, professeure à l’Université de Séville, Espagne
Guillaume Sacriste, politiste, maître de conférences à l’Université Paris1-Sorbonne
Emmanuel Saez, économiste, professeur à l’Université de Berkeley, États-Unis
Gisele Sapiro, sociologue, directrice d’études à l’EHESS et directrice derecherche au CNRS
Francesco Saraceno, économiste, directeur de recherche à l’OFCE, Sciences Po Paris
Thomas Sauer, économiste, membre d’ATTAC Allemagne, professeur à la Ernst-Abbe-Hochschule de Jena, Allemagne
Patrick Savidan, co-fondateur de l’Observatoire des inégalités et professeur dephilosophie politique a l’Université Paris-Est Créteil
Frédéric Sawicki, politiste, professeur à l’Université Paris 1Panthéon-Sorbonne
Sabrina Schulz, policy fellow duProgressive Zentrum, Allemagne
Axel Schäffer, député SPD, membre de la commission Europe du Bundestag, Allemagne

---

we are all stuck in this corrupt "representative democracy" oligarchy

Even Greece has given up the direct democracy.And we don't want a dictatorship of the proletariat. There are two forms of combination of participatory and representative democracy: coexistence and complementary.Participatory at the local level, and representative at national level. Complementary implies a profound articulation between representative democracy and participatory democracy.Obviously, it implies the recognition by the government that participatory proceduralism can substitute parts of the process of representation and deliberation.

[conon394]

Not according to the Europeans and Canadians I've been talking to.

You sure you are not wandering into a Women or Men's world ice hokey forum? Where the former is true and the Latter is coin toss.

They say they are far superior to the US and one day Europa will regain their lost glory and will crush the USA and any who stands in their way, and they will build a better world.

Given population trends and military spending and lack of a actual federal structure seems fairly fringe dreaming again perhaps you are talking to people writing AH. Europe needed to really take a pass on WW1 (and thus WW2) for you ambition to be real.