Factually, I don’t know that I’d quarrel with the underlying details in your piece. Beyond this point feedback you didn’t request. I don’t mean it to be as hominem, but you had an optic that lured me into reading then disappointed. I read your piece because I am genuinely interested in the subject, but as I got into it I realized that you were attempting to answer a question that had not been formulated. “By golly the EU is a government and if you say otherwise you are wrong!” is not a well articulated premise. Factually, you conflate the Europe Union with Europe. But who says the EU isn’t a country? I’m sure in the beer halls of Bavaria (or St Louis) this is discussed but you didnt identify any counterparty or school of thought who makes a contrary argument. Alternatively, you never identify any academic test of the factors defining a country.
The answer is not trivial. I agree that it is a confederacy that has become a country best proved by how difficult it was to leave when UK wanted out. But it’s also a dysfunctional agglomeration that doesn’t work and needs to be restructured.
If I was your professor I would give it a B- The big problem with a platform like Substack is that it lacks professors and editors.
I appreciate you taking the time to write that. There's a lot there.
I'll start with the tone. I don't quite understand the reason for the jibe at the end. It seems gratuitous, unless you're trying to be hostile. Maybe that was intentional, but it didn't make it less insulting. Apparently you think that my writings would, uh, not pass peer review. That is slightly ironic, and I will admit that I did laugh because of that.
(I did read your Substacks before responding, and I am aware therefore of your exchange with the unnamed “European Columnist.” I did appreciate the list of unannounced military actions, although I would point out that President Truman did go to the U.N. and mildly disagree that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave vague cover: “all necessary steps, including the use of armed force.” Still, that's quibbling with a nice piece.)
Now, the substance. I don't know what question you wanted answered -- you didn't say in the comment.
But your main critique seems to be that I didn't define a “country.” May I ask how you missed the explicit comparisons to national federations? Now, it is true that I rhetorically used “country” and “national government” as synonyms, but did that really confuse you? (If it did, then I apologize.) You could ding me by saying that my final conclusion was actually that Europe isn't a country because it doesn't have an executive, but that doesn't seem to have confused you at all.
You did indeed get my premise, but that would imply that it was rather well-articulated. And your implication that I just made the assertion and then stopped, however, is just bizarre. But I may be misinterpreting your point, in which case I apologize and ask you to explain.
You seem to have another somewhat contrary criticism, which is that my conclusions are obvious. (At least, I think that's the criticism? I'm honestly not sure.) As you may or may not know, I teach MBAs. The lack of understanding about the European Union is immense. Most of them don't think of it as a government at all, and they have no idea how it works. Inside Europe, you get the same problem. Europeans don't fully understand the scope of the E.U.'s authority, or why some countries run into trouble for failing to follow laws from Brussels (i.e., the Netherlands), institute laws on paper but ignore them in reality (Bulgaria), or just plain ignore them with few apparent consequences (Italy). I don't know much about Bavarian beer halls, but I know a little bit about American (and European) business offices -- and the misperceptions are huge.
Add to that the huge number of academic observers who overcomplicate the issue. If you've followed it at all, you know the incoherence: the E.U. is an “unidentified political object,” the E.U. is just another intergovernmental organization (even the Eurozone part has been characterized as just a modern gold standard), even that the E.U. is a “rhizome.” I've been told by lawyers with the straight face that ”there's no there there,” in regards to the E.U., and Rawi Abdelal once said straight up to me that the formal institutions didn't matter because everything was done by behind-the-scenes stitch ups. (That would have surprised Margaret Thatcher, but never mind.)
So I would have to say that as an empirical matter, I would disagree with you about that.
You also seem to be complaining that I didn't go through the literature and fisk the (incorrect, incomplete, or misleading) other models of European governance. Guilty as charged! I took it for granted that people would be aware of this big literature on the E.U., but I only averred to it by saying that “lawyers would disagree.” Would a post about the various interpretations of the E.U. be interesting? I wouldn't write it for a while, because it wouldn't be a trivial thing to do correctly, but I would put it on the list or encourage someone else to write it.
But none of those seem to be your main criticism. Is it that you're annoyed that I didn't critique the E.U.'s constitutional structure? Well, I did call it “complicated,” but I was generally neutral about that. So again, guilty as charged, assuming that I understand the charge. If I do understand the charge correctly, may I ask why neutrality is inappropriate?
If it's something else, well, your response leaves that unclear, other than the gratuitous insult at the end. Which really does seem unnecessarily obnoxious, although, to repeat, it did give me an unexpected laugh! (And got under my skin, but that's personal failing. You can take some satisfaction in that, sir.)
You're quite welcome. Did I get anything wrong in this essay? I hope not, since it's what I try to teach MBAs about what they'll have to face in Europe, but I'd rather fix errors of fact or logic rather than sit on my laurels.
You would be amusing at what ChatGPT 5.6 did to the essay. It identified a huge number of "errors," all of which fell apart save me writing FTC instead of DOJ and failing to state that the Commission can say "no" with an explanation to a Council request for a new law. Win one for the humans! At least for now ...
