Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Is the EU an Empire?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
fredinno

fredinno

First Lieutenant
3 Badges
May 21, 2017
222
0
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
And why I say it is. Perhaps not a full-on nation state, like the imperial empires of the 1800s, but still an empire.

At least if we consider European Feudal Empires, 'Empires'. (like the HRE) I'm no expert, but I feel like it's a bit of a misconception that it's not. Or maybe I'm wrong. :p

The EU has a pretty large amount of control over it's internal nation's politics. Even just for entry, you have to abide by 52 'demands' that your nation must abide by to join and get all the goodies of being in the EU. This is why Turkey is not, and by the looks of it, will likely never join the EU.
(though these rules DO tend to be bent quite a bit... otherwise Greece would have never joined.)

The HRE didn't have anywhere near this level of control. It was made by conquest- and the reformation kind of proved just how little actual control the HRE had over something as critical (at the time) as religion.

The EU doesn't have an army (though literally every member that matters except Cyprus is a NATO member).
But neither did the HRE. It had a coalition of internal armies that was used.

(also, both are clusterfucks, but I digress)

The EU also has other characteristics of a single nation state- a unified fiscal system is a pretty big one. "Give me control of the money, and I care not who makes the laws..."
It gives a ridiculous amount of bargaining power- as seen with Greece. "Do this, this, and this, and I'll give you enough cash from my printing press so your government won't implode for the next six months..."

On the other hand, the EU is democratic, since it's membership is voluntary, and the members of it's 'Parliament' are elected- but a 'democratic' empire is still an empire. No one said it had to be tyrannical.

Unless you want to leave. Technically, you can, but good luck actually doing it. Either you're too weak to survive without EU internal trade, or you're too strong, and the rest of the EU will try to do everything to stop you. It's not like there is a clear set plan to leave. Article 50 is literally just 'ok, we can talk about this'.

Is it a German Empire?
That's a bit more complicated. Technically no, but Germany has internal hegemony, along with France (bonus points for being 'core members'), so they have pretty high levels of influence. Add that literally every position is appointed (minus the parliament), and you have a arguable case that German hegemony gives it enough power inside the EU to give it 'unofficial' control as its leader. But that's a much harder case to make.



BTW, this is not a criticism of the EU, it's a statement that it IS an empire using historical definitions (potentially more of an empire now than the HRE)- and considering that the EU is constantly trying to consolidate power (started off as trade union, now a nation above nations, and now it's proposing consolidating into a single army!).
 
Its an economic empire foremost.
Its still a long way before beeing a true empire I think.
 
Count Blue said:
Its an economic empire foremost.
Its still a long way before beeing a true empire I think.
Click to expand...
It has internal political control- as I demonstrated in OP. That's more than the HRE had.
 
The European Union unite a territory on which something between a federation and a confederation, practice its power... hence it is an empire. But the source of power isn't really the EU itself. It's European peoples and European Member States' head executive. So it is an empire without emperor and whose heads are not at the Union's level but at States' level.
 
Captain Frakas said:
The European Union unite a territory on which something between a federation and a confederation, practice its power... hence it is an empire. But the source of power isn't really the EU itself. It's European peoples and European Member States' head executive. So it is an empire without emperor and whose heads are not at the Union's level but at States' level.
Click to expand...

It has no emperor- but a highly connected elite who control a significant portion of its governance. So somewhere between a representitive democracy and an oligarchy.
 
First give me your definition of empire and I will answer your question...

Two possible definitions from Wikipedia:

"An empire is a multi-ethnic or multinational state with political and/or military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture."

By this definition the EU is not an empire as there is no real ruling ethnic group or culture within the EU and the EU has no ability to militarily dominate its member states.

"extend relations of power across territorial spaces over which they have no prior or given legal sovereignty, and where, in one or more of the domains of economics, politics, and culture, they gain some measure of extensive hegemony over those spaces for the purpose of extracting or accruing value"

By this definition you could argue that the legal and economic power of the EU over its member states does meet these requirements, and hence the EU is a form of empire.

