European Union

[Aurielius]

I have noticed that most of our political debates center primarily around North American policies and politics but we do have a sizable contingent of European members, so I thought that they should get the home court advantage in a debate. To my fellow countrymen, give the Europeans a chance to come to a consensus before we weigh in with our pithy comments. As per usual, let's be civil least we see yellow .

 

So the proposition is this: What is the future of the European Union? What do it's current citizens see as it's proper future role on the world stage?

[Dark0ne]

Any union of independent states that only looks after its own interests is doomed to failure.

[Balagor]

Any union of independent states that only looks after its own interests is doomed to failure.

 

True, but not all the members of the EU does that. Some of the smaller countries, including Germany as a major country, means honest buisness( as honest as politics can get).

Biggest problem right now is to get rid of all those support fonds for agriculture, which benefits the major countires, gives a wrong competition toward others, especial 3. world countries. The should be stopped completly in 2017, but I am not so sure it will happen. I think that everybody from Europe knows who complains the most, when we talk about reducing support. I will not go further into that, since I do not think they are represented very much at this forum, and it will be illoyal to mention their country, when they can not debate.

[ginnyfizz]

I honestly do not see that the European Union has a future. It is more a conceit of politicians with a very bad attack of folie de grandeur (and who want to get their snouts into the Euro-trough) than it is an entity with any kind of popular support. It is corrupt and manipulated by the politicians to keep them on the gravy train. As an example, you only have to look at the fiasco over the Treaty of Lisbon, bringing the European Constitution into being. True, some countries were allowed referenda as to whether the treaty should become law in their country. The Irish, amongst others, had the guts to say "Errr...no thanks". So what did the politicians, terrified that the gravy train was about to hit the buffers, do? They made the countries like Ireland that had told them to get lost, vote again until they got it "Right". Of course, here in "perfide Albion", we didn't even get to vote on the treaty, because Blair the Arch European and his successor, Brown, knew only too well that the answer would have been a gigantic raspberry blown in their direction. There is substantial frustration, and not just in Britain, that the populace are being effectively governed and represented by something they never voted for.

 

Now where did I hear that "No taxation without representation..." argument?

 

Care to explain what you mean by "everybody from Europe knows who complains the most", Balagor?. I do not think cryptic remarks like that are proper. We Brits complain bitterly, but as we remain among the biggest net contributors to the Euro-Budget, I think we have every right to.

[Dark0ne]

I assumed he meant the French farmers...

[ginnyfizz]

Aha, indeed that may well be so. I do think Balagor makes a very valid point about the agricultural subsidies, which are a very sore point with many countries and might be said to amount to an effective restraint of trade and fair competition upon the poorer countries.

[Balagor]

 

Care to explain what you mean by "everybody from Europe knows who complains the most", Balagor?. I do not think cryptic remarks like that are proper. We Brits complain bitterly, but as we remain among the biggest net contributors to the Euro-Budget, I think we have every right to.

 

I did indeed not mean the british (though you´r good at complaining too :whistling: ), as I also mentioned they are not represented on this forum, and can therefor not speak for themselves. Thus I find it not a good behavior to speak about their complaints and obstructions.

 

However I look at this EU thing in a more philosopical way, and it IS difficult.

Compare it all with a household, her we can set our own rules, as long as they follow federal rules. Our teen daughters and sons even have their own rooms where they can set their own rules, as long as the follow household rules.

Our neigbours will have their set of rules. Even a county can have their rules, it could be different speedlimits. I don´t know for other countries, but over counties, we have regions, which also can set their own rules and laws. Over regions we have the State. In Germany they have Fedreral State between region and state.

The bigger the population within the region/Federal State, the more difficult it will be to maintain laws that will satisfy all, just like in the household, difference here though, is that you can not go to your room with your "own" rules, at lest not if you want the benefit of the community.

 

This was to compare with just one country, now we speak of several countries, who needs to join in a community, give a little of them self, be unselfish, across cultural diffrenties. It is a very beautyfull dream, but also a very naive one. I fully support the idea of EU, but at the same time I am also aware that Europe are many countries and many cultures, none of them should be given up, or faded away. Our cultures are ancient, thousand of years, and can not be changed overnight, so a United States of Europe, will never occur.

However as reasonable thinking beings we should be able to run Europe as a compagny, just for buisness, and get the best out of it.

[Surenas]

A United States of Europe will occur, cos you have no (peaceful) alternative at all, neither economically nor strategically. And - I do not see that European culture would differ from each other for more than a yota. Moreover, the German nationalistic facet, to pick up your argument, is as old as the event in the Frankfurt Paul's Cathedral, some 160 years or just five generations. That's not enough to fill an egg cup with special requests from the past, the dark age. You know the past, guess so.

[ginnyfizz]

A United States of Europe will occur, cos you have no (peaceful) alternative at all, neither economically nor strategically. And - I do not see that European culture would differ from each other for more than a yota. Moreover, the German nationalistic facet, to pick up your argument, is as old as the event in the Frankfurt Paul's Cathedral, some 160 years or just five generations. That's not enough to fill an egg cup with special requests from the past, the dark age. You know the past, guess so.

 

I totally disagree. We have managed without a United States Of Europe for...umm...thousands of years, and we can do so for the rest of time. We Brits will not agree to politicians in Paris, Berlin, Brussels or wherever telling us how to run our affairs, any more than the French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch or other nationalities would put up with our politicians in Westminster dictating to them. Speaking for how I and many of my countrymen feel, to us the idea of European Union always meant more like Balagor says, a large corporation/ trading type union, rather than a political union. Europe also has a very bitter history on what happens when too much power is given into the hands of an individual or particular group. Not just once, but repeatedly, over many centuries, war and the suppression of minorities. How would a United States Of Europe differ from the tyrannies of the past? Not a lot, one suspects.

 

And yes, European cultures DO differ from one another - and vive la difference, I say!

[Surenas]

You seem to have learned absolutely nothing from the bloody history on European ground, being unaware of the new phenomenon of networked globalization.

Guess we have to let the eternal unwilling people go when it comes to a final decision for a construct all nationalists are afraid of. An exodus is not that new...