Factually, I don’t know that I’d quarrel with the underlying details in your piece. Beyond this point feedback you didn’t request. I don’t mean it to be as hominem, but you had an optic that lured me into reading then disappointed. I read your piece because I am genuinely interested in the subject, but as I got into it I realized that you were attempting to answer a question that had not been formulated. “By golly the EU is a government and if you say otherwise you are wrong!” is not a well articulated premise. Factually, you conflate the Europe Union with Europe. But who says the EU isn’t a country? I’m sure in the beer halls of Bavaria (or St Louis) this is discussed but you didnt identify any counterparty or school of thought who makes a contrary argument. Alternatively, you never identify any academic test of the factors defining a country.
The answer is not trivial. I agree that it is a confederacy that has become a country best proved by how difficult it was to leave when UK wanted out. But it’s also a dysfunctional agglomeration that doesn’t work and needs to be restructured.
If I was your professor I would give it a B- The big problem with a platform like Substack is that it lacks professors and editors.
I appreciate you taking the time to write that. There's a lot there.
I'll start with the tone. I don't quite understand the reason for the jibe at the end. It seems gratuitous, unless you're trying to be hostile. Maybe that was intentional, but it didn't make it less insulting. Apparently you think that my writings would, uh, not pass peer review. That is slightly ironic, and I will admit that I did laugh because of that.
(I did read your Substacks before responding, and I am aware therefore of your exchange with the unnamed “European Columnist.” I did appreciate the list of unannounced military actions, although I would point out that President Truman did go to the U.N. and mildly disagree that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave vague cover: “all necessary steps, including the use of armed force.” Still, that's quibbling with a nice piece.)
Now, the substance. I don't know what question you wanted answered -- you didn't say in the comment.
But your main critique seems to be that I didn't define a “country.” May I ask how you missed the explicit comparisons to national federations? Now, it is true that I rhetorically used “country” and “national government” as synonyms, but did that really confuse you? (If it did, then I apologize.) You could ding me by saying that my final conclusion was actually that Europe isn't a country because it doesn't have an executive, but that doesn't seem to have confused you at all.
You did indeed get my premise, but that would imply that it was rather well-articulated. And your implication that I just made the assertion and then stopped, however, is just bizarre. But I may be misinterpreting your point, in which case I apologize and ask you to explain.
You seem to have another somewhat contrary criticism, which is that my conclusions are obvious. (At least, I think that's the criticism? I'm honestly not sure.) As you may or may not know, I teach MBAs. The lack of understanding about the European Union is immense. Most of them don't think of it as a government at all, and they have no idea how it works. Inside Europe, you get the same problem. Europeans don't fully understand the scope of the E.U.'s authority, or why some countries run into trouble for failing to follow laws from Brussels (i.e., the Netherlands), institute laws on paper but ignore them in reality (Bulgaria), or just plain ignore them with few apparent consequences (Italy). I don't know much about Bavarian beer halls, but I know a little bit about American (and European) business offices -- and the misperceptions are huge.
Add to that the huge number of academic observers who overcomplicate the issue. If you've followed it at all, you know the incoherence: the E.U. is an “unidentified political object,” the E.U. is just another intergovernmental organization (even the Eurozone part has been characterized as just a modern gold standard), even that the E.U. is a “rhizome.” I've been told by lawyers with the straight face that ”there's no there there,” in regards to the E.U., and Rawi Abdelal once said straight up to me that the formal institutions didn't matter because everything was done by behind-the-scenes stitch ups. (That would have surprised Margaret Thatcher, but never mind.)
So I would have to say that as an empirical matter, I would disagree with you about that.
You also seem to be complaining that I didn't go through the literature and fisk the (incorrect, incomplete, or misleading) other models of European governance. Guilty as charged! I took it for granted that people would be aware of this big literature on the E.U., but I only averred to it by saying that “lawyers would disagree.” Would a post about the various interpretations of the E.U. be interesting? I wouldn't write it for a while, because it wouldn't be a trivial thing to do correctly, but I would put it on the list or encourage someone else to write it.
But none of those seem to be your main criticism. Is it that you're annoyed that I didn't critique the E.U.'s constitutional structure? Well, I did call it “complicated,” but I was generally neutral about that. So again, guilty as charged, assuming that I understand the charge. If I do understand the charge correctly, may I ask why neutrality is inappropriate?
If it's something else, well, your response leaves that unclear, other than the gratuitous insult at the end. Which really does seem unnecessarily obnoxious, although, to repeat, it did give me an unexpected laugh! (And got under my skin, but that's personal failing. You can take some satisfaction in that, sir.)
Over to you. Please keep it civil.
I much appreciate the directness and thank you for the mention!
You're quite welcome. Did I get anything wrong in this essay? I hope not, since it's what I try to teach MBAs about what they'll have to face in Europe, but I'd rather fix errors of fact or logic rather than sit on my laurels.
Not at all!
You would be amusing at what ChatGPT 5.6 did to the essay. It identified a huge number of "errors," all of which fell apart save me writing FTC instead of DOJ and failing to state that the Commission can say "no" with an explanation to a Council request for a new law. Win one for the humans! At least for now ...