This utter myth keeps being repeated.
Why my alleged myths be answered with yet more myths?
Who do you think kept the peace after 1945 seeing as the EU didn't exist, why were wars not starting all over Europe in the 10 years before the EU was formed.
The American Marshall Plan restored European economies and from 1949 to the present day it is NATO alone that keeps a check on the Russians.
This completely overlooks the role of the US is actively encouraging and fostering the development of the EU (what was then the European Coal and Steel Community). The US knew that NATO in and of itself was insufficient in tackling the threat posed by communism. It might have helped with a military conflict with the Soviet Union, but the US's security concerns were not solely confined to military threats, nor were they confined to Moscow. Remember that communism was a real political force in western Europe in the immediate aftermath of the second world war. The US's logic was that (free market based) economic and political integration would mitigate this and that a political union between the states of Europe would provide both an additional deterrence to the military ambitions of the Soviet Union, while offering a very overt statement of 'freedom' to the many central and eastern European states which found themselves annexed by the Soviet Union and whose political regimes were far from unstable. If you want to find out more about the US's involvement at the time and how the development of NATO and early European integration are inextricably linked I wholeheartedly recommend Desmond Dinan's book 'Europe Recast' (the first chapter is particularly relevant).
50 years of Basque problems - No EU intervention.
This is wrong.
Cyprus invasion by Turkey - No EU intervention.
This is wrong.
Northern Ireland - EU had no part in ending the troubles.
This is wrong. Have you heard of the PEACE programme? Indeed participation in this EU facilitated, funded and administered programme by the British and Irish governments was a condition of the Good Friday agreement.
2 Balkan conflicts and a Croatian war - ended by a NATO protection force.
Are you suggesting the EU had no role to play? That would be wrong. Yes NATO provided the military intervention (remember there is no EU army despite what some would have you think), but the EU has played significant roles in logistics and in providing institutional and administrative support in the immediate aftermath of the military conflict. If it were not for this support many of these states would still find themselves in a position of conflict.
Bosnian war and trouble in Albania - ended by NATO.
See above.
The first second and third Kosovo wars - ended by NATO.
See above.
Conflict in Macedonia - ended by NATO.
See above.
North Kosovo crisis - resolved by NATO.
Again, see above (I'm slightly confused why you have split this complex and large singular regional conflict into separate isolated ones - not to misrepresent the number of conflicts the EU has 'failed' to address I hope?)
It was EU diplomatic recklessness that started the Ukraine crisis, and the EU’s desire to spread influence, this EU imperialism has considerably strengthened the hand of fascists and communists in those countries.
In your examples above you cite NATO as the 'keeper of the peace'... did it ever occur to you that Russian aggression and involvement in the Ukraine and other states (e.g. Gerogia) might be a response to NATO's desire to spread its influence in to areas traditionally perceived as Russia's sphere of influence? You are attempting to analyse complete geo-political events, but are relying on oversimplifying everything. I sincerely hope you don't work for the Foreign Office!
Merkel has now stirred up the far right in Germany which will cause massive problems as it spreads across Europe. So not only has the EU spectacularly failed to keep the peace in Europe the German dominated organisation is fanning the flames of extremism all over the place which was largely predicted after Merkel invited anyone who fancied a better life to Europe.
Your statement that the EU is dominated by Germany is very dubious, but you do make a valid point about Merkel (and other European political leaders) miscalculating the political impact of the migration crisis. But here we also need to look at the causes of this. It is European (and indeed global) unwillingness to adequately engage with the Syrian conflict which has led to this situation.
Can you tell me how well EU police forces have done in preventing migrants entering Europe ?
There is no EU police force... it is the responsibility of national police and security forces to protect their own borders. Some of these police forces have decided to co-operate under the auspices of FRONTEX with the aid of EU funding to manage some of Europe's more complex borders, but operationally it's still up to the national level. The national governments of the EU have gone to great lengths to ensure the EU does not have independent, so if you are critical of the EU's failure to act the you need to take that up with the national government's in question, rather than blaming the EU.
Can you tell me how many European conflicts the EU has bought an end to ?
No, given the rationale behind the EU is not about ending conflicts but about preventing conflict between those who are its members. It's why I find your examples above slightly disingenuous (in addition to grossly oversimplified and inaccurate).
This myth that the EU somehow keeps the peace in Europe is laughable as not only does it fail to do so it actively makes things far worse than they need be.
I agree that the statement "the EU somehow keeps the peace in Europe" is a gross oversimplification, but, with respect, so is your response. For me it highlights the real problem with debate we have about the EU in this country (and perhaps political debate in general) informed debate fuelled by in depth analysis seems to be frowned upon. Instead we should trust the bluster of high profile statements which reduce the complexities of politics to simple and often false statements.
As regarding Germany effectively running the EU this quote from the pm of Iceland last week is spot on.
The Icelandic PM is speaking to domestic audience. But it is certainly true that some EU member states have more political clout than others. If the UK, as such an influential EU member state, has allowed a single state to dominate the decision making processes in the EU, then it is an abject failure of the British government to. And besides if Germany really ran the show why is it the UK government was able to have its renegotiation in the first place, the terms of which undermine Germany's national interest?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For the historical background to the UK's role in EU regional policy you might like to try the following:
- I. Bache (1998) The Politics of European Union Regional Policy
- J. Bachtler, C. Mendez and F. Wishlade (2013) Cohesion Policy and European Integration.
Both discuss the how British governments have consistently viewed receipts from EU structural and investment funds as contributions to the UK budget held by HM Treasury rather than being devolved to local level partners as is required for them to invest as they see fit according to local need. For a recent analyses of the centralization of EU structural and investment funds in England and its impact at the local level see:
- C. Huggins (2014) 'Local Enterprise Partnerships and the Development of European Structural and Investment Fund Strategies in England' in European Structural and Investment Funds Journal.