I would add, however, that by the general understanding of the term 'empire' the EU doesn't really count and even the HRE by the 16th century was largely no longer a true empire. The last real time of the HRE being a true empire was during the 11-12th century when it was able to dominate Hungary, Poland, Italy, the Papacy and Burgundy. This power gradually fades until the HRE is little more than a powerful central European Kingdom and eventually, a joke.
 
Henry IX said:
First give me your definition of empire and I will answer your question...

Two possible definitions from Wikipedia:

"An empire is a multi-ethnic or multinational state with political and/or military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture."

By this definition the EU is not an empire as there is no real ruling ethnic group or culture within the EU and the EU has no ability to militarily dominate its member states.

"extend relations of power across territorial spaces over which they have no prior or given legal sovereignty, and where, in one or more of the domains of economics, politics, and culture, they gain some measure of extensive hegemony over those spaces for the purpose of extracting or accruing value"

By this definition you could argue that the legal and economic power of the EU over its member states does meet these requirements, and hence the EU is a form of empire.

I would add, however, that by the general understanding of the term 'empire' the EU doesn't really count and even the HRE by the 16th century was largely no longer a true empire. The last real time of the HRE being a true empire was during the 11-12th century when it was able to dominate Hungary, Poland, Italy, the Papacy and Burgundy. This power gradually fades until the HRE is little more than a powerful central European Kingdom and eventually, a joke.
Click to expand...

So the Chinese Ming Dynasty was not an empire because its ruling class was not ethnically distinct over its population? :p
It seems like a pretty silly part of that first definition.

It said and/or, not and. The EU has a huge amount of control over its nations- otherwise Greece would have left the EU to hyperinflate its currency on its own.



I was using the HRE as an example- feudal empires in general were pretty loosely connected- so much so the EU is actually more strongly connected in some aspects (like legal control)
 
Sanny said:
It's a more unified empire than what the Holy Roman Empire was, so technically yes.
Click to expand...

The Holy Roman Empire was called an "empire" because it claimed to embody universal monarchy and be the continuation of the Roman empire, not because it was politically unified or territorially extensive.

The European Union has never claimed either of those things, so the comparison doesn't work.
 
Henry IX said:
"extend relations of power across territorial spaces over which they have no prior or given legal sovereignty,
Click to expand...

The EU was clearly given legal sovereignty, every member nation ratified the 1993 Maastricht treaty. So by this definition they are not an empire.

Henry IX said:
"An empire is a multi-ethnic or multinational state with political and/or military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture."
Click to expand...

Well most of the European populations is human. The ruling class on the other hand seems to be the slugs who attach themselves to the head of politicians and make them think persistent unemployment should be their primary policy objective. I believe that humans and brainslugs can be considered both culturally and ethnically distinct. So by this definition, they are an empire.
 
keynes2.0 said:
Well most of the European populations is human. The ruling class on the other hand seems to be the slugs who attach themselves to the head of politicians and make them think persistent unemployment should be their primary policy objective. I believe that humans and brainslugs can be considered both culturally and ethnically distinct. So by this definition, they are an empire
Click to expand...

Careful about what you say about our brain slug overlords. If I hear one more utterance out of you criticizing them I will be forced to contact the ministry of benevolence.
 
In some ways, the EU might be indeed an empire. However it does not have a monarch, countries can leave without warring the EU. As for it having a unified currency it doesn't. Some countries do use the Euro but others like Czech Republic, UK don't use the Euro and are very unlikely to ever use the euro (one due to Brexit, the other due to public opinion). Also weak countries and small can leave the EU or not join it and still survive. Trade is dealt with by the EEA not the EU, Switzerland has a free trade agreement with EU but is not part of the EU and even so countries could survive leaving the EU. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, etc. all did relatively well even before the EU in terms of GDP growth rate and survived 8 years as capitalist countries without the EU, so the EU isn't necessary to survive. The EU certainly de Jure can pass legislation over one of the EU members, but de facto like the HRE, it can only pass legislation if the countries are willing to pass it themselves. Every EU legislation if blocked by a country who refused to apply it, the EU has no power or influence to make a rebelling country follow the order due to the country mostly being part of NATO and the EU being only an economic alliance. Well it can sanction, but sanctioning is limited in its effectivenes. Iran was sanctioned yet survived, Italy managed to survive sanctions too. So I would argue it's more like a loose confederation of states, then an empire
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back