The EU thread

[crazy canuck]

And out of date - just a casual read of post Davos reactions of leaders and think tanks alike tell a very different story.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

And out of date - just a casual read of post Davos reactions of leaders and think tanks alike tell a very different story.

If it's not followed by relevant actions it's still a cope, just a different one

[Jacob]

I think there's a good chance that relations will be better post-Trump. His senile shit-flinging monkey personality doesn't help.

The question is whether post-Trump will be the same agenda and world view with a slightly more reasonable veneer, whether it'll be someone trying to repair things, or whether it'll be an entirely third direction. The key challenge there is how to maintain the movement towards strength and self-sufficiency when there's an excuse to lose focus.

As for what Europe is doing now... if I was the King of Europe (tm), I'd be taking firmer action more rapidly. Nonetheless, my impression is that Europe is moving in the right direction with some purpose, and if this is kept up Europe will get there.

[Jacob]

Looks like the conversation about developing European nuclear capabilities is under way:

Merz says Germany exploring shared nuclear umbrella with European allies

BERLIN, Jan 29 (Reuters) - European nations are starting to discuss ideas around a shared nuclear umbrella to complement existing security arrangements with the U.S., German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said, amid growing talk in Germany of developing its own nuclear defences.

Merz, speaking at a time of increased transatlantic tensions as U.S. President Donald Trump upends traditional alliances, said the talks were only at an initial stage and no decision was imminent.

"We know that we have to reach a number of strategic and military policy decisions, but at the moment, the time is not ripe," he told reporters on Thursday.

Germany is currently banned from developing a nuclear weapon of its own under the so-called Four Plus Two agreement that opened the way for the country's reunification in 1990 as well as under a landmark nuclear non-proliferation treaty that Germany signed in 1969.

Merz said Germany's treaty obligations did not prevent it from discussing joint solutions with partners, including Britain and France, the only European powers which have a nuclear arsenal.

"These talks are taking place. They are also not in conflict with nuclear-sharing with the United States of America," he said.

European nations have long relied heavily on the United States, including its large nuclear arsenal, for their defence but have been increasing military spending, partly in response to sharp criticism from the Trump administration.
Trump has rattled Washington's European allies with his talk of acquiring Greenland from Denmark, a NATO ally, and his threat, later rescinded, to impose tariffs on countries that stood in his way.

He has also suggested in the past that the U.S. would not help protect countries that failed to spend enough on their own defence.

Merz's comments were echoed by the head of the parliamentary defence committee, Thomas Roewekamp, who said Germany had the technical capacity which could be used in developing a European nuclear weapon.

"We do not have missiles or warheads, but we do have a significant technological advantage that we could contribute to a joint European initiative," Roewekamp, from Merz's centre-right Christian Democratic Union party, told Germany's Welt TV.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/merz-says-germany-exploring-shared-nuclear-umbrella-with-european-allies-2026-01-29/

[crazy canuck]

I think there's a good chance that relations will be better post-Trump. His senile shit-flinging monkey personality doesn't help.

The question is whether post-Trump will be the same agenda and world view with a slightly more reasonable veneer, whether it'll be someone trying to repair things, or whether it'll be an entirely third direction. The key challenge there is how to maintain the movement towards strength and self-sufficiency when there's an excuse to lose focus.

As for what Europe is doing now... if I was the King of Europe (tm), I'd be taking firmer action more rapidly. Nonetheless, my impression is that Europe is moving in the right direction with some purpose, and if this is kept up Europe will get there.

I don't think the person who is President after Trump is relevant to the question of developing more diversified trade away from the United States and mitigating potential future American threats.  The damage is now done and I don't think there is any going back to the kind of relationship that once existed.

[Jacob]

I don't think the person who is President after Trump is relevant to the question of developing more diversified trade away from the United States and mitigating potential future American threats.  The damage is now done and I don't think there is any going back to the kind of relationship that once existed.

I agree with your assessment on trade agreements. I was primarily thinking of the EU's path towards sufficient military autonomy.

On that I think that a "guys, we're SO sorry about all that" Democrat elected after Trump - as opposed to a "I'm here to continue implementing Trump and Thiel's amazing vision" Republican - is likely to slow down the movement towards European autonomy as some people will be tempted to embrace a lower sense of urgency.

[Tonitrus]

This is very much a sidenote to the general discussion in the thread.

The Norwegian Labour Party's been locked in a "no new membership discussion" with regards to the EU, despite most of its leadership being pro-EU. Recently, the foreign minister Espen Barth Eide said it might be time for debating a membership application again.

There are currently three parties with a clear "yes" stance: the conservative party Høyre, the rather small liberal party Venstre and the green party.

I would not say public opinion is divided, it's still firmly "no fucking way". Norway has market access through the EEA and free movement through the Schengen treaty, but obviously no voice in matters in the EU.

If this is not the time to reconsider the stance on membership, I don't know when it might be more opportune. When most of the northern part of Norway is already under Russian control? When our only remaining trading partners is the rump US in the midst of a civil war and a market stall in the Cayman Islands?

The main objections to membership can be summed up in loss of national control over the production and distribution of electrical power, potential conflicts over oil production, dirty degos stealing our fish, a restructuring of Norway's intricate and less than transparent policies with regard to agricultural subsidies and low population areas.

I am personally heavily in the pro membership camp, but I do see there is a trade-off. However, all our neighbours have thrived in the EU, and the vision that drove the 1994 No campaign has definitely waned. I would think the most negative to EU membership are those who secretly or openly are Progress Party supporters, the Centre Party membership in its entirety and the left wing of the trade unions.
For Labour, though, losing votes among trade unionists is suicide.

Is whaling still an issue/problem?

[HVC]

I don't know how reasonably Europe will react. Money is money. I mean how many times did we "reset" with Russia for the sweet sweet oil? And they've actual invaded European countries. And America has a lot of economic opportunities, assuming the GOP doesn't tank it the hasten the second coming. A Dem win could easily sway European countries to overlook the danger (Canada too). They might need a few more boops on the nose. Could be wrong, hope I am, but don't think I am.

I actually have more hope of military disentanglement. Which has it own problems (OvB listened a few, which I broadly agree with, if less in a less derogatory manner )