CommanderByron, I'm not sure we really disagree. I'm not arguing against mixed units either, nor against multinational units or military cooperation.

What I'm trying to make clear is that an army is not sovereign in itself, any army is part of some sovereign entity (usually federal or nation states nowadays). The EU and NATO are both organizations in which several sovereign states cooperate, just that. The EU is not sovereign, and an European army is currently not only unrealistic, but also impossible.
In the end someone is in control of the military, someone makes decisions, or issues orders, and someone is responsible. It won't work if that someone constantly has to ask permission from 28 sovereign nations.

@Nescio, and we come back to the fact that EU is much more like a state than an organization - arguments above.

@Nescio, there are actually some extreme examples of sovereign countries that has less centralized government than EU. It's now some NAFTA or ASEAN, it's EU, nowhere in the world do you have something like this.

yassem, it's irrelevant whether the EU resembles a state or not; even if the EU looks like a state, it principally isn't

@Nescio, well, USA weren't a country either, yet voila - you've got a country today. EU has all the traits of a state, so I would argue on that, but that would involve "what is sovereignty" etc., and I don't want to get into that.

@Nescio- I agree that we dont disagree. lol. I think we just have different reasons for agreeing.


I think it is funny. as far as i can tell. I agree with yassem against steephie, I agree with nescio against yassem, so does that mean i am just an argumentative prick? lol

@Nescio, we are arguing on semantics, and apparently we are both wrong - it's not an organization, it's not a state - it's called a political system.

Officially in International Relations (which is my major) the EU is considered an "International Organization" because a state is defined as a "A government which operates with complete sovereignty over a predetermined geographic area."The EU is a government with a predetermined geographic area but it doesn't have "complete" sovereignty over that area. For example the EU can not impose a mandatory ban on gay rights in germany if germany says no. They can suggest it and make it a clause in the contract to join, but ultimately it is still germany's national decision.

Well, I'm not at all opposed to discussing semantics :)

Call it an organization, a political system, a political association, or whatever, the point is it does not have sovereignity, nor can it exercise it. In the end the 28 member states decide, not the EU.

Hm, it seems CommanderByron posted something equivalent just before me.

Well, I was taught that a state is defined by a) geographical borders b) permanent population c) ability to govern itself d) international relations.

Surely EU has borders and permanent population. It can govern itself to some extend, and it could "force" countries to do many things they don't want to do, as it already has done on numerous occasions. The only problem really is the diplomacy, as for example EU tried to change its status in UN so that it would be treated as a country (showing that EU considers itself a state), but the problem would be with double representation.

Nescio, no - 28 countries decide in case of the European Council, and while it is a very important body you also have the Commission and Parliament (and in case of the latter especially recently with electing the presidend "pan-European" parties start to play bigger role than national aspects). Saying "In the end the 28 member states decide" it's like saying that the US are not a sovereign state, because in the end it's the 50 states that decide.

And as for semantics, I do hope one day my English will some day be sufficient for subjects such as "what is sovereignty", but it's not today : )

@yassem the key to what you just said that makes it not a state is the "to some [extent]" part. what you said just confirmed it is not sovereign (the same as "ability govern itself") and thus not a state.

I mean am I arguing the the EU has no potential to one day become a state? no. It just currently is not and it is not a simple process.

Well, there are many countries in the world that cannot fully govern themselves. Extreme example: is Bosnia not a state?

And doesn't even the federal government of the US often have problems with imposing all it's policies? In that case I am taking the info only from the news I hear from time to time, but isn't there a problem with gay marriages (the example you gave), with southern states having different policies than the federal government?

I am no expert on Bosnia but these question should be asked.
- Does X country make the final decision on all matters within it's geographic borders?

If not then I wouldn't shy away from saying that bosnia isn't a state, it may very well be on its way to becoming one but if it doesn't have full legal autonomy then it isnt a state.

keep in mind outside pressure to do things within your borders still leaves you to make the final decision thus maintaining that you are indeed a state. For example being part of NATO pressures you to spend at least 2% of your budget on military defense, but as exemplified by many European nations it is not mandatory.

Statehood is not the same as sovereignty; nor do states have to be nations.

@yassem - the reason the US qualifies as a state is because federal law is stronger than state law and while states pass their own laws the federal laws are still stronger for example: If the federal government passes a law that says "All people shall refrain from drinking alcohol." and state governments pass laws that say "Alcohol is legal and can not be denied to any citizen." technically the federal governments law is stronger and thus alcohol is illegal. of course the US constitution reserves some rights to be those of the state and the consumption of alcohol is a state right because it is not clearly outlined in the constitution otherwise, since it isn't the federal governments right to impose such a law the US supreme court can (and likely would) claim the law was unconstitutional and thus alcohol is now legal. But in either case a federal entity has the final say.

CommanderByron again made a few good points I agree with; perhaps I should simply go :)

Bosnia faces the problem of very weak federal government, especially as opposed to the Serbian Republic (not to be confused with Republic of Serbia which is just Serbia) and faces many internal conflicts. Nevertheless, the whole world including UN and EU recognizes Bosnia as a sovereign state. How about Morocco, it also doesn't fully govern itself, how about Somalia (well, Somalia might actually not be a state, that's a mess), how about Ukraine for that matter?

My comment seems to have sparked a discussion on statehood / sovereignty / European polity. My intent was entirely opposite, which is to underline that these definitions are social constructs and they do not matter in actual reality. Sovereignty is a construct created to mitigate certain issues in the HRE (right on that count yassem), statehood was defined slightly more restrictive later (as "complete" jurisdiction, as CB mentions). This definition is *also* arbitrary, since many countries in this world (the US arguably included) do not have one single government that decides everything.

In the end, it's mainly the political reality that matters. Political reality has always trumped mere details of constitutionality and statehood (remember that coup in Ukraine?).

And the political reality is that Europe still (chooses to be / is) divided.

@CB, you do realize that this is the case in Europe as well? The European law can overrule law of a single nation once it is imposed. The difference is that in Europe we focus on things like fair competition in business and ecology rather than gay rights and marihuana - not an insult to US government, just a fact.

Note of interest, no single determination of official statehood exists. It's actually mostly measured by number of recognitions from accepted states, and membership of certain UN bodies.

The amount of countries on this world is around 192, depending on the way you count. That should give you some idea that this whole notion is basically on loose footing. As it always has been.

And I must absolutely agree with TheMinisterOfWar, we can argue all day whether EU is a state or not, but in the end it doesn't really matter. However while Europe is divided right now everyday more and more voices opt for unification in so many aspects.

@yassem- Unfortunately the ability to pass laws and enforce laws are two very different things. Ukraine can pass laws all day long but can not enforce them over Russian occupied territory, or rebel occupied territory. Bosnia has its own centralized government as does Herzegovina, and they make decisions over their geographic territory unilaterally. Somalia again has a federal government that has complete sovereignty over passing laws, but has extreme difficulty enforcing those laws. A state doesnt have to be a "good" state to be a state. In the same way someone doesnt have to be a "good" parent to be a parent.

Another counter example, Iraqi Kurdistan has probably more autonomy and power than San Marino has. Yet one is a state, the other is not.

Taiwan is another eternal example. Of course it's a state. We're just not allowed to call it as such by the Chinese (and, oddly, we comply with that).

Or Kosovo. Remember that it was an actual state before we could call it that? And remember quite a few slavic peoples still don't?