It may be a strange thing to say, but thanks, Agent Orange. Well done, sunshine.
Now, why would I suggest such a thing?
A few articles to set out the current European thinking
-CSIS The Center for Strategic and International Studies by
Max Bergmann
Director, Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program and Stuart Center
The idea of a common European army has been discussed continuously since the European project began in the early days of the Cold War. The Eisenhower administration even successfully cajoled European leaders to agree to create a common European army only to be thwarted by the French parliament. The European project was a few votes from launching as a military project rather than an economic one. The idea of a common European force was revived in the 1990s as the European Union was formed, but the concept lost favor due to U.S. opposition and commitment to NATO
The most important paragraph, from my point of view:-
Yet, it is time to seriously revisit the idea. The United States is unfortunately not interested in acting as the guarantor of European security. This is a shock to Europe and in many ways a betrayal. After all, the biggest opponent of an integrated European defense, of the European Union doing anything on defense, or of NATO creating a European pillar was the United States. This leaves Europe in the lurch.
I am fine with this since we face two potential aggressors from East and West, but only if the following conditions are met.
- The equipment is made in Europe for the individual States.
- This equipment can only be sold within Europe to individual Governments.
- This equipment is used for defenses within Europe, only, with no external sales.
Trade
This should be Europe’s core business, and it should be free and, most importantly:- Fair
For Example, something that was shelved for years.
Trump's return is pushing India and the EU closer together — Le Monde English
It's long been said in diplomatic circles that India distrusts the European Union (EU). New Delhi has preferred to carry out bilateral negotiations with France or Germany, rather than with Brussels. Have times changed? The Asian giant with 1.4 billion inhabitants is on a quest for growth and development and Europe is in search of new partnerships. Both have been shaken by Donald Trump's return to the White House. Both share the same weak point: a dependence on China.
On February 28, in New Delhi, Narendra Modi and Ursula von der Leyen committed to finalizing a "mutually beneficial" free trade agreement by the end of 2025 and to diversifying cooperation by expanding it to include security and defense. "I want this visit to be the start of this new era. Prime Minister Modi and I share the same view. It is time to take our EU-India Strategic Partnership to the next level. For our security and our prosperity," said von der Leyen.
As for our Economy
Regaining confidence in Europe — Thomas Piketty Blog hosted by Le Monde
In the face of the Trumpian onslaught, Europe urgently needs to regain its self-confidence and propose a different development model to its citizens and the world. To achieve this, it must start by overcoming the permanent self-denigration that too often stands in for public debate on our continent. According to the doxa that prevails in many leadership circles, Europe is living beyond its means and needs to tighten its belt. The latest version of this rhetoric states that social spending should be cut in order to concentrate on the only priority that counts: The race with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on military spending.
The problem is that everything about this diagnosis is wrong. In economic terms, the reality is that Europe is perfectly capable – if that proves useful – of pursuing several objectives at the same time. In particular, Europe has been running strong balance of payments surpluses for years, while the United States has a huge deficit. In other words, it is the US that spends more within its own territory than it produces, while Europe does exactly the opposite, accumulating its savings in the rest of the world (notably, in the US).
As far as tariffs are concerned.
I am against them since they are a tax on the general population, with the poorest being the hardest hit.
I prefer negotiated quotas. For those imposing tariffs unilaterally, the quotas can be fixed without negotiations.
If anyone is interested I can continue this in other diaries. [Climate Change, Reparations and Immigration for example]
Time is fleeting for all of us, so I’ll leave this for the time being.
A Morning Muse
~A
