That is already happening
Europe will perhaps lose some influence in global scale, but to use that article as a basis for that kind of hypothesis seems a bit far-fetched. Especially when the article pretty much said that Europe will only become proportionaly weaker, then march on and argue with either ignorance, malicity or pure stupidity:
The euro is a very important currency, and it will remain so for many years. However, without a political head, it is bound to remain little more than an instrument of trade. Furthermore, the European Union is without a united foreign or defense policy, and thus collaboration on military campaigns is bound to remain negotiated by the US on a country-by-country basis, while the EU's overall might won’t massively increase. In other words, European countries' participation could grow more cumbersome and less essential in the coming decades.
Hmm I wonder what this "Lisbon treaty" tries to achieve.
These trends are surely not set in stone, and they can be reversed and changed by setting in motion different trends. But to do it, Europe should develop its own unified Asia policy, set its own priorities and learn to have one voice on the euro and European defense strategy. However, there are no signs that Europe or individual European countries are realizing their incumbent marginalization - and even less showing any sign of reaction to it.
It takes a very special kind of daftness to completely ignore the huge discussion about the future of economy and EU at large that's taking place
everywhere in Europe right now and then write stuff like this. After the economical crisis and the emerge of India and China no EU official has any kinds of illusions that the current status quo will prevail and that Asia will be very important. Hell, how does one miss the European political debate about climate change which pretty much revolves around rising Asian juggernauts? It's one of the biggest talking points EU-wide. Most EU members are also a) fully aware that EU as a whole is not a military power in itself and B) that's not what they are interested about. Way to state the obvious there.
And Europe's biggest challenge right now isn't China, it's Russia, and that's far more immediate problem than what China will do in 30 years time. The entire dynamic between US, Japan, China and Taiwan is completely different from European dynamics.
If that were to occur, the whole geopolitical game would take a very different spin. Europe is after all still the largest trading power in the world, but it is a gigantic hydra with no legs and 25 heads. Will European governments take the hint from the US-China dialogue and see that they have to move now because in five or 10 years it will be too late? It is unlikely.
EU members have had close ties with China for 20 years now. They are a major contributor to China's economic upheaval, but of course no state or even EU as a whole has no kind of influence as US or Japan - perhaps because EU is more focused on Europe than on Pacific? The article is really stupid by completely glossing over EU's other problems, picking one argument
most of the nations have already done, attribute it to EU as a whole (right after accusing EU of being too decentralized) and then use this as an example of EU's problems. It does not say anything practical, either: how is EU missing out? What should they do? I would consider Sisci's arguments if he actually based them on something!
No single government is willing to cede power to Brussels or other fellow European governments.
Has already happened several times. I mean, EU does have 27 member states, all of which joined peacefully. Out of these member states, all but 26 have already ratified a complex treaty that streamlines the existing treaties into a one bigger treaty and
effectively cedes some power to BrusselsThere is not even a single official language for Europe or European citizens. Brussels speaks a Babel of 25 languages and interpreters are mostly useful in light of some Keynesian scheme for useless jobs.
blargh
This entire chapter is so stupid that it escapes definition. "THERE IS NO SINGLE LANGUAGE. ALL THE INTERPRETERS ARE USELESS." I don't get it, how can one write such sentences without their head exploding.
If a single European party were to speak on behalf of unity, it would not know in which language to start.
This doesn't speak well of the author's knowledge of EU, which seems surprisingly sparse but which I am more willing to attribute to fearmongering, because he works for La Stampa and that's a quality newspaper.
Pan-European parties do exist and surprisingly, they are comprised of the MEPs of individual countries - they only work through their members and the members' national parties. MEPs and their national parties affiliate themselves with one parliamentary group and are then effectively working for them as well as their national party. These parties are not very good at communicating around EU - they are quite focused on EP - but means and a system for that do exist!
If EU was to move into a unified election system then the problem would exist, but right now the parties in European parties speak in every language they are represented in, which is of course completely normal.
Still no idea how the current system will practically cause the disproportionate fall of European (UK, French, German) influence though.
Curiously for the unreligious EU, extra-learned Catholic Curia priests, proficient in a dozen languages, would be the only officials able to talk to almost all Europeans.
This is just stupid; no one excepts anyone to learn all those 27 or so languages EU uses, and there are quite a few other people than CURIA PRIESTS that can speak in English and French or German, then add a few languages on top of that. Seriously, Curia priests? Most people, especially, you know, non-Catholic Northern Europe, except this kind of linguistic fluenty from their diplomats, which regulary do show such fluency.
In fact, the case for unity is useless, but yet present institutions do something positive: they check and constrain the political movements and agendas of single countries. In this way, European countries have the worst of both worlds.
They don't have enough unity to move as one, and yet they have too much unity to each move alone. If they were alone, each could at least develop its own strengths. Yet, it is very hard to see European countries shaking their EU shackles.
"Something positive - the worst of both worlds".
Hmm. However, I do agree that the EU states need more politicized politics, but that is not EU's fault - only the faceless corporate capitalism's that has spread without control or check for dozens of years.
This absence has been there for a long time - so long that we find it no longer relevant. However, this absence will give an extra boost to US-China ties. For both countries, there is no one else that will be as politically attractive or interesting as the other for the next 50 years. Even if Europe takes just 10 years to wake up, it may be too late to unravel the strong relationship that will have developed between the US and China in this decade.
This article only looks at US-China relationships, then wildly extrapolates them and assumes that the same dynamics that affect those two countries work similarly around the globe. The article's largest point, which you missed, was that proportionaly Europe's status will decrease as China's will rise. This will probably be true. How much, then? Does EU become a complete no-one because China is bigger? Is there a limited amount of political clout in the world? Is political clout only dependant on economical clout?
Like I said, your choice.
Ok, so...in what way are you saying Europe will be disproportionately insignificant? Only after a chinese or indian person has more significance than an european person on average or already before that?
Both of these countries are so enormous they will far exceed any single European country in terms of total economic power long before they catch up in terms of per capita. For example, China at this time has the third largest economy in the world (soon to be the second largest), and yet it has a per capita income roughly equivelent to Albania. By the time the per capita income gets up to $33,000 per year (now it is $3,300), the total economic worth of the nation would be $44 trillion (!). Obviously that won't happen until the latter half of this century, but it will happen sooner or later. For comparison Germany's economy is worth ~$3.67 trillion. Relative economic power does matter.
Relative economic power has surprisingly little effect in the grand politics game and worldwide, but has a lot to do with, well, economy. You are also extrapolating the future from current trends, which is of course completely understandable, since there is no better way without exhaustive political research, but there is a very good chance that situation will be completely different in 20 years' time.
However, even the article that you based your assertion in only talks about
proportional influence.